Still winters day down in the Narrows this afternoon after a good mornings work. Dog and I went to stretch our legs down by the cold clear waters. Me to watch the Grebes. Buffleheads and occasional Blue Heron, and Dog to find any old bone he fancied crunching.
I often think that a Beach is the charnel house of the sea. It's where all the odds and ends cast into the deep tend to wind up. We get a lot of logs because they escape from the daily log boom traffic. The whole foreshore is made up of pulverised shells and larger rocks, periodically resculpted by a stormy night. No analogy, just an observation.
Still plenty of snow lying about closer towards town. Just when you think you're about to get rid of the last batch, down comes another. Fortunately the new all weather tyres on the van cope very nicely thankyou.
An Austrian researcher thinks he has found the cause of belly button fluff; but quite frankly I'm not shaving my belly, which he claims is the 'cure'. It's like all this anthropogenic climate change' nonsense that keeps on popping up in the news. Fluff. Fluffy news about fluff all.
Showing posts with label Nonsense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nonsense. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Jones' theory of cock up
I would like to introduce a law that should help make life more readily comprehensible. Feel that the world is against you? Feel oppressed? Maligned? Unfairly treated? Want to know why?
Postulation:
Here are the answers. Jones's three laws of human existence, which are:
1) No person or procedure is infallible.
2) No matter how highly intelligent / educated, no human has their brain switched on at all times.
3) Humanity is governed by the universal law of cock up.
Abstract:
1) Institutions and Governments are made up of people.
2) All people are fallible.
3) All procedures are created by people.
Therefore all Governments and procedures, without exception, are fallible, and subject without exception to the laws of cock up.
Observational proofs:
1) You may fill in the form 'correctly', but you cannot guarantee that it will be read correctly by the recipient, even if the right form reached the correct person in good time.
2) Everyone, even the most intelligent and 'caring', has off days, hangovers, emotional upsets etc which cloud their judgement and make them as friendly as a deranged rattlesnake with a psychotic fetish for ankle biting.
3) Under sufficient negative personal pressure, all people default to negative emotions (Unless the drugs are still working).
4) Even the best happy pills stop working sometimes.
5) They may be out to get you, but the odds are that 'they' will screw up somewhere along the way.
6) The more complex the plan, the greater the likelihood that it will fail spectacularly.
7) The shriller the claims to the contrary, the greater the likelihood of abject failure.
8) 90% of humanity does not use anywhere near 10% of their brain capacity, and the other 10% has 90% less brain capacity than the other 90%.
These rules apply specifically to the UK, although experimenters /researchers in other countries are currently subjecting the above rules to high level axiom destruction procedures.
Postulation:
Here are the answers. Jones's three laws of human existence, which are:
1) No person or procedure is infallible.
2) No matter how highly intelligent / educated, no human has their brain switched on at all times.
3) Humanity is governed by the universal law of cock up.
Abstract:
1) Institutions and Governments are made up of people.
2) All people are fallible.
3) All procedures are created by people.
Therefore all Governments and procedures, without exception, are fallible, and subject without exception to the laws of cock up.
Observational proofs:
1) You may fill in the form 'correctly', but you cannot guarantee that it will be read correctly by the recipient, even if the right form reached the correct person in good time.
2) Everyone, even the most intelligent and 'caring', has off days, hangovers, emotional upsets etc which cloud their judgement and make them as friendly as a deranged rattlesnake with a psychotic fetish for ankle biting.
3) Under sufficient negative personal pressure, all people default to negative emotions (Unless the drugs are still working).
4) Even the best happy pills stop working sometimes.
5) They may be out to get you, but the odds are that 'they' will screw up somewhere along the way.
6) The more complex the plan, the greater the likelihood that it will fail spectacularly.
7) The shriller the claims to the contrary, the greater the likelihood of abject failure.
8) 90% of humanity does not use anywhere near 10% of their brain capacity, and the other 10% has 90% less brain capacity than the other 90%.
These rules apply specifically to the UK, although experimenters /researchers in other countries are currently subjecting the above rules to high level axiom destruction procedures.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Am I a conspiracist?
