I believe the track developer video is old footage from around the time when ScaViEr were bringing the FBM into LFS, as is the footage of Scawen driving the simulator at Fortec. I think those videos were originally uploaded on the V1 site rather than Youtube. Could be wrong there, but Jay is uploading a history catalogue of V1 videos on the "TheV1Championship" Youtube account at the moment.
I can't share any info about the simulator at the moment. As soon as I can, I'll do so here
As mentioned, we've not made any public announcements, launches etc. recently. It isn't our intention to tweak interest at this time.
[Thread moving to Off-Topic]
The V1 format is changing significantly, with emphasis on a more test/challenge-based system being introduced. It is intended that there will be a shorter period of sim-based trialling, moving to real-world testing earlier in the selection process. The exact lengths of these phases isn't known *to me* yet, and I don't want to talk outside my area of expertise. Suffice it to say that we learned a huge amount about the process we need to employ in order to float talent to the top in the past (positive and negative experiences), and we're using that experience in the new format.
A significant point which you need to know is that V1 this time around will not be free-to-race. You guys know that we wanted to make this happen without costing participants a penny, and you know that we worked long and hard to make it a reality in that form. Unfortunately the reality is that, with the best will in the world, we could not make that model work. Having said this, the intention is that we *will* be offering a free demo of one track and one car for promotional purposes.
Also, a heads up: We will hopefully be in a position to invite beta testers for the sim, some time in (early?) July. I've indicated to Jay that I would like to invite LFSers into that process. The sim, in case you haven't figured it out by now, is not LFS this time around.
The V1 format is changing significantly, with emphasis on a more test/challenge-based system being introduced. It is intended that there will be a shorter period of sim-based trialling, moving to real-world testing earlier in the selection process. The exact lengths of these phases isn't known *to me* yet, and I don't want to talk outside my area of expertise. Suffice it to say that we learned a huge amount about the process we need to employ in order to float talent to the top in the past (positive and negative experiences), and we're using that experience in the new format.
A significant point which you need to know is that V1 this time around will not be free-to-race. You guys know that we wanted to make this happen without costing participants a penny, and you know that we worked long and hard to make it a reality in that form. Unfortunately the reality is that, with the best will in the world, we could not make that model work. Having said this, the intention is that we *will* be offering a free demo of one track and one car for promotional purposes.
Also, a heads up: We will hopefully be in a position to invite beta testers for the sim, some time in (early?) July. I've indicated to Jay that I would like to invite LFSers into that process. The sim, in case you haven't figured it out by now, is not LFS this time around.
Regarding sign-ups, the entire functionality of the site and the extended community is changing to fit our new format. We're at the beginning of developing this interface on the site, and nowhere near ready for people to log in or even register.
OMG, you guys don't miss a trick do you!? LOL! 
Yes, V1 IS alive and kicking! We're not ready yet, but we're working like mad on it.
There's no point trying to sign up at the moment - not just because the database error occurs (we're mid-migration) but because we're not ready to receive new signups quite yet (and the signup process will be different from how it is on the site now). There will shortly be a "register interest" page. I will let you know immediately, here, once that's ready to receive.
There's no advantage to getting in early at the moment, so please be patient and bear with us. As soon as I can open the door, I'll tell you guys right here, and I'll try to make sure LFSers get the first word of it.
THIS year is all I can tell you at the moment.
Yes, V1 IS alive and kicking!
We're not ready yet, but we're working like mad on it. There's no point trying to sign up at the moment - not just because the database error occurs (we're mid-migration) but because we're not ready to receive new signups quite yet (and the signup process will be different from how it is on the site now). There will shortly be a "register interest" page. I will let you know immediately, here, once that's ready to receive.
There's no advantage to getting in early at the moment, so please be patient and bear with us. As soon as I can open the door, I'll tell you guys right here, and I'll try to make sure LFSers get the first word of it.
THIS year is all I can tell you at the moment.
Americans perceive this as a partisan issue. The world is bigger, and doesn't.
LOL! Hmm.. well, we've sort of got our own aggregated climate news service going on now! Prolly Electrik Kar and I should be PMing, but I think a few other people might be (at least, I hope) interested in following along.
So.. here's the latest news:
Michael Mann, the guy who created the "hockey stick", has an Op Ed in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... 0/07/AR2010100705484.html
Willis Eschenbach, one of my favourite, most incisive writers on climate issues, writes this open letter to Mann, in response, at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201 ... etter-to-dr-michael-mann/
So.. here's the latest news:
Michael Mann, the guy who created the "hockey stick", has an Op Ed in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... 0/07/AR2010100705484.html
Willis Eschenbach, one of my favourite, most incisive writers on climate issues, writes this open letter to Mann, in response, at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201 ... etter-to-dr-michael-mann/
I agree with you, I didn't think it was exactly clever. I think Keith is confusing "clever" with "smug". But to be smug, it would have to be right.
The Wegman issue, as I've pointed out at length on Keith's and elsewhere, is not a cornerstone of scepticism. While its statistical analysis serves as a useful affirmation of McIntyre's work, it's not alone in affirming his work and it's not pivotal to the debate. The matters of "unprecedented warming", and the hockey stick handle, which are undermined by evidence in the Climategate emails, most certainly are central to the debate.
Once again Keith is seeing two sides of the same coin while simultaneously failing to take into consideration proportions of extremes.
[edit] In fact I think I should point this out to Keith.
The Wegman issue, as I've pointed out at length on Keith's and elsewhere, is not a cornerstone of scepticism. While its statistical analysis serves as a useful affirmation of McIntyre's work, it's not alone in affirming his work and it's not pivotal to the debate. The matters of "unprecedented warming", and the hockey stick handle, which are undermined by evidence in the Climategate emails, most certainly are central to the debate.
Once again Keith is seeing two sides of the same coin while simultaneously failing to take into consideration proportions of extremes.
[edit] In fact I think I should point this out to Keith.
I'm also rather frustrated by Keith's positioning. He's previously declared Watts and Romm two sides of the same coin, and he seems unwilling to let that go. I think he's wrong - Romm is certainly very left-wing, and Watts is definitely more right-wing, but the difference is in the extremities. Watts strives for balance, Romm makes absolutely no effort whatsoever to give any ground. Definitely not the same coin.
I mostly find myself agreeing with Tom Fuller on the climate players and their activities. I don't agree with his view of AGW, though.
Keith should know about the climate scientists not wanting to leave the security of their own ranches.. Tobis keeps threatening to leave C-a-S and not come back, simply when he's been challenged on fundamental scientific issues! I've seen him pull that threat 3 times, so far, and the third time looks like he's sticking with it. He's not posted for a while. Gavin tried interacting, but didn't enjoy not being able to edit out or Fisk to death other peoples' views. Tim Lambert.. no prizes for guessing how I feel about him
I'm pretty sure I've upset Anthony on Keith's blog with my badge of honour comment. I fired that at both Keith and Anthony, but I suspect Anthony's taken it more to heart. I do respect Anthony an immense amount, but a good friend is the one that is willing to tell you when you stink.
I'm not sure where Keith is trying to position himself. He is a well-respected journalist with tremendous reach. I remember being somewhat in awe of Keith's blog when I first visited, because he's able to draw such key people into the debate. I think he needs to grab himself a bit of perspective, drop the coin meme and get back to what he does well, which is to be far more topical and much less ad hominem.
I mostly find myself agreeing with Tom Fuller on the climate players and their activities. I don't agree with his view of AGW, though.
Keith should know about the climate scientists not wanting to leave the security of their own ranches.. Tobis keeps threatening to leave C-a-S and not come back, simply when he's been challenged on fundamental scientific issues! I've seen him pull that threat 3 times, so far, and the third time looks like he's sticking with it. He's not posted for a while. Gavin tried interacting, but didn't enjoy not being able to edit out or Fisk to death other peoples' views. Tim Lambert.. no prizes for guessing how I feel about him
I'm pretty sure I've upset Anthony on Keith's blog with my badge of honour comment. I fired that at both Keith and Anthony, but I suspect Anthony's taken it more to heart. I do respect Anthony an immense amount, but a good friend is the one that is willing to tell you when you stink.
I'm not sure where Keith is trying to position himself. He is a well-respected journalist with tremendous reach. I remember being somewhat in awe of Keith's blog when I first visited, because he's able to draw such key people into the debate. I think he needs to grab himself a bit of perspective, drop the coin meme and get back to what he does well, which is to be far more topical and much less ad hominem.
I'd laugh if Wiki's editor turned out to be Said, Wegman or one of his students
I've proposed an alternative: "Climategate II - Return Of The Paragraph"
I really find Eli Rabett annoying when he talks in the third person. Makes him read like he's slimey, weird and not to be trusted. So does the shite he writes.
It looks like Wegman did copy from Wiki, although it's also possible that Wiki copied from Wegman. At the moment, it's not possible to be sure because the origination edit dates on Wiki are so close to the period when Wegman was forming and publishing his report, but it does look like Wegman's assistant, Said, failed to cite Wiki and treated it as "common knowledge", which would have exempted the obligation to cite the source.
I think this is an oversight by Wegman, basically. Even Mashey notes that there are references in Wegman's bibliography that don't feature as citations in the report. That's a failure on Mashey's part to understand the purpose and content of a bibliography, but since Wegman was so willing to point to all the different papers and books he'd read in forming his report, it seems odd that he'd then purposely try to pass off such common and widely material as Wiki as his own original research. That argument's not convincing to me.
Bottom line, though, there's a problem with the Wegman report. But it's by-the-by. Nobody's questioning Wegman's criticism of Mann's short-centred PCA, so all this warmist arm-waving just boils down to silly diversionary crap.
Lucia's decided it's going to be Jeff's alternative, "Copygate". We don't argue with Lucia.. LOL!
Okay, some of these quotes may be correct.. I didn't watch the entire video.. but I know straight away that two are not correct. One is the John Houghton quote, the other is the Steve Schneider quote.
Now.. it is true to say that Schneider did say this, but it's selectively quoted (and he complained a lot about being misquoted) and frankly the complete quote is no less damning.. but it's not quoted properly in the video and the context is slightly off as a result.
Houghton didn't use those words. He actually claimed he didn't say anything LIKE that quote. Turns out that what he DID say was actually very similar to the misquote, with pretty much the same meaning and significance, but again the quote in the video is not correct.
So that's 100% of the quotes that I know, in the video, that I know are not quoted correctly.. so I can't place confidence in the rest of them to be correct.
I certainly don't mean to shoot you down. As it happens I do believe that there is a kind of a world governance "conspiracy" at the UN level. You don't need to believe in conspiracy theories to know that a legally binding global carbon tax/trade is effectively ENRON on a global scale, and no matter which way you dice it, that amounts definitively to global governance. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the UN, which is effectively a tier of world government, forms the IPCC specifically to find man-made global warming and then make recommendations on dealing with it. Note that the stated purpose of the IPCC was not to assess IF there was a danger from global warming, but find the EXTENT of the danger. The premise, therefore, was not scientific but political.
But.. back to my point.. incorrect quotes are bad. It's easy to dismiss a misquote, and it's particularly annoying for us climate sceptics when the correct quote would have been just as damning.
Yeah, I'm still very much baffled by the 10:10 video. I suspect that Curtis has himself a Golden Goose complex going on. He's surrounded by "luvvies" who think (or at least say) that everything he does is wonderful, simply because he does it. It's manifestly group-thinking. That's how I think the mini-film came to be released. How it got to be created, though, is a different story.
The premise isn't funny, it's truly sinister. The execution (literally) is sinister to the point of being sick. That the characters with the button wave off the apathetic individuals with "your choice, no pressure", immediately prior to exterminating them - a precise, deliberate theme, consistent across each of the scenes - gives the biggest clue to the "message" in the film - if there is any message, this is it. Genuinely sadistic in the darkest sense.
