<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for SoftestPawn's Weblog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Oh no, not another blog!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:06:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Cherry Slopes: Picking trends in temperature records by Arkadiusz Semczyszak</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/cherry-slopes-picking-trends-in-temperature-records/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Arkadiusz Semczyszak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=319#comment-130</guid>
		<description>Trends - any length of time for counting the trend, should have a scientific basis - it’s fact. Application of the IPCC trends - as shown in the figure here (Figure IPCC from 2007) - 100, 50, 25 years has no scientific justification. 150 years has a weak justification - the beginning of industrialization, but it distorts reality (GHG anthropogenic really count, after only since circa 30 years).
Why not 25; 50; 100; 150 years? 
This ignores the major climate cycles such as AMO, CTH. 150 years is circa 2.5 AMO cycle, 100 - 1.5 cycle. How can we, in fact, combine &quot;means&quot; cycles of the &quot;ends&quot;, as does the IPCC? For 100 years - 1900-2000, (the graph of the IPCC) to give it even 0.03 degree C overstated trend (per decade) ...
Let us therefore start AMO + PDO - for 120 (1880 - 2000) and 60 years (1940 - 2000) trends (never 100 or 50)it’s all right, and then let us be known as &quot;chaotic variation&quot; - the other circulation of minor, volcanic aerosols - forcing them ