Answer to number 20
Fuck yes, I live in the 21st Century.
Police have questioned a scientist at the University of East Anglia in connection with the leak of emails from the University's Climatic Research Unit. Paul Dennis, Head of Stable Isotope and Noble Gas Geochemistry Laboratories at UEA, has produced studies in support of Global Warming, but this didn't stop him falling under …
"18) WHAT IS YOUR STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE?"
That doesn't make sense. Its like asking 'what's your stance on oxygen?' or having an opinion on the color red.
Sorry, but climate change *is* a fact of life and there's historical evidence which shows that it constantly occurs.
I mean you could have answered #18 in the following manner:
A) I hate it.
B) Change is good.
C) I agree with change, but only if its for the better.
I'm sorry but if you ask a stupid open ended question, you should expect equally stupid and open ended responses.
If they had asked 'What do you think about the cause of the climate's change' then they might get a better handle on things.
I mean you could blame it on the fact that the moon is slowly moving out of orbit which is causing a slight change in the tides. Or the moon could also have an influence on the earth's magnetic sphere. This could have a greater significance on the change in climate than man made pollution. Not that I'm saying that cleaning up our environment isn't a good thing, but that jumping to conclusions based on fudged data? Not a smart thing, no?
Hmm so now we know where the Stasi went, Westminster....given every parties obsession with sticking their noses into peoples lives, asking stupid questions and trying to revoke "innocent till proven guilty"
And to think that things seemed to be improving in the first couple of new labour years....then the whole seem to have went batshit insane and power mad....sad sad sad.
Really wondering if a retreat to Canada would be a good idea....then again their current PM (Stephen Harper) has less charisma than a boil on a bison's arse and uses an army of bloggers to post pro Harper comments on Canadian news sites (every comment reads the same almost word for word), as well as stuff like "opposition politicians should shut up and let the government do what it wants"....hmm thought debate was the point of democracy.....
At least Brown hasn't prorogued parliament yet (basically shut parliament down) (Which Harper has done twice in less than a year, both times to avoid a vote of no confidence which would bring down his government)....then again now I have said that he might just try it on the advice of Mandelson...
After the old retirement funds were cleaned out by four successive financial fiascoes and my career path led over what I now call the Cliffs of Inevitable Sidelining into Obscurity and Boredom, all I had left in life was my pride in my Alma Mater. You can keep on, I would tell myself during my darkest hours, you *can* live, because come what may you have a degree from UEA and that means something.
No police officer with more than 10 working brain cells can beleive this kangaroo court style invasion of privacy is goint to catch anyone.
The most they can hope is someone gives a different view on their questionaire than their publically know stance.
I smell Fail.
Well done on allowing comments on this story. I always thought it was a strange aberration that your stories were commentless - could someone explain what happened to make that so.
As for the story itself - I only have one question. You suggest that the guy was interviewed since he had "apparently shown signs of aberrant or 'denialist' behaviour." That makes sense if he is the only scientist interviewed. If not, you might be accused of paranoia. Do you know know that he is the only white-coated-one that plod has pulled in?
/obligatory white coat.
denialist behaviour? what rubbish.
do these scientists understand that 'science' requires questioning and testing everything, in different ways?
it is supposed to be that scientists drill down to the basics of things, and verify these things.. and they very often disagree with each other, which is normal. they can't oust one because he/she doesn't have the same view. that's just ridiculous.
a real scientists doesn't accept anything without thorough research, testing, and reasoning through. yes a laborious process often.. but nevertheless, ensuring that facts are accurate is essential.
with the works of Einstein, Newton, Kant and Leibniz, we certainly don't have uneducated or ill educated police in this Nation of change. And I am sure they can grasp the many different facets and perceptions of time and hence change.
The UK police are a shinning example of intellectualism and I often look forward to police lectures on the pattern of temperate climates: how the atmospheric pressure, vegetation, fauna and other factors combine to create climate in particular areas at particular moments. It is absolutely fascinating how well they can describe and explain such a complicated system, with no logical fallacy, no umms, and no ahhs. These people, of the chunky line, are orators and gentlemen of vision, scholars par excellence.
Just take any police person off the street, they will be able to stand in front of a TV audience of 6 billion and be able to speak wisely and for at least a couple of hours on the intricacies of, what is sometimes simplistically termed, climate change. You will feel you are truly in the presence of a great mind. Their universal ability to take the complex and produce informed, simple and cited information, at the drop of a hat, is just awe inspiring.
I think they are truly marvellous, the Police are willing to work for no money, willing to repay all monies taken from the people, willing to be subject to the exact same laws that everyone else is subject to, they are willing to make their way in the world without public aid or benefit of any kind, and still uphold the law.
The Police are a shining example to us all, and we should all follow this example. The Police don't want our tax money, they want a society that is just, they don't want a society of control or a society that is forced to pay them.
Have you ever seen the Police strike or protest over lack of funds, no, because these people are self sufficient, they don't need to abuse the law to make a living. The only time you will see the police strike or protest is if an unjust law is put on the books, these are people of courage, fortitude, self reliance and democracy.
-- message from a parallel universe.
Aren't there protections for whistle blowers under the law? see http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DG_10026552 And when the expeses scandel was broken by journalists that was ok, why do hackers revealing stuff constituet a whitch-hunt.
Should hackers who expose things in the public interest be not also excepted from reprisals, like dumb police investigations.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all hacking should get a pass. When it is malicious or designed to disrupt systems, then these cases should be prosocuted to the full extent of the law. I just think where in cases, like this, the hacking exposes info that is in the public interest the police should leave it alone and use the resources being wasted here to solve serious crimes.
Oh and hacking famous peoples voicemail accounts is not classed as in the public interest. Unless you catch one admitting they murdered somebody....
...Certainly proving the old postulate that parallel paths will never meet.
I like the late Michael Crichton's views on "Global Warming", but mine could be expressed as follows:
While I don't really believe we have nearly enough evidence that Global Warming is occurring, that if it is, anything we've done has caused it, or anything we do can effect it, it's certainly of benefit to not do things that we think may make things worse. Or "Don't shit where you eat"
Furthermore regardless of Global Warming the environmental problems we face by using toxic chemicals to fuel transport, etc etc are still there whether you believe they are affecting the climate or not. Just because Climate Change might not be right doesn't mean mass extinctions, toxic environments, overpopulation and corporate greed and power disappear as well....
But then people are notoriously thick.
Our definition or theirs? Inventing evidence to justify your cause will ultimately only harm it, be that WMD to invade a rogue nation, or CO2 affecting the atmosphere to force a move from hydrocarbon dependancy.
FACT: The climate is always changing. FACT: We are running out of oil and gas and make some deals with some pretty shady countries to try to secure continuing supplies. That CO2 from burning hydrocarbons is the primary cause of currently observed accelerated climate change - hmmm, well that depends on whose figures you read and whether you can trust them. I am more worried about the erosion of trust between us and 'them' than I am about climate change. They should be worried that there are obviously more of us...and that we are not as stupid as they first thought.
If the Essex Boys in Blue are investigating this then the lad is safe. Most can't read and none of them would be able to find a bottle up their own arse.
My stance is firm denier (isn't that a measurement of stocking density? perhaps it should be denyer) - as usual it's all to do with tax and limited hydrocarbon supplies and bugger all to do with saving the planet.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020