Miranda was carrying information that included the names of dozens of UK agents in the field. He's broken UK law. The High Court is quite correct on this.
I think it was Star Talk, but I'm not certain. Tyson tweeted a link ages ago. Don't get me wrong, I like Tyson. I buy and listen to his audio books. But that show was absolutely terrible.
Whenever someone posts a link to SkepticalScience, I'm immediately reminded of George Orwell and 1984. That website is nothing more than propaganda, full of cherry picked science and disingenuous commentary from The Usual Suspects. I prefer to get my information from someone like Professor Curry, who isn't a propagandist with a political agenda.
I listened to one of Tyson's radio segments a few months ago. I can't remember which station it was. There seemed to be two minutes of chat with an expert, followed by 5 minutes of adverts for the entire length of the show. Worse, Tyson has a side-kick who's only purpose is to be a smart arse and constantly wise-crack while the expert is talking. This guy was probably the most punchable radio presenter I think I've ever heard. Perhaps punchable is the wrong word to use. I actually turned to look at the cricket bat I had resting up against the wall. The show was horrific. Tyson should be ashamed to call himself a science communicator.
I speak as someone who regularly listens to Melvin Bragg's In Our Time of course, so I'm used to something a little more cerebral.
So, what have I misunderstood? We have a mechanism that accounts for at least half of the warming since the 1970's. Half. If he was dead, James Hansen would be spinning in his grave.
Actually, you aren't asking the right question. The right question is if this cycle is cooling the atmosphere, did the cycle also warm it. I won't hold my breath for an answer to this. I imagine it would be very hard to get it published.
Were you even alive during the Cold War? How in the hell is today's world worse than it was during the Cold War? If you think it's worse now and need a flashback reminder as to how half the planet lived back then go and live in fucking North Korea.
because The Guardian is in business that what they report is suspect?
Their motives are suspect, yes. And it's not beyond the wit of a newspaper editor to twist, lie and run a story that's extremely disingenuous. Or do you think there's a big hole in the backside of the editor and proprietors firing out a 2,000,000 watt beam of light? I guess you do. Well, you're a fool.
Get real Mike. All countries spy on all other countries. The Germans are spying on the British, the British on the French, the French on the Americans, the Americans on the Chinese. People want an edge in negotiations that affect their nation's interests. It's always been like this. Diplomats know it. Most embassies run agency stations inside them.
The UK Government has been sending out D-Notices to newspapers to prevent them publishing things that might harm our vital interests since around the year 1912. Most comply. The Guardian, on the other hand, is up a shit creek without a paddle financially (which is kind-of funny as they promote debt fuelled government spending regularly in their editorials and of course their entire operation is debt fuelled and has been for years) and so is doing this primarily to gain a wider global audience. If you think they have your interests uppermost in their minds, I'm afraid you would be sadly mistaken.
This is getting extremely tedious. The UK government has various listening posts all over the world. We've been involved with ECHELON intelligence since its inception decades ago. We've had ECHELON SIGINT stations on UK soil for decades too. Intelligence Services provide intelligence, doh, and they do it mostly by bugging, tracking and burgling. Intelligence allows your government to protect its vital interests.
There's a kind-of collective retardation in our newspapers at the moment. They seem to be suggesting that intelligence agencies do spying. Shocking Exclusive!
Spot on. Of course here you'll get marked troll for pointing it out. In the US, everything is a binary split between "liberal" (not Classical Liberal of the kind the founding fathers would recognise) and "Conservative". Slashdot is mostly the former. Al Gore is a "liberal" hero, but as you've correctly observed, also a massive twat.
You think nations no longer compete with each other? You think a nation like China, for example, responsible for corporate espionage on an industrial scale against the West, is worried about that? Most of you seem to be living in some kind of "Liberal" la-la land. So I reiterate, what is wrong with you people?
UK spooks spent the entire Cold War bugging and burgling their way around London. Nobody really seemed to give a shit about it then. Now everybody's raging that we even have a security service and that, shockingly, we have allies we share intelligence with. What is wrong with you people?
What do you want to happen, precisely? In the UK, the security services have been putting pressure on newspapers not to publish sensitive material since around 1912, with the D-Notice system. If someone wants to disband the security services or open the archives and publish everything and stop us cooperating with our allies, well, let Him stand for Parliament, get elected, form a government and enact the necessary legislation. That's how a democracy works.
Otherwise, no, I'm not going to allow the Guardian to be my moral guide, judge and jury as to what it's acceptable for the State to do in the interests of national security, especially given the fact it's only doing this to try to increase its circulation as it's up a shit creek without a paddle financially right now.
Surprising that this "debunked science" is slowly becoming mainstream, with recent papers published showing a far lower climate sensitivity than the last IPCC report showed. At some point in the future (5 years), you will be the "denier", won't you. Then I'm guessing your attitude will be somewhat different.
It's a label for people who deny scientific results.
It's a label to shut down any debate and prevent people disputing a scientific hypothesis, disputing the statistical treatment of real world data (which is woeful in Climate Science), or disputing the output of computer models, especially computer models that appear to be completely wrong when compared to actually real-world data.
Since it hasn't warmed, that seems to me to be extremely unlikely.
News at 11! Scientists almost never retract papers!
Perhaps they should start, especially when they make such massive howlers.
Guess what: there are bad papers about quantum mechanics out there
Are you seriously comparing the working of a transistor with the mechanisms involved in the climate, including but not exclusively the entire fucking Earth? Get a job.
Science and political advocacy, which is what you're really about, are incompatible. I suggest you stick to trolling "Skeptical Science" and other political websites to get your kicks.
Whilst I'm at it:
A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006.
Fascinating. I'm sure you'll explain that away as some kind of warming induced cooling, or other moronic hypothesis to keep your failing thesis alive. Please note that the last paper I read about Antarctic temperatures was by Steig et al. It got pole position in Nature (front cover too) but was shown to be complete and utter bollocks soon afterwards by O'Donnell et al. Of course as is normal in Climate Science, it wasn't retracted despite being shown to be rubbish. And you probably won't read about it on the euphemistically named Skeptical Science website.
Of course, denier sites focus on the increase sea ice
Using the term denier in a scientific debate demonstrates you have no understanding whatsoever how science works. Worse, you claim that the Antarctic is losing ice because it's gaining ice because of calving, which is the most incredible nonsense. But then, when Arctic ice grows or shrinks, it's always due to warming, never due to the wind moving the freely floating ice around.
Really, what is the point in debating with people like you? I have no idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Miranda was carrying information that included the names of dozens of UK agents in the field. He's broken UK law. The High Court is quite correct on this.
I think it was Star Talk, but I'm not certain. Tyson tweeted a link ages ago. Don't get me wrong, I like Tyson. I buy and listen to his audio books. But that show was absolutely terrible.
Whenever someone posts a link to SkepticalScience, I'm immediately reminded of George Orwell and 1984. That website is nothing more than propaganda, full of cherry picked science and disingenuous commentary from The Usual Suspects. I prefer to get my information from someone like Professor Curry, who isn't a propagandist with a political agenda.
I listened to one of Tyson's radio segments a few months ago. I can't remember which station it was. There seemed to be two minutes of chat with an expert, followed by 5 minutes of adverts for the entire length of the show. Worse, Tyson has a side-kick who's only purpose is to be a smart arse and constantly wise-crack while the expert is talking. This guy was probably the most punchable radio presenter I think I've ever heard. Perhaps punchable is the wrong word to use. I actually turned to look at the cricket bat I had resting up against the wall. The show was horrific. Tyson should be ashamed to call himself a science communicator.
I speak as someone who regularly listens to Melvin Bragg's In Our Time of course, so I'm used to something a little more cerebral.
So, what have I misunderstood? We have a mechanism that accounts for at least half of the warming since the 1970's. Half. If he was dead, James Hansen would be spinning in his grave.
Actually, you aren't asking the right question. The right question is if this cycle is cooling the atmosphere, did the cycle also warm it. I won't hold my breath for an answer to this. I imagine it would be very hard to get it published.
Well done you. We can put you in charge of the State Department For Deciding If A Person Really Needs That.
It's caused by natural cycles in the ocean mostly, as a new paper convincingly shows.
I'm pretty sure the environment includes the entire fucking universe that our planet is radiating heat into.
I smell bullshit.
Were you even alive during the Cold War? How in the hell is today's world worse than it was during the Cold War? If you think it's worse now and need a flashback reminder as to how half the planet lived back then go and live in fucking North Korea.
The Guardian is not "in business". If it was it would have gone bankrupt years ago. It's being kept afloat by wealthy benefactors.
Their motives are suspect, yes. And it's not beyond the wit of a newspaper editor to twist, lie and run a story that's extremely disingenuous. Or do you think there's a big hole in the backside of the editor and proprietors firing out a 2,000,000 watt beam of light? I guess you do. Well, you're a fool.
Get real Mike. All countries spy on all other countries. The Germans are spying on the British, the British on the French, the French on the Americans, the Americans on the Chinese. People want an edge in negotiations that affect their nation's interests. It's always been like this. Diplomats know it. Most embassies run agency stations inside them.
The UK Government has been sending out D-Notices to newspapers to prevent them publishing things that might harm our vital interests since around the year 1912. Most comply. The Guardian, on the other hand, is up a shit creek without a paddle financially (which is kind-of funny as they promote debt fuelled government spending regularly in their editorials and of course their entire operation is debt fuelled and has been for years) and so is doing this primarily to gain a wider global audience. If you think they have your interests uppermost in their minds, I'm afraid you would be sadly mistaken.
This is getting extremely tedious. The UK government has various listening posts all over the world. We've been involved with ECHELON intelligence since its inception decades ago. We've had ECHELON SIGINT stations on UK soil for decades too. Intelligence Services provide intelligence, doh, and they do it mostly by bugging, tracking and burgling. Intelligence allows your government to protect its vital interests.
There's a kind-of collective retardation in our newspapers at the moment. They seem to be suggesting that intelligence agencies do spying. Shocking Exclusive!
Spot on. Of course here you'll get marked troll for pointing it out. In the US, everything is a binary split between "liberal" (not Classical Liberal of the kind the founding fathers would recognise) and "Conservative". Slashdot is mostly the former. Al Gore is a "liberal" hero, but as you've correctly observed, also a massive twat.
You think nations no longer compete with each other? You think a nation like China, for example, responsible for corporate espionage on an industrial scale against the West, is worried about that? Most of you seem to be living in some kind of "Liberal" la-la land. So I reiterate, what is wrong with you people?
UK spooks spent the entire Cold War bugging and burgling their way around London. Nobody really seemed to give a shit about it then. Now everybody's raging that we even have a security service and that, shockingly, we have allies we share intelligence with. What is wrong with you people?
What do you want to happen, precisely? In the UK, the security services have been putting pressure on newspapers not to publish sensitive material since around 1912, with the D-Notice system. If someone wants to disband the security services or open the archives and publish everything and stop us cooperating with our allies, well, let Him stand for Parliament, get elected, form a government and enact the necessary legislation. That's how a democracy works.
Otherwise, no, I'm not going to allow the Guardian to be my moral guide, judge and jury as to what it's acceptable for the State to do in the interests of national security, especially given the fact it's only doing this to try to increase its circulation as it's up a shit creek without a paddle financially right now.
Surprising that this "debunked science" is slowly becoming mainstream, with recent papers published showing a far lower climate sensitivity than the last IPCC report showed. At some point in the future (5 years), you will be the "denier", won't you. Then I'm guessing your attitude will be somewhat different.
It's a label to shut down any debate and prevent people disputing a scientific hypothesis, disputing the statistical treatment of real world data (which is woeful in Climate Science), or disputing the output of computer models, especially computer models that appear to be completely wrong when compared to actually real-world data.
Since it hasn't warmed, that seems to me to be extremely unlikely.
Perhaps they should start, especially when they make such massive howlers.
Are you seriously comparing the working of a transistor with the mechanisms involved in the climate, including but not exclusively the entire fucking Earth? Get a job.
Whilst I'm at it:
Fascinating. I'm sure you'll explain that away as some kind of warming induced cooling, or other moronic hypothesis to keep your failing thesis alive. Please note that the last paper I read about Antarctic temperatures was by Steig et al. It got pole position in Nature (front cover too) but was shown to be complete and utter bollocks soon afterwards by O'Donnell et al. Of course as is normal in Climate Science, it wasn't retracted despite being shown to be rubbish. And you probably won't read about it on the euphemistically named Skeptical Science website.
Using the term denier in a scientific debate demonstrates you have no understanding whatsoever how science works. Worse, you claim that the Antarctic is losing ice because it's gaining ice because of calving, which is the most incredible nonsense. But then, when Arctic ice grows or shrinks, it's always due to warming, never due to the wind moving the freely floating ice around.
Really, what is the point in debating with people like you? I have no idea.