Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I will never happen (Score 1) 286

by mcpheat (#46379537) Attached to: Scottish Independence Campaign Battles Over BBC Weather Forecast

Why? Under what treaty or agreement would the EU not be able to claim those oilfields? They are British oil fields, hence part of the EU at the moment. What law means that Scotland receives them if it chooses independence?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

Comment: Re:Firrrst post the noo (Score 1) 286

by mcpheat (#46379521) Attached to: Scottish Independence Campaign Battles Over BBC Weather Forecast

The EU hasn't actually said anything. Barroso has said a lot but his term of office is up and he has been contradicted by multiple experts.

There is no queue to jump, countries are admitted to EU membership when they satisfy the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey applied in 1987, numerous countries that applied after them have become EU members while Turkish membership is likely a decade away.

Comment: Re:Firrrst post the noo (Score 1) 286

by mcpheat (#46379475) Attached to: Scottish Independence Campaign Battles Over BBC Weather Forecast

Devolution, perhaps, but the asymmetry could have been corrected by Scotland's MPs. Before devolution, English MPs abstained from voting on things that concern only Scotland, so why do Scottish MPs not abstain from things that only affect England (cf. West Lothian question)?

English MPs did not abstain from voting on things that concerned only Scotland, they regularly outvoted the Scottish MPs on Scottish legislation. The Poll Tax was the most infamous example.

Comment: Re:Clear bias against the oil industry (Score 3, Informative) 416

by mcpheat (#43120527) Attached to: Global Temperatures Are Close To 11,000-Year Peak

I'm not an AGW denier, but I can't tolerate the scare tactics. And I'm still pretty mad at East Anglia -- you just don't do science by gathering data, adjusting that data, and then throwing the original data out and not allowing (or even recording) the methods by which you adjusted that data. They could have just fucking made it all up, it's non-verifiable UNLESS someone else was keeping track of those weather stations that oh, no, all the records were kept at one place and then thrown out 20 years ago. Bad science. Heck, it could be accidentally bad science, but FUCKING OWN UP TO IT! Cannot stand people who talk their way around unsubstantiated data and try to pass it off as fucking immutable gospel.

Perhaps you should get your information somewhere other than denier blogs, your version of what happened at UEA is pure fantasy. They didn't collect any original data of their own, the data came from the organisations that ran the weather stations who have their own records. They deleted THEIR copy of the data not the originals which still exist. Their results have been confirmed by three separate organisations including one funded by deniers to disprove it.

Comment: Re:Never mind just CO2 , what about HCFCs? (Score 3, Informative) 224

by mcpheat (#41958107) Attached to: Global Warming Felt By Space Junk and Satellites

HCFCs generally have a shorter atmospheric lifetime than the CFCs they replace as the hydrogen carbon bonds are weaker than halogen-carbon ones. The problem is PFCs which are composed of hydrogen and fluorine atoms only. The bonds are so stable the most likely way they will be destroyed is by diffusing to the mesosphere & being hit by cosmic rays.

Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. -- Arthur R. Miller

Working...