Latest Articles:
- Mac: You don't have access to / on this server
- Debugging cucumber scripts, cucumber and devise authentication
- Comment left on review for Feeble Paradox
- Heroic Failure on the 13th of November
- Ok, I'm not perfect and I still get angry - but still try to deal with it
- Tumbleweed Interview Candidates
- TDD is effective if you look at the right things
- Ballmer not the darling of the stock market
Archive
March 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
March 2000
Tag Cloud:
Stats:
- Entries = 358
- Notes = 35
General Links
What I put into the New Scientist survey
I would like to see some proper reporting of the carbon phobia debate.
I would like to see some reporting of the Japanese contention that "climate change" is on a par with astrology. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
Also it changed its name from global warming (which couldn't be proved) to climate change - that's the inconvenient truth - I want science not religion from scientific publications.
I don't want to see the bogus "hockey stick" curve on the cover of your reputable magazine ever again, I was going to renew my sub after a long time without reading it regularly except certain editions bought from the news stand and decided not to. It was ill-advised and totally innumerate.
Humans add about 10% to the global amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's reported like we make *all* of it. Some sense of proportion would be useful. It makes all of your other reporting suspect.
I honestly don't know what the real issues with CO2 are - but you aren't helping me find out, are you?
Bootnote
I did some digging on the web and discovered that we actually contribute less than 5% of the annual CO2 production. There are other greeenhouse gases that are produced in much bigger proportions by humans, but we need some properly funded, peer-reviewed research with evidence. No more anti-technology, screw-the-poor-we-can't-do-anything dystopian nonsense.