Steve Knight

Members
  • Content count

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steve Knight

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    parduswolf

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  • Interests
    Reading;
    Astronomy;
    Computers;
    PnP RPGs;
    History.
  1. 1) they're talking about solar MAGNETIC fields. Which don't affect light and heat properties. 2) Maunder Minimum had little to no effect on global temperatures on the planet - that was volcanic dusts 3) A "curve fitting exercise" similar to, and using same cherry-picked data used in their 2011 paper was laughed out of review, as this bad reporting is being laughed at by real experts. 4) Said 2011 paper was [self-?]published in "what may be the world's strangest collection of academic journals." Not a peer-reviewed, recognised journal. 5) They started with a conclusion, and ignored researching ANY other possible factor of causation.
  2. Yeah. No. Repost of an old, wrong article is still wrong. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_age.html
  3. In places where neonicotinoid pesticides have been banned, such as France and Italy, there's no evidence that honeybee populations have rebounded. February 2014, the government of Australia, where neonics are used extensively, reaffirmed that "honeybee populations are not in decline despite the increased use of neonicotinoids in agriculture and horticulture since the mid-1990s." Its central finding was just the opposite of what many in the media have reported: The APVMA (Australian equivalent of the EPA) concluded, "[T]he introduction of the neonicotinoids has led to an overall reduction in the risks to the agricultural environment from the application of insecticides." http://www.nd.gov/ndda/news/north-dakota-bee-colonies-hit-all-time-high The pesticide is applied to seeds sparingly--only about 1-3 ppb [parts per billion] is commonly found in pollen or nectar after application, levels way below safety concerns. Plants grown from a treated seed often need no further insecticidal treatment, unlike many competing chemicals. And in contrast to earlier generation insecticides that required multiple applications, when infestations are severe a single additional spraying generally suffices. Lu steadfastly claims that bees that died in his studies were fed field realistic levels doses--statements echoed uncritically by reporters without, it turns out, cross checking with beekeepers or entomologists. "Chensheng Lu and his team treated 12 colonies with tiny levels of neonics," Mother Jones maintained. Tiny? As Randy Oliver, a well known beekeeper, wrote on his Scientific Beekeeping blog, [ http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ ], Lu fed his test colonies a pesticide brew of about 135 ppb. That's 100 times higher then the 1-3 ppb commonly found in pollen or nectar, a level far below safety concerns. Rather than citing the chemicals' ppb, some reporters touted the physical size of the dose, a worthless measurement. Lu also fed bees every week for 13 straight weeks when the real world application is just a few weeks at most. "It's hard to imagine anyone even reviewed this paper," Oliver concluded. [taken from my posts about this subject to Facebook tinfoilers...]
  4. meanwhile, 150+ years of data says there is no pause at all, and temperatures are increasing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/
  5. And this is a conspiracy, how? Many politicians, especially Cabinet-Rank ones, end up on the Speech circuit after leaving office. The American Wrong-Wing are just pissed a mere woman is making far more at it than their guys. Not to mention, which I now will, their ex-leader now can't leave the US publicly because he faces arrest and indictment for war crimes, and crimes against humanity in MANY countries. Karma's an excellent judge of character. Or lack thereof. EDIT: So much for their vaunted "FREE MARKET!!", wot?
  6. Anthony "I was a TV weatherman" Watts? Yeah. come back when you're serious, lad. Watts' sole contribution to climate change was proving himself half-right, mostly wrong on weather-data collection. He thought the positioning of sensors was exaggerating in favour of climate change. He was right that the sensors were reporting bad data, because of positioning, but they were proven to be UNDER-reporting the conditions. Thanks, Anthony!! LOL And that's not to mention, which I now will, his VERY close relationship to proven liars like Dr Willie Soon, who takes fossil fuel monies, and promises to deliver "evidence" they can use to promote denialism in exchange. His work is now entirely discredited because of it. Speaking of massive conflicts of interest, doesn't Anthony take money from Heartland Institute? Seems I recall some blather about non-disclosure about it a few years ago. When real scientists post proof he's blowing smoke out of his arse, how does he respond? With reasoned, citationed data? No, he files copyright notices to take down the debate. Real classy, Wattsy. REAL classy. As for your "suggestions" to watch some xxxxx video, I'll...take it under advisement for when I have a severe need to be banging my head against a concrete wall. That might be some time.
  7. Yeah, hilariously biased and wrong. Debunked in 2011, and every time he trots it out with an "updated!!" http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/#.VWOAwJC6LI8
  8. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/02/10/global_warming_adjusting_temperature_measurements.html
  9. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32399907 Bees 'get a buzz' from pesticides By Helen Briggs BBC Environment Correspondent 23 April 2015 From the section Science & Environment Bees prefer food containing neonicotinoid pesticides, research suggests. They may "get a buzz" from the nicotine-like chemicals in the same way smokers crave cigarettes, according to scientists at Newcastle University. The experiments raise the question of whether bees can be exposed to harmful doses of pesticides because they are attracted to the chemicals. Another study found neonicotinoids had a negative effect on bees in the wild. The Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide producers, questioned the findings of the studies, published in the journal, Nature. Scientific controversyBees are in decline in Europe and North America due to a number of factors, including pesticides, habitat loss and diseases. In 2013, the EU imposed a two-year ban on using three neonicotinoid pesticides on flowering crops amid concern about their effects on bees. Neonicotinoids contain synthetic chemicals similar to nicotine, which as a plant toxin is damaging to insects. Neuroscientists at Newcastle University tested whether honeybees and bumblebees preferred food containing neonicotinoids over untreated food in the laboratory. They were surprised to find that sugar solution containing two of three neonicotinoid pesticides appeared to be attractive to bees and "may act like a drug" targeting the brain. "Bees can't taste neonicotinoids in their food and therefore do not avoid these pesticides," said lead researcher Prof Geraldine Wright. "This is putting them at risk of poisoning when they eat contaminated nectar. "Even worse, we now have evidence that bees prefer to eat pesticide-contaminated food. Neonicotinoids target the same mechanisms in the bee brain that are affected by nicotine in the human brain." The next step is to study whether bees can become addicted to the substances, Prof Wright added. "As soon as it gets into their blood they're getting a little buzz, as it were, and they're responding to that... We don't have any evidence that it's addictive, but it could be." Commenting on the research, Dr Christopher Connolly of the University of Dundee said it would be interesting to find out if insects "become addicted to neonicotinoids over time as humans become addicted to nicotine". "Given that the neonicotinoids are commonly found in our farmed environment at these levels, this may have already occurred." EU moratoriumScientific evidence over the impact of neonicotinoids has proved controversial, with debate over the relevance of laboratory studies and whether there is strong enough evidence to justify a ban. There have been few field trials on wild bees and the results of these are disputed. In an attempt to resolve the arguments, Dr Maj Rundlof from Lund University looked at the effects of neonicotinoids on wild bees and honeybees foraging on farmland in Sweden. Half of oilseed rape fields were sown with seeds coated in neonicotinoids; while the other half were left untreated. Half the number of wild bumblebees and solitary bees were found in oilseed rape fields treated with pesticides. Bumblebee colonies stopped growing where the chemicals were present, with reduced reproduction observed in solitary bees and bumblebees. Significant effects were not found in honeybees. Renewed debateProf Simon Potts of the University of Reading said the research suggests an interim ban on the use of neonicotinoids is justified but leaves regulators with a "huge conundrum". "A return to old-fashioned products sprayed against pests could be disastrous for pollinators, but the other options available to European agriculture, such as natural pest management, would lead to lower yields in the short term and a big increase in food prices." Nick von Westenholz, CEO of the Crop Protection Association, which represents neonicotinoid producers, questioned the latest research. "The latest studies in Nature must be seen in the context of ongoing campaign to discredit neonicotinoid pesticides, regardless of what the real evidence shows," he said. The UK government enforces the moratorium but has publicly stated it does not support it. A spokesperson from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "The EU will be reviewing the evidence on the effects of neonicotinoids on pollinators. Until this work is complete, the current restrictions remain in place." Both research studies are published in the journal, Nature.
  10. Pardon my Vietnamese, but : Ngo. Phuking. Huế. Where did you dig up that utter religious claptrap from? I believe in Neanderthals because I fear something from a delusion I don't believe in? Have you heard yourself? I'd ask you to prove it, but I don't think you can even begin to grasp the concept, let alone provide a sane response. I'll just keep metaphorically laughing my 'nads off at you.
  11. This from a guy who admitted on this very forum that he always argues from fallacy?? LOL!
  12. well, to be factual, many Russian officials and RT ex-staff have publicly gone on record that RT is little more than Putin's Propaganda arm. Here in the UK, OffCom (QANGO regulating media services) have either threatened or levied, [can't remember which, and CBA looking it up, really] sanctions against RT for breaching impartiality laws. I guess the 'MURKA!!ns don't like the competition against FauxNoise
  13. So, you admit you're arguing from a fallacious viewpoint, using fear and unsubstantiated hear-say, and should be ignored. Right, noted for future. Thanks!
  14. Dude? Did you actually read this, or just the headline? Because, it's looking more like the latter than the former. Headline is very misleading. They're using a very, very, VERY small amount of mitochondrial DNA from a 3rd person. It amounts to something like 0.0000015% of a person's total genome. Mitochondria are, if you ever took basic biology, teeny tiny little parasites that invaded cells very early in evolution, and in return for sustenance from the host, provide a massive, relatively, amount of energy for the host. (cellular level, remember, not macroscopic). *EDIT*: As an afterthought, you might want to read up on mitochondrial diseases, which this treatment is to prevent....
  15. Uhhh? Back To The Future hoverboards? Because that story WAS reported - there's been slow progress, but progress all the same,