Stu, I personally think you're letting Tim Lambert off lightly. It is his "ministry" which inspires the adolescent behaviour of his flock. It's no coincidence that, on all of the green blogs anywhere, the only place where there has been such vile behaviour towards the "10:10 offended", as well as a quite perverse and vitriolic defence of the 10:10 video, is on Lambert's blog. That speaks volumes, IMO, of Lambert. His loyal followers are of a very specific mindset, most clearly demonstrated in the polarisation of this issue.
It's a profound instance of irony that Lazar - with whom I've locked horns many times in the past over climate science - has been accused of "concern trolling", for his defence of you on Deltoid. If anything good comes of this, I hope it's that Lazar grows to recognise the profound idiocy inherent in accusing sceptics of "denialism". That would be a win.
The premise isn't funny, it's truly sinister. The execution (literally) is sinister to the point of being sick. That the characters with the button wave off the apathetic individuals with "your choice, no pressure", immediately prior to exterminating them - a precise, deliberate theme, consistent across each of the scenes - gives the biggest clue to the "message" in the film - if there is any message, this is it. Genuinely sadistic in the darkest sense.
Stu, I personally think you're letting Tim Lambert off lightly. It is his "ministry" which inspires the adolescent behaviour of his flock. It's no coincidence that, on all of the green blogs anywhere, the only place where there has been such vile behaviour towards the "10:10 offended", as well as a quite perverse and vitriolic defence of the 10:10 video, is on Lambert's blog. That speaks volumes, IMO, of Lambert. His loyal followers are of a very specific mindset, most clearly demonstrated in the polarisation of this issue.
It's a profound instance of irony that Lazar - with whom I've locked horns many times in the past over climate science - has been accused of "concern trolling", for his defence of you on Deltoid. If anything good comes of this, I hope it's that Lazar grows to recognise the profound idiocy inherent in accusing sceptics of "denialism". That would be a win.
Be careful what you wish for! I wished for a cool shot of a car going through a puddle...
I got more than that
Thank god for Nikon's weather sealing!
Also found this guy in the back garden. I think it's a wasp/yellow jacket he's eating..
I got more than that
Thank god for Nikon's weather sealing!
Also found this guy in the back garden. I think it's a wasp/yellow jacket he's eating..
Indeed, at the end of California's "invisible summer", which Californians complained was indistinguishable from the Spring. http://www.usatoday.com/weathe ... -cold-summer_N.htm?csp=34
As usual, alarmists have latched on to a weather event, attempting to describe it as symptomatic of global warming. Just like the Russian heat wave and the Pakistan floods, neither of which were unprecedented and neither of which can be in any way attributed to global warming - though, granted, only a few have really tried to make those claims stick.
The late summer heat in California is not unusual, and it's easily explained by perfectly natural blocking. The summer cool was not a symptom of global cooling and the September spike is not a symptom of global warming.
It's just fodder for those of an apocalyptic predisposition and an insatiable thirst for the dramatic.
As usual, alarmists have latched on to a weather event, attempting to describe it as symptomatic of global warming. Just like the Russian heat wave and the Pakistan floods, neither of which were unprecedented and neither of which can be in any way attributed to global warming - though, granted, only a few have really tried to make those claims stick.
The late summer heat in California is not unusual, and it's easily explained by perfectly natural blocking. The summer cool was not a symptom of global cooling and the September spike is not a symptom of global warming.
It's just fodder for those of an apocalyptic predisposition and an insatiable thirst for the dramatic.
That's a blast from the past, DWB
Just so there's no misunderstanding, this is calving and it's a natural process with no relevance or connection to climate change, plus or minus. As the report points out, the same thing but bigger was observed ~50 years ago (1962), before the supposed "modern anthropogenic warming" phase kicked in.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, this is calving and it's a natural process with no relevance or connection to climate change, plus or minus. As the report points out, the same thing but bigger was observed ~50 years ago (1962), before the supposed "modern anthropogenic warming" phase kicked in.
hehe! I saw that one! I quite liked "Climageddon"
Cognitive dissonance is a difficult thing for some to overcome.
Been busy the last few days and haven't had a chance to read Ross's paper yet. I gather it's very detailed and thorough but I'll have to wait until tomorrow before I'm likely to get the chance to go through it myself.
The new "Global Disruption" and "Global Weirding" monikers are part of the new PR/sales campaign. A lot of effort is being made to align climate concerns with situations like the Pakistan floods, so that connecting them in the future will supposedly be simpler and more effective in creating alarm.
I really don't think they understand at all, in any slight way, the extent that this purposeful manoeuvring towards more effective alarm ringing completely undermines the trust that people bestow upon them.
Yeah! LOL! I presume the Bish is at a press conference today, announcing the release. I know he's in "the big smoke", so probably can't do the computer thang. I still haven't worked out who "Today's Moderator" is!
The GWPF review of the enquiries is up today. I was expecting it tomorrow but must have had my dates wrong. The report is here: http://www.thegwpf.org/images/ ... Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
It's 54 pages. I'm on page 32 at the moment, and it's been quite enlightening so far. I've not been able to find any points made so far that I substantially disagree with, though a few of the findings are worded more accommodatingly than I think my findings would be, reading the evidence supporting GWPF's own findings. It is cutting, though. Really cutting. Taken with its citations, it seems so far to be a definitive review of events, with wide implications.
It's 54 pages. I'm on page 32 at the moment, and it's been quite enlightening so far. I've not been able to find any points made so far that I substantially disagree with, though a few of the findings are worded more accommodatingly than I think my findings would be, reading the evidence supporting GWPF's own findings. It is cutting, though. Really cutting. Taken with its citations, it seems so far to be a definitive review of events, with wide implications.
Finally, Judith Curry's launching her own blog: http://judithcurry.com
The Guardian is still playing dirty with their agenda. They were forced to publish a response by Andrew Montford after Bob Ward's atrocious and, in places, libellous attack on him. Ward, though, was forewarned by the Guardian and had prior knowledge of Montford's response, resulting in a post from Ward again attacking Montford within 2 minutes of Montford's response being published. Montford, meanwhile, has been prevented from making any comments on the Guardian and can't even reply to Ward's comment. Frankly I find it blatant and disgusting bias.
This was my "proof" of dirty dealings by the Guardian:
The Guardian is still playing dirty with their agenda. They were forced to publish a response by Andrew Montford after Bob Ward's atrocious and, in places, libellous attack on him. Ward, though, was forewarned by the Guardian and had prior knowledge of Montford's response, resulting in a post from Ward again attacking Montford within 2 minutes of Montford's response being published. Montford, meanwhile, has been prevented from making any comments on the Guardian and can't even reply to Ward's comment. Frankly I find it blatant and disgusting bias.
This was my "proof" of dirty dealings by the Guardian:
Okay, then let me explain:
Your post was not appropriate, bottom line, but I would not have taken action if it had not been reported by a third party (i.e. not flymike and not an active thread participant). I [snipped] rather than handing out an infraction, which I anticipated that another moderator might have handed out.. and I did so specifically to beat any other moderator to the infraction button.
Once a post is reported, it's lit up like a beacon.. like a candle to a moderator moth.. and it's up for grabs by any moderator. So I needed to do something to save you the infraction, and that's what I did.
If this is not to your liking, let me know. I can revert your post to its original and re-flag it for another moderator to come and take whatever action he feels is appropriate. You decide.
Oops.. not been paying close attention. Cool!
Tristan, is there a calculable optimal AFR per throttle/rev? If so, it might be interesting - or even more visually useful - to plot the AFR anomaly rather than just the mean data.
Dear god, shotglass, have you turned into a doomy naysaying troll in EVERY thread, or just the ones I've finished up subscribed to?
flymike, I think your revised statement is reasonable. It's very important to be able to separate out the politics and the science, specifically because this distinction (or lack of) is where things have gone wrong and because it's in the gap between the two that you can really find what's been happening over the last 2 decades.
Roy Spencer's blogged about the thing you're seeing. It's a must-read, I think, because he talks about the point at which science and politics collided (the formation of the IPCC) and gives his observations about how things have played out as a result.
Roy Spencer's blogged about the thing you're seeing. It's a must-read, I think, because he talks about the point at which science and politics collided (the formation of the IPCC) and gives his observations about how things have played out as a result.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG