Jump to content
Problems logging in? ×
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

The Penguin

Members
  • Posts

    1,196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Interests
    Rugby, ice-hockey, skiing, golf, Bellhaven Best, art and design, photography.

The Penguin's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine
  • 500 items posted
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

8

Reputation

  1. 07:15 Smirr 8/8 Cloud Moderate Breeze from NW 989 hPa F 11.9degC.
  2. I agree with the sentiments of the above post insofar as it suggests that avoidance of an ‘either/or’ approach to this topic is concerned. The question surely is “whether the recent absence of sunspot activity if continued would lead to climate cooling (and other adjustments) and what level of extension to the current situation might be required to produce appreciable and long-term changes based on historical observation and extrapolation”, irrespective of other potential influences or at least accepting other potential influences as being part of our climatic status quo.
  3. They got it wrong for up here. Big Style! There was hardly a day that you could have got the charcoal to light or wanted to sit out with a beer. The MO's big mistake was certainly in going for the dramatic headline. I doubt they'll do that again soon.
  4. For those that are interested, I may start a poll on how many days the West of Scotland might go without spotting the sun. At all. Current total is around 30.
  5. 07:20 Damp 7/8 Cloud Light Breeze from SW 1001 hPa R 11.9degC.
  6. I think it’s been interesting to see peoples’ views on this and I’ve been impressed by the quality of the debate, with good points raised by many and clear answers given by Paul. Wrong, but clear. Of particular interest to me were the latter posts by NSSC, who I greatly admire as a positive contributor to the netweather forum, and AFT, who I greatly don’t, both making well considered and presented arguments for the mitigation of nuisance and organised bullying. Just goes to show that perceived reputation sometimes counts for nothing. Picking up on your last point, Paul, I would hope that in the interests of natural justice and the assessment of worth that all awards of reputation points, plus or minus, will be attributable to the members making them. And at the end of the day, Delta X-Ray will still be Mondy, which I think says it all.
  7. 7:15 Dry & Sunny 2/8 Cloud Gentle/Moderate Breeze from SW 996 hPa R 11.5degC.
  8. 07:15 Drizzle 8/8 Cloud Calm 1001 hPa F 16.5degC.
  9. I do not believe this system will used sensibly. The post above shows 3 minus points at time of posting this. Why? There is nothing in that comment deserving of such abuse. That’s no more than a reaction against an individual who has a ‘reputation’ for being unpopular. What ever happened to good manners and accountability? When did the easy option become preferred to proper investigation, and then intelligent appraisal and interaction? Why pander to those who either can’t be bothered taking the extra minute to say thank you properly, or those who will inevitably and interminably hide behind the anonymity of a red button to take side swipes at members they don’t like? Where is the equality of exposure that signals the ‘reputation’ of the person awarding the reputation point? How is this monitored, is it monitored, and if so why should that not be public information? If not, where is the protection from abuse? I fully admit to not being as smart or as industrious as many of the leading lights in this forum, but I know who they are and I enjoyed learning that over time by reading people’s posts, averaging out their worth, and mentally placing them in a pecking order of clever to stupid, good to bad, instructive to destructive, good egg to rotten apple. Similarly, I hope I’m not the worst offender when it comes to inappropriate posts, lack of courtesy, deliberate incitement, or deadly-dullness (at least not usually), but again I know the members who I believe are guilty of these traits and I learned that through reading what they have to say. I’m sure the vast majority of members have gone through a similar process, and newcomers should be trusted to do the same without arbitrary beauty parade scores being flashed up for them. I can’t see how a reputation score can possibly be more valuable than taking the trouble to get to know your peers and using a wee bit of wit to search out those who bring most value to the forum. Reputations are subjective and all sorts of prejudices get caught up in the judgement of a person’s character and worth. The true worth of an individual post has nothing to do with personal consensus. The awarding of points, whether they are fairly assigned or not, is divisive at best and abdicates judgement to the mob at worst. I cannot understand how this will increase enjoyment of the forum in any way. Surely it is better to encourage courtesy in applauding a valuable post, and require integrity in challenging a valueless one through proper communication - in public. Unless, of course, that’s not the point and all this is, is a rather clumsy moderating tool. Is it?
  10. 07:10 Raining Steadily 8/8 Cloud Fresh Breeze from SW 998 hPa R 10.9degC.
  11. Thanks, Mondy, that's interesting and useful.
  12. 7:50 Sunny 4/8 Cloud, high & thin Calm 1008 hPa R 13.0degC.
  13. Oh dear, is there also a leaky kettle? I’d just got the hang of the bucket and now you’ve added the further complication of a spout. Or are you intending to introduce fish as a new line of investigation? Fish induced global warming perhaps? I suppose, in a reverse angled analysis kind of way, that the relationship between warming oceans and decreasing numbers of cod, for instance, might have been looked at the wrong way round previously. Maybe it is the reduction in fish numbers (where are they all going) that has warmed the oceans. They are cold blooded admittedly, and the loss of all that refrigerant must have an effect... Now off to check out variance in solar cycles.
  14. Now, now Devonian, you misconstrue my notation. Or perhaps I was unduly ambiguous. The strike out through ‘rabid’ was intended to acknowledge that that kind of descriptor has no place in reasonable discussion. Nothing more. As for simple science, Iceberg, I agree with your comment but I have to say that I do feel there has been an ‘absolutist’ wing to the AGW camp, and that I also feel they have promoted, or been used to promote, a kind of tidal swell of purported fact, based on their interpretation of the science, pushing us towards an imperative acceptance of human responsibility for causing global warming and thereby an imperative acceptance of human responsibility for ‘curing’ global warming. I imply no conspiracy theory here, scientific or political, but do feel that a weighty body of opinion has looked at cause and effect, panicked, and set off prematurely on a crusade to save the world. The consequences of that concern me, but that’s a topic for another forum.
×
×
  • Create New...