A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

bbc inacuracies



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old September 19th 17, 01:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,909
Default bbc inacuracies

On 17/09/2017 21:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:38:13 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 17:44:00 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is one of the several weaknesses in the AGW
hypothesis.


There is no weakness of any significance.

In which case, why have the models been predicting global temperatures
significantly higher than those observed in almost the last couple of
decades? Either the values of some of the parameters used in the
modelling are wrong, because they are difficult to measure precisely,
or there are other parameters that have not been considered or
included, or both.

Climatologists can't even predict the next El NiƱo, let alone explain
why it happens, so it's not too surprising they can't get the global
temperatures right.

There's a front page article in the Times today, in which the
climatologists use weasel words as they begin their retreat. Of course
we'll have to wait until all those who have put their reputations and
careers on the line in order to gain advancement by joining the global
warming bandwagon are dead or at least retired.

Bill
  #23  
Old September 19th 17, 01:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,909
Default bbc inacuracies

On 17/09/2017 22:17, Java Jive wrote:

They have been getting the temperatures reasonably accurately over the
longer-term.


They haven't and it's admitted today in the Times.

Climate models aren't perfect,


Dead right


nobody's pretending they are


But they have pretended they're perfect, or at least perfect enough for
the world to waste unimaginable resources in chasing the will o' the wisp.

and those
who create them are always trying to improve them,


By massaging the data. Totally unscientific and fraudulent.

Bill
  #24  
Old September 19th 17, 01:52 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default bbc inacuracies

Martin wrote:

Cars need to have swappable battery packs to make them practical. With a Tesla
you would have to swap the whole car.


The model S is designed with the ability to do a battery swap in about
90 seconds, but they decided against rolling out swap stations ...

  #25  
Old September 19th 17, 02:20 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,909
Default bbc inacuracies

On 18/09/2017 20:45, Java Jive wrote:

AGW is not a recent hypothesis. I remember reading about in the late
60s - early 70s.


That's when the rest of us were watching TV documentaries warning us
that we were entering an ice age.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/...g-compilation/

It's clear that you've swallowed the AGW story hook, line and sinker.


It's just so naive to believe it.

Bill
  #26  
Old September 19th 17, 03:59 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 942
Default bbc inacuracies

On 19/09/2017 16:40, Martin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:52:00 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Martin wrote:

Cars need to have swappable battery packs to make them practical. With a Tesla
you would have to swap the whole car.


The model S is designed with the ability to do a battery swap in about
90 seconds, but they decided against rolling out swap stations ...


Why did they decide against rolling out the swap stations?


I assume it's because the '90 seconds' is like the 2 seconds flat it
takes to replace all four tyres on a car. Yes, but only if you happen
to have a multi-million pound F1 team on standby.


  #27  
Old September 19th 17, 04:01 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default bbc inacuracies

Martin wrote:

Why did they decide against rolling out the swap stations?


Apparently the first (and only) one wasn't very popular

http://fortune.com/2015/06/10/teslas-battery-swap-is-dead
  #28  
Old September 19th 17, 04:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default bbc inacuracies

Norman Wells wrote:

Martin wrote:

Why did they decide against rolling out the swap stations?


I assume it's because the '90 seconds' is like the 2 seconds flat it
takes to replace all four tyres on a car. Yes, but only if you happen
to have a multi-million pound F1 team on standby.


https://youtu.be/HlaQuKk9bFg

Of course you don't know how many people are scrabbling about under that
stage ...
  #29  
Old September 19th 17, 10:41 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,689
Default bbc inacuracies

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:46:59 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

In response to your vituperative and intemperate comments above, I

hear on the news today that the high priests of your religion


I am accepting the scientific consensus. That's not religion - every
time religion has clashed with science, religion has lost, as yours
will.

the
IPCC, have at last admitted that their models of climate and the
effects of CO2 are giving significantly higher temperatures than are
being observed.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41319885

"Analysis by David Shukman, BBC Science Editor:

The climate models are exaggerating. The predictions are too alarmist.
The Tuvaluans and other islanders are safer than we thought. These are
among the conclusions that some might reach from this latest work. In
reality, nothing is quite that straightforward. The models are
simulated approximations of possible futures. Inevitably they are
going to be at least slightly adrift of reality, either in the amount
of warming or its timing.

They come with caveats and margins of error. In many ways, it's
remarkable that these computer constructs are even roughly on track.
And models designed to come up with very broad potential outcomes for
the end of the century may not be fine-tuned enough to give more
detailed forecasts year-by-year.

The authors themselves are anxious that their research is not
misunderstood. The need for urgent action to reduce emissions is
unchanged, they say. It's just that the most ambitious of the Paris
Agreement targets is not as unachievable as many once thought, that
there is time to act, though the task remains a monumental one."

So again you are wishfully reading into the results something that
wasn't really there.

And what was it I said the other day? Ah yes:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:17:00 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Climate models aren't perfect, nobody's pretending they are and those
who create them are always trying to improve them


Case in point.

I look forward to further...er...'adjustments' in the future!


Which of course will happen, because such models can never be perfect,
and are openly acknowledged to be imperfect, but that doesn't alter
the fact that they are the best tools we have currently for predicting
far into the future.

Denialists seem to expect that, uniquely across all human endeavour,
climate scientists have to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, while
the denialists themselves, as demonstrated by you in this thread, are
allowed to peddle any old unscientific non-sequitor thinking in
support of their false claims. Talk about hypocrisy!
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #30  
Old September 20th 17, 02:28 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,909
Default bbc inacuracies

On 19/09/2017 23:41, Java Jive wrote:

Which of course will happen, because such models can never be perfect,
and are openly acknowledged to be imperfect, but that doesn't alter
the fact that they are the best tools we have currently for predicting
far into the future.


The best available tool for a job might still be useless. Ever seen a
housewife trying to strip cable with a fish knife? Ever tried to ****
somebody when you've got brewers droop? Ever seen a journalist try to
write a science article by using his brain?

Bill
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.