I went the VERY first week it opened, with a nephew of the owner. I heard the entire story from the dream, the boat and the restaurant vision. I WANTED to like it because he was family to my friend. However, but and despite that, the fried shrimp was way overcooked, the sweet tea, was lifeless nondescript brown water. I have since been back twice once with someone who just had to try it, in July at night. Tepid tea, burnt fish, and marinating in my own juices, and the previous diner at my seat. Another time to see if anything had improved, which during this experience I left after being ignored by the "wait" staff, for 20 minutes despite sitting in their path to the "deck" diners. Along with Hymans, this place is the WORST seafood in Chucktown. Now I have only lived here for 33 years, so I may not know every restaurant in the CHS area, but to get here you have to pass numerous "tourist traps" that server marginally better fare. Anyone supporting this "establishment" on this forum has either ulterior motives, or absolutely no concept of the foodie scene in CHS. They probably frequent the Okra Grill and Cracker Barrel for a good night out. IMHO.
A Ruling of the British High Court Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
The decision by the British Government to distribute Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
8. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7 m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
9. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government was unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Also, the Court's interim ruling included the following:
1. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
2. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
Here is another website for your consideration:
Just a few more quotes:
"I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ... I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have"
"So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that 'something else' is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being 'warmer' than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates"
"Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period."
The code for the computer climate models was freely manipulated in order to force the desired results. Despite their best efforts, the programmers could never get these programs to run properly, occasionally producing nonsensical results. And the data sets used by these programs were clearly in a hopeless state. Here are samples of some of the code comments left by the programmers:
"stop in 1960 to avoid the decline"
"stop in 1940 to avoid the decline"
"but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!"
"and already I have that familiar Twilight Zone sensation."
"this renders the station counts totally meaningless."
"Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"
"As we can see, even I'm cocking it up!"
"yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases"
"recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED"
"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
"artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline"
"we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400"
"It's botch after botch after botch."
"Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite."
"As far as I can see, this renders the [weather] station counts totally meaningless."
"So what's going on? I don't see how the 'final' precip file can have been produced from the 'final' precipitation database, even though the dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04."
"You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO [World Meteorological Organization] codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..."
"OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases."
Also here is an interesting website on the actual observations vs the IPCC model. The graphs diverge greatly. What do you think?
Here is a graph showing 11k years of data, not "normalized" as Phil Jones, et al did at the CRU
BTW: E-mail file #942777075
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Phil Jones (Climatic Research Unit)
University of East Anglia
mat catastrophe and FCB - I posed a question, which did not require an ad hominem attack response, which is to clarify is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument. All I ask is to discuss difference openly and freely. The Moore website states correctly as FCB pointed out. The IPCC leaked email support the statements by Moore:
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
"…Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…"
Oh and I wish I were a paid to offer my opinions and thoughts. instead i am quiet thinker and researcher and I'd love to share a beer and duck fat fries with you at the Tattoed Moose anytime, my treat, as I too work for living.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper