Posts by Lyndon Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It wasn't back far you understand, just back at all.
That's why God gave you sharp knees.
Actually, straightening my legs under the set I could've kicked them in the ankles.
-
It did help with Singapore air flights to and from Europe being able to watch movies and tv and do some very basic language courses.
Unfortunately I'm tall and if the person in front lent back even slightly I had to dislocate my neck to see the screen properly.
Talking of iPod-enable airplanes makes me think of an ad I saw boasting that a car had bluetooth. I couldn't help thinking in terms of remote controls: "and if i press this button, i can make it turn right"
sometimes they make me feel like my ears are going to explode.
I do wonder if they end up converting sudden noises into pressure changes or do strange and alarming things outside the audible range. Doesn't stop me enjoying my blackbox set on the train and - very effective - on airplanes (they dealt with the turbo prop to queenstown quite thoroughly), The do hiss quietly when NR is on.
-
Last I checked "frustration" was not a defence to murder.
There is however the partial defence of - I forget what it's technically called - blind rage. I have no reason to think it's being invoked here. But you might remember it from the "I killed him because he propositioned me and I'm not gay" defence. That makes me so angry I could... complain.
-
-
Did we notice talk of a Michigan deal?
-
a scientist could easily say "umm, no I didn't document any doubts, because I have none"
Or "that's a lie, take my name off your list". People are, I think reasonably, still responding to the way it was originally presented.
Heartland can interpret research however they like. Yes. And presenting the list of names as they have - even with the corrected title that accurately reflects their interpretations - doesn't have any sensible scholarly point. It's inviting misinterpretation and if it were NZ advertising i doubt it would beat the consumer guarantees act. -
The antarctic sea (not glacial) ice was noted and predicted to continue a few years ago as a consequence of warming. Warmer air carries more moisture far enough south to snow on antartica. I have no idea why the arctic would be different, but there is more land in the vicinity if not underneath.
Geez, there is something addictive about this debate though. I mean, I am not even deeply informed and I also have work to do.
-
1. Last week a German study stated that the world will cool till 2015.
I am already sick of that talking point. I'm sure somebody who's actually looked can clarify but my impression was
1) The study suggests there is a (local) cycle running across the top of whatever the long term trend is.
2) It's prediction assumes the background level is going up, so their prediction is that after 2015ish it will go up rapidly.
There is a fiddly point to be made about the advancedness or otherwise about our understanding of climate systems, but I've only seen that done once. Instead people are declaring global warming postponed on the basis of one study that has nothing to do with that conclusion.
If I was a "so-called 'sceptic'" (and smart and sincere) I wouldn't bother trumpeting that study.
</third version of rant repeated in various places>
-
I think part of the point is one compiles bibliographies of research, not bibliographies of scientists.
(If they did that, I'm sure that some scientists would feel their research was being misrepresented and be upset too - and I assume they would know best.)
But if you download the Heartland pdf it's nothing but a list of names. It doesn't actually mention what papers their conclusion might be based on.
It's pathetic veneer of a bibliography and it's obviously personal.
-