Posts by David Hood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Dunedin, mostly commutes of 3-4 km. I have a wardrobe in my office so will cycle with the assumption I am going to be weathered on and change at the end. Rugby shorts, t-shirt, normally a high-vis windbreaker (a bit pointless since I am normally wearing a pack), fingerless gloves. In cold weather add a layer between the t-shirt and shell. In past years there have been a few winter's days I wore ski pants.
-
googling "Helen Clark" "don't remember", 733000 hits
googling "John Key" "don't remember", 1110000 hits
This is without adjusting for the lengths of political careers or similar. -
Hard News: Key Questions, in reply to Kumara Republic,
What kind of WMDs exactly?
I am depressed to think they may be talking about the Bruce Simpson DIY Cruise Missile, that could be stopped by pretty much any basic countermeasures.
I hope what they would be talking about is attempts to use a NZ subsidiary of a global defense company to access that companies information (something like Raytheon). But that is hardly "our" WMD technology.
-
So if I paraphrase from Key this morning on the radio, foreign people [who the GCSB can already spy on] want to get there hands on New Zealand's Weapons of Mass Destruction technology. To know what these people [the GCSB can already spy on] are doing, the GCSB have to be able to spy on New Zealanders.
-
I am going to second Ian's comments with personal example- My daughter is pretty high performing in terms of achievements, but has lately been feeling a bit jaded about doing good school assignments. Talking with her, something that would really suit her engagement with the material is a platform where the putting the polish on could be appreciated by an interested community. Her interests are quite definitely in the analytical research and writing area.
I will add, as a doting father with expert knowledge in technologies used in academic research (and explaining them) if I can contribute anything useful to building such community I am willing to volunteer in it's service.
-
Hard News: Key Questions, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Hopefully Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang will sit him down and give him a healthy dose of reality.
Are you talking about Kim Jong-un or John Key, I can't tell. But based on the way John Key moved away from his initial comments after meeting Xi Jinping I assumed the later had happened already.
-
I "clocked" my camera last week, having taken more than 10000 pictures with it the counter is back to 1. Kaka.
-
Really ? How many links?
You might want to review the quality of the links in the last discussion that got derailed by this topic, particularly back when people where commenting about the links you were posting. I think it is still fresh in most other people's minds.
The scientific process proceeds point by point with resolution of differing viewpoints.
And this synthesis has already happened among climate scientists. In the big picture evolution is better understood than gravity. Gravity (general process understood, some mystery about the finer details) is understood about the same as global warming.
Why can both sides not be argued?
There is a difference between debate leading to synthesis, and circular argument. If you are truly interested in the resolution of differing viewpoints you are going to have to actually engage with the evidence in order to bring it together. Once again I ask, in a spirit of resolving positions, could you explain how the entire paragraph of the IPCC quote you brought to the discussion supports your position. If you are in doubt, I will then explain why the entire paragraph was about something else until we reach a resolution of viewpoints.
Who else here will argue the negative?
Being the only person to argue something is not a virtue when the technique of argument is to bring poor evidence to a forum that has a respect for reason. In particular when such suddenly appears in threads on unrelated topics.
In 50 years we may know exactly how it works, but it’s a long shot at present. Do you claim to know already?
I notice you have been shifting the goalposts on time frames. In the other thread you started at 15 years, then when I agreed with you that it would be known by then, you went to 30 years, and are now at 50. This makes it difficult to arrive at resolution.
I think the general shape of warming of climate is fairly conclusively established right now, with some detail, particularly the role of the deeper oceans as heat sink, to be filled in. In this sense I think that if there was to be no average warming for the next decade, climate models would need some serious revision. But then so would chemistry, as there would be some serious questions about what carbon dioxide does in the way of physical properties that would seem to need answering.
-
Science is not about belief anyway : it’s about knowledge.
The thing is, your posting links on climate change have been ones that consistently misuse the science and misinterpret the conclusions. And these have not been in a random pattern but a pretty consistent direction, which to any reader suggests the causes for the pattern are systematic as the pattern is systematic.
Your drawing on the IPCC quote is a classic example of this. I won't even ask you to read the entire report. If you read just the entire paragraph the quote came from, and cannot understand how it does not support your argument, I will happily explain it to you.
But what normally happens is that, rather than discuss the links you post in more detail, you post another link of questionable scientific understanding, which people take to mean you are not actually open to scientific understanding.
-
Before I answer that, and I can, can you confirm that you have actually read the IPCC report and know that you are only quoting a few sentences from the middle of a paragraph? Because, based on your question I suspect you don't know what is in the rest of the paragraph.
