Jump to content

Line-X

Member
  • Post count

    2,345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,330 Excellent

About Line-X

  • Rank
    Key Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    From Out Of Nowhere
  • Fan Since
    1977

Recent Profile Visitors

4,410 profile views
  1. Jesus - really? I guess it's just Dave Brock and the name.
  2. Drivers that stop at roundabouts when there's nothing coming and of growing concern, in the left hand lane ostensibly for the first exit that then turn right for a third exit - straight across the path of those going straight on.
  3. Hammersmith. One of my old haunts. And the Odeon...or whatever they call it now, seen so many bands at that place.
  4. John Power kicks the junk and goes full out Lennon mode on holiday in Marrakesh.
  5. Saw Squeeze several times and as I recall a Glenn Tilbrook acoustic set at the Charlotte some years ago.
  6. "History will look kindly on us"
  7. Some old grounds from my travels that don't exist anymore.... "Fearsome" Park The Old Den The Baseball Ground Highbury White Hart Lane Roker Park Highfield Road The Dell Main Road Stories and recollections about all of them.
  8. But that's precisely my point...shouldn't you have done your due diligence before you made the assumption supported by a link that you don't appear to have even read? Science is hard...and to reiterate, anthropogenic climate change is a highly involved subject. It is impossible to ignore the fact that most challenges to the validity of this originate with arguments from incredulity or misrepresented data. Thank you for your civil replies by the way, and I agree that ad hominem responses are a logical fallacy that accomplish nothing. I can assure you that I'm more concerned with your "message" and your "statements".
  9. This thread is about the posturing and disruption associated with ER. Once again, your endlessly recycled confirmation bias has been comprehensively addressed in great detail on another thread. It's utterly exhausting. Science is not about opinion, and in irrespective of that, you are not about to change yours - thankfully it is becoming increasingly marginal, not that the future of the planet has the time to entertain any such folly. What do you have to tell me about the measurable increase of circumpolar winds, ENSO and the mitigating effect of CDW and WAIS - in addition to the Southern Ocean Circumpolar Current - in particular topological influence of submerged topography along the edge of the Antarctic continental shelf? Furthermore, if you wish to discuss the strong statistical relationship between PITT winds and tropical Pacific SSTs in respect of historical wind forcing of the Amundsen Sea, which we will need to do - can I suggest that we take it to another thread?
  10. I'm confident that you have exhaustively discussed this with Leicsmac in the Science Technology and Environment thread who has offered a comprehensive, detailed and highly informed objective rebuttal of your circuitous logic. No one claims to fully "understand it" and the associated variables and complexities that drive it - that it is underway and of anthropogenic origin is irrefutable. Such is the basis of the scientific method founded upon the systematic observation, experimentation, measurement, reproducible findings derived from the formulation and subsequent moderation of a hypothesis. Scientists are irrelevant given that the science behind anthropogenic climate change is ineluctable and axiomatic and thereby has a voice of its own. The same motivations that produced consensus drives the continued evaluation of this reliance over time – and adjustment as needed. Of course scientists have been incorrect in the past, but they did not stay wrong. As new data arrive, scientists changed their position, some enthusiastically, some begrudgingly. A few were unable to make the transition, going to their graves clinging to their long-held positions. A new generation, with no allegiance to the old ways, emerged to replace them. Thus data transform heresy into truth. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that you refer to represent researchers from 195 countries, and UN rules require unanimity in approval of the report language on climate change. Ocean levels/temperatures, ice caps and glaciers contradict your statement the same ocean levels/temperatures, ice caps and glaciers that don't give a rats arse about You Tube.
  11. But aside from the rogue minority - they really don't. The rate of climate change perhaps but as I mentioned, GCMs may not be fully amenable to a representation by physically based deterministic equations and may in fact be inherently stochastic = whilst all of these disciplines understand the stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions. The pushback has been political rather than scientific. In the US, in addition to the Trump administration removing a quarter of climate change references from EPA/government websites and the strategy to curtail the clean power plan, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is increasingly applying pressure on NASA to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CEI has received event funding from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a low-carbon economy. As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming, Fortunately, lay understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing. I agree that the antics of ER can inflict as much damage as it can good and regard the pressure and incentivisation associated with movements such as the World Benchmarking Association as far more effective. However, there is there is still much work to do yet as climate change deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific consensus...tellingly, this is almost invariably from outside the scientific community. No - one needs years and years of expertise gained through the formal and legitimate study of atmospheric science, climatology and applied mathematics as opposed to an opinion conferred through a diploma from the university of You Tube.
  12. I expressed no preference and have no intent to belittle. Online quote mining, cherry picked confirmation bias and lay opinions parroted from the largely vacuous echo-chamber of social media or a video sharing website no more constitutes legitimate science than the throngs that you decry. Climate science is hard. You don't understand it from an evening on You Tube.
  13. A mere drop in an inexorably rising ocean level. You'll find that is the general idea The unintentional irony at this point is excruciating. So that the next generation can't? ...Ladies and gentlemen, the scientific method. If in doubt about the inherent stochastic nature or parameter variations of GCMs ...why not ask a popular video entertainment platform.
  14. He's in a broom cupboard with a mic and a monitor at BT Towers. He was definitely at Selhurst Park on this night though...
×
×
  • Create New...