GOOD.is
GOOD is a collaboration of individuals, businesses, and nonprofits pushing the world forward. Get involved.
About 13strong
13strong is a Aimless Wanderer living in UK.
- Member since: 2008
On February 26, 2009 13strong Discussed
Will We Legislate Climate Change Action? Follow the Money.
- and said:
That’s a picture (on the main page) of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, weirdly.
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
700+ comments! Why are any of you still commenting? This issue is too big and complicated to discuss properly with this many people on such a limited space (though most of you seem uninterested in actual debate). This is like a swarm of tiny egos.
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
I suggest GOOD close the comments on this article. It has been linked to on this climate change sceptics website: http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?tid=23 which presumably is where all these guys are coming from, with their not-at-all krank-like opinions. This is just gonna be a shit storm until these weirdos find somewhere else to rant and rave.
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
God, I’d love to see what happens with an article about Peak Oil.
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
Jesus, where did all these ignorant, one-track people come from? I’ve never seen so many comments, or so much utter ignorancy and wilful stupidity on the Good comments.GOOD Editors – any idea where all these people came from?
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
WHOA. What the hell happened here? When I last looked there were 10 comments…
On February 17, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
Anonymous:<p>I did read the article. What do you think I’m commenting on? I’m not simply a knee-jerk ACC defender. 99% of the relevant scientific community agrees on the basic premise that gases produced by humans (CO2, methane, nitrogen, etc etc) are causing rapid climate change. I am willing to listen to those who criticise the scientfic status quo on this, but that is not what Coleman is doing. He’s picking at the culture surrounding climate change science and society, choosing easy targets such as “the media”, Al Gore, celebrities and “liberals”, rather than actually discussing the science which, I would wager, he doesn’t fully understand.<p>For a full consideration of the climate change dissenters in the scientific community, try <i>The Deniers</i>, by Lawrence Solomon (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/16/kevin-kelly-reviews.html) but bear in mind that it represents the scientific views of about 1% of the relevant researchers.
On February 16, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
He’s 100% right about WHAT, Francis? He doesn’t even make any actual, scientific claims.
On February 16, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the point of this article. Coleman comes out with patronising and ludicrous criticisms of anthropogenic climate change studies and conclusions, picks on the usual easy targets (celebrities, politicians, Al Gore, “liberals”, etc) and otherwise talks about his personal past.He in no way undermines the general consensus on climate change directly. He doesn’t cite any studies or evidence to back up his claims. Instead, he blathers away about a “climate of fear” propogated by the media. It’s always the media.Ignore, of course, the fact that the petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine had an absurdly broad understanding of what constitutes a “scientist” (31,000 “scientists” and only 9,000 with PhDs, and even those unconfirmed?), while the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was authored by 620 meteorology experts, and reviewed by hundreds more.Here’s a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_BasisSo I ask again, what was the point of this article?
13strong has not posted anything yet.
On April 3, 2009 13strong Discussed
A Look at Jamie Oliver’s Fancy G20 Meal
- and said:
I read about this already – sounds nice. And you know if Jamie is doing it, he’s doing it really, really well. He gets a fair amount of flack, but I suspect part of that is the traditional British resentment of successful peope, because he’s a great cook and his recipes, which I use regularly, are fantastic.Not wanting to jump on the “LOOK UP BRITISH ISLES IN THE DICTIONARY” bandwagon, but please sort it out. As someone said above, what actually annoys the Scots and Irish the most is people using “England” and “Britain” synonymously.On the Irish Soda Bread thing, there’s been a lot of Irish immigration to mainland Britain in our history, and it’s just common sense to recognise the impact that the Irish have had on the culture of mainland Britain. I doubt you’d be complaining Jamie Oliver had included an Indian or Pakistani influenced dish.
On February 26, 2009 13strong Discussed
Will We Legislate Climate Change Action? Follow the Money.
- and said:
That’s a picture (on the main page) of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, weirdly.
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
700+ comments! Why are any of you still commenting? This issue is too big and complicated to discuss properly with this many people on such a limited space (though most of you seem uninterested in actual debate). This is like a swarm of tiny egos.
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
I suggest GOOD close the comments on this article. It has been linked to on this climate change sceptics website: http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?tid=23 which presumably is where all these guys are coming from, with their not-at-all krank-like opinions. This is just gonna be a shit storm until these weirdos find somewhere else to rant and rave.
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
God, I’d love to see what happens with an article about Peak Oil.
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
Jesus, where did all these ignorant, one-track people come from? I’ve never seen so many comments, or so much utter ignorancy and wilful stupidity on the Good comments.GOOD Editors – any idea where all these people came from?
On February 19, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
WHOA. What the hell happened here? When I last looked there were 10 comments…
On February 17, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
Anonymous:<p>I did read the article. What do you think I’m commenting on? I’m not simply a knee-jerk ACC defender. 99% of the relevant scientific community agrees on the basic premise that gases produced by humans (CO2, methane, nitrogen, etc etc) are causing rapid climate change. I am willing to listen to those who criticise the scientfic status quo on this, but that is not what Coleman is doing. He’s picking at the culture surrounding climate change science and society, choosing easy targets such as “the media”, Al Gore, celebrities and “liberals”, rather than actually discussing the science which, I would wager, he doesn’t fully understand.<p>For a full consideration of the climate change dissenters in the scientific community, try <i>The Deniers</i>, by Lawrence Solomon (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/16/kevin-kelly-reviews.html) but bear in mind that it represents the scientific views of about 1% of the relevant researchers.
On February 16, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
He’s 100% right about WHAT, Francis? He doesn’t even make any actual, scientific claims.
On February 16, 2009 13strong Discussed
You Don’t Need a Weatherman
- and said:
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the point of this article. Coleman comes out with patronising and ludicrous criticisms of anthropogenic climate change studies and conclusions, picks on the usual easy targets (celebrities, politicians, Al Gore, “liberals”, etc) and otherwise talks about his personal past.He in no way undermines the general consensus on climate change directly. He doesn’t cite any studies or evidence to back up his claims. Instead, he blathers away about a “climate of fear” propogated by the media. It’s always the media.Ignore, of course, the fact that the petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine had an absurdly broad understanding of what constitutes a “scientist” (31,000 “scientists” and only 9,000 with PhDs, and even those unconfirmed?), while the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was authored by 620 meteorology experts, and reviewed by hundreds more.Here’s a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_BasisSo I ask again, what was the point of this article?
13strong has not GOODmarked anything yet.
I read about this already – sounds nice. And you know if Jamie is doing it, he’s doing it really, really well. He gets a fair amount of flack, but I suspect part of that is the traditional British resentment of successful peope, because he’s a great cook and his recipes, which I use regularly, are fantastic.Not wanting to jump on the “LOOK UP BRITISH ISLES IN THE DICTIONARY” bandwagon, but please sort it out. As someone said above, what actually annoys the Scots and Irish the most is people using “England” and “Britain” synonymously.On the Irish Soda Bread thing, there’s been a lot of Irish immigration to mainland Britain in our history, and it’s just common sense to recognise the impact that the Irish have had on the culture of mainland Britain. I doubt you’d be complaining Jamie Oliver had included an Indian or Pakistani influenced dish.