Well until I read that not believing in ‘global warming’ could make you a conspiracy theorist, I would have thought it quite reasonable to assume that someone was promoting the ‘cause’ against hard evidence. Never even considered that I was a conspiracy nut. Now, according to the UK Daily Telegraph, believing that there must be some kind of agenda for promoting the idea of Anthropogenic climate change makes you a whack job conspiracy theorist. Admittedly it is number 29 on the list, but to put it ahead of ‘Chemtrails’? Oh come on guys, get real.
Real conspiracy theories are based on a strange logic that can leap tall buildings (and factual evidence) in a single bound. A really good one is that all those who do not believe in Anthropogenic climate change are in the pay of ‘Big oil’. Funnily enough, the amount garnered in funding from the oil companies and other sources (Under $10 million) is dwarfed by the absolutely wodges of dosh being chucked around to promote the opposing view (An admitted $300 Million and then some). Kayaking to the North Pole to 'prove global warming', and being stopped by ice a good four degrees of latitude earlier than Nansen's attempt in 1893. Yet he was lauded for his 'success' at 10 Downing Street. Go figure. That's flying in the face of historical evidence for you. Despite being told that the Polar Bear is declining, more reputable sources say that the population has undergone a fivefold increase since the 1960's. It has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy, but I don't think the people promoting 'the end is nigh' are clever enough for that.
The facts are out in the real world. Not in the distorting mirror of certain media outlets editorial policy. CO2 is not the answer. It's an excuse.
In academia it’s been almost a running joke for several years that sticking ‘and the effects / influence of climate change’ into the title of your research proposal is a guaranteed way to get funding. People who take the contrary view are denied a media platform. This is not conspiracy, it's actually happening.
When 31,000+ people (Meteorologists and Climatologists included) with high level degrees (Over 3000 with Doctorates) sign a thing called the Manhattan declaration, does that not give it more validity than the 2,500 claimed to have contributed to the latest IPCC report? Although according to several sources, only four actual papers were quoted from in the IPCC's 2007 report. Yet the IPCC report is given credence, even when the figures it relies on have been cherry picked from a very small data sample.
Even when temperature figures have to be adjusted using an obscure methodology which GISS won’t publicise and doesn't match the more accurate Satellite data. McIntyre successfully debunked Manns ‘Hockey stick’ graph showing that you could put almost any data you pleased, and the damn thing would still put out the distinctive sudden upward trend. Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre forced NASA's GISS into a 2007 'climbdown' over the statement that the 1990's was the warmest decade on record (It's actually the 1930's, a period of industrial decline). Temperature measurements are taken from recording stations in hot spots on car parks, and by other local heat sources which give false positives on temperature data. See surfacestations.org for the results. What’s not to get?
To suggest that Earth’s temperature increases are all mankind’s fault, or that the days are sunny / rainy / snowy / whatever is not only hubris but downright irrational when you actually look at the evidence. Did stone age man go into paroxysms of guilt believing his camp fires had caused all the ice to melt and kill off the Mammoths? Get a grip. This planet could lose mankind tomorrow and within a hundred years you’d be hard pressed to find any trace of us as a species.
Additionally, Eco-journalism is the fat teat upon which many humble scriveners have set their metaphorical lips. I don’t blame them. There’s lots of money in it and we all have to eat.
Every company that makes Nuclear, Wind or Solar generation equipment has something to gain by promoting the ‘End is nigh unless you do something about it by purchasing our products’ viewpoint. The EU is actively promoting ‘carbon trading’. That isn’t conspiracy; it’s bloody cold hard fact. There’s serious money to be made. Providing of course everyone is happy to pay extra to the 'carbon traders' for the necessities of everyday life (Goods need transport, transport needs fuel, a 'Carbon levy' on fuel will drive the price of transported goods up).
No wonder any contrary view is being demonised. No wonder the ice cap increase in Antarctica and the near record Arctic ice growth is studiously ignored in the mainstream media, yet every sunny day is supposedly a ‘symptom of global warming’. Every cold day too. They get you coming and going. Oh and the 'warmest on record' reporting isn't worth a damn if your records only go back thirty years. When it comes to climate, you need centuries of data to 'prove' a trend. This isn't just me, there are some quite eminent people out there saying it too. Funny how so many are 'retired'and no longer have to worry about jobs or funding isn't it? People in the media or politics who speak out against the CO2 theory are being sidelined or even sacked. This too is incontravertible fact. So where's the flaming conspiracy?
I’m just amazed anybody believes in the anthropogenic viewpoint any more.
Me, I'm fed up of the whole AGW business and only go commenting to counter the outright falsehoods and misrepresentations. The politicians who see the hype and jump on the bandwagon to raise taxes to buy votes for themselves. The companies who use the palaver simply to promote their products. The mainstrean media outlets who use it to sell copies. Panderers all. If the proposed taxes only affected them and not me I'd blithely sail on by and snigger behind my hand at all the fuss. It's Piltdown Man all over again. Paley's watchmaker fallacy.
Belief in the Anthropogenic CO2 (man made CO2) theory of climate change / global warming is symptomatic of everyday people's inability to understand technology, post millennial anxiety if you will. It is a natural reaction for people to fear what they do not understand, that much is hard wired into most humans as a survival strategy. Ergo they take comfort in various religions and other anti technological belief systems, of which Man made climate change is one. Believing in Aliens from outer space is another.
To conclude; I'm not mad. There isn't a conspiracy. It's just a massive cock-up and I'm genuinely pissed off with being lied to. That is all. Now I have better things to do.
Real conspiracy theories are based on a strange logic that can leap tall buildings (and factual evidence) in a single bound. A really good one is that all those who do not believe in Anthropogenic climate change are in the pay of ‘Big oil’. Funnily enough, the amount garnered in funding from the oil companies and other sources (Under $10 million) is dwarfed by the absolutely wodges of dosh being chucked around to promote the opposing view (An admitted $300 Million and then some). Kayaking to the North Pole to 'prove global warming', and being stopped by ice a good four degrees of latitude earlier than Nansen's attempt in 1893. Yet he was lauded for his 'success' at 10 Downing Street. Go figure. That's flying in the face of historical evidence for you. Despite being told that the Polar Bear is declining, more reputable sources say that the population has undergone a fivefold increase since the 1960's. It has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy, but I don't think the people promoting 'the end is nigh' are clever enough for that.
The facts are out in the real world. Not in the distorting mirror of certain media outlets editorial policy. CO2 is not the answer. It's an excuse.
In academia it’s been almost a running joke for several years that sticking ‘and the effects / influence of climate change’ into the title of your research proposal is a guaranteed way to get funding. People who take the contrary view are denied a media platform. This is not conspiracy, it's actually happening.
When 31,000+ people (Meteorologists and Climatologists included) with high level degrees (Over 3000 with Doctorates) sign a thing called the Manhattan declaration, does that not give it more validity than the 2,500 claimed to have contributed to the latest IPCC report? Although according to several sources, only four actual papers were quoted from in the IPCC's 2007 report. Yet the IPCC report is given credence, even when the figures it relies on have been cherry picked from a very small data sample.
Even when temperature figures have to be adjusted using an obscure methodology which GISS won’t publicise and doesn't match the more accurate Satellite data. McIntyre successfully debunked Manns ‘Hockey stick’ graph showing that you could put almost any data you pleased, and the damn thing would still put out the distinctive sudden upward trend. Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre forced NASA's GISS into a 2007 'climbdown' over the statement that the 1990's was the warmest decade on record (It's actually the 1930's, a period of industrial decline). Temperature measurements are taken from recording stations in hot spots on car parks, and by other local heat sources which give false positives on temperature data. See surfacestations.org for the results. What’s not to get?
To suggest that Earth’s temperature increases are all mankind’s fault, or that the days are sunny / rainy / snowy / whatever is not only hubris but downright irrational when you actually look at the evidence. Did stone age man go into paroxysms of guilt believing his camp fires had caused all the ice to melt and kill off the Mammoths? Get a grip. This planet could lose mankind tomorrow and within a hundred years you’d be hard pressed to find any trace of us as a species.
Additionally, Eco-journalism is the fat teat upon which many humble scriveners have set their metaphorical lips. I don’t blame them. There’s lots of money in it and we all have to eat.
Every company that makes Nuclear, Wind or Solar generation equipment has something to gain by promoting the ‘End is nigh unless you do something about it by purchasing our products’ viewpoint. The EU is actively promoting ‘carbon trading’. That isn’t conspiracy; it’s bloody cold hard fact. There’s serious money to be made. Providing of course everyone is happy to pay extra to the 'carbon traders' for the necessities of everyday life (Goods need transport, transport needs fuel, a 'Carbon levy' on fuel will drive the price of transported goods up).
No wonder any contrary view is being demonised. No wonder the ice cap increase in Antarctica and the near record Arctic ice growth is studiously ignored in the mainstream media, yet every sunny day is supposedly a ‘symptom of global warming’. Every cold day too. They get you coming and going. Oh and the 'warmest on record' reporting isn't worth a damn if your records only go back thirty years. When it comes to climate, you need centuries of data to 'prove' a trend. This isn't just me, there are some quite eminent people out there saying it too. Funny how so many are 'retired'and no longer have to worry about jobs or funding isn't it? People in the media or politics who speak out against the CO2 theory are being sidelined or even sacked. This too is incontravertible fact. So where's the flaming conspiracy?
I’m just amazed anybody believes in the anthropogenic viewpoint any more.
Me, I'm fed up of the whole AGW business and only go commenting to counter the outright falsehoods and misrepresentations. The politicians who see the hype and jump on the bandwagon to raise taxes to buy votes for themselves. The companies who use the palaver simply to promote their products. The mainstrean media outlets who use it to sell copies. Panderers all. If the proposed taxes only affected them and not me I'd blithely sail on by and snigger behind my hand at all the fuss. It's Piltdown Man all over again. Paley's watchmaker fallacy.
Belief in the Anthropogenic CO2 (man made CO2) theory of climate change / global warming is symptomatic of everyday people's inability to understand technology, post millennial anxiety if you will. It is a natural reaction for people to fear what they do not understand, that much is hard wired into most humans as a survival strategy. Ergo they take comfort in various religions and other anti technological belief systems, of which Man made climate change is one. Believing in Aliens from outer space is another.
To conclude; I'm not mad. There isn't a conspiracy. It's just a massive cock-up and I'm genuinely pissed off with being lied to. That is all. Now I have better things to do.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Joy
Wife has returned safely and we are happily making up for lost time. As a present for me from England, she brought back a dozen pairs of Marks & Spencers finest gentlemens underbriefs. Upon viewing them I was delighted to see that they have 'Climate control' on the label.
Presumably the climate control function is for keeping one's important little places at the right temperature with all this 'Global warming' hysteria about. Couldnt' find the mini air conditioners or where the batteries go, so perhaps these are homeopathic climate control briefs.
Gas price falls locally have stalled at 129.9 per litre. It'll do for now.
Presumably the climate control function is for keeping one's important little places at the right temperature with all this 'Global warming' hysteria about. Couldnt' find the mini air conditioners or where the batteries go, so perhaps these are homeopathic climate control briefs.
Gas price falls locally have stalled at 129.9 per litre. It'll do for now.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Poor journalism
Read this story in the Telegraph this morning and stifled a guffaw.
The writer obviously did this to deadline and omitted to research the story properly. Being a long time Fisher of Sharks in Cornish waters when I lived in the UK, there are two elements in the story I would challenge. First is the corny "This is the first time it has happened in British waters", WRONG! First recorded 'Shark attack' in British waters happened in the 1960's under similar circumstances in the North Sea. An Irish skipper got careless with a Blue and it bit him in a similar fashion. I've caught a number of Blues, up to over 100 pounds, and seen those teeth close to. Even on the little ones they rival a circular saw, and you learn respect for the beasts early on. Second is the 'Global warming driving blues and other sharks into British Waters' bullshit. There has been an established sports fishery for Blues, Mako's and Porbeagle since the 1900's, hence the existance of the 'Shark Club' in Looe, Cornwall. The fishery has been in decline since the early 1990's because far eastern 'long liners' have been harvesting sharks fins quite ruthlessly out on the Blues transatlantic migration routes, thus seriously depleting the population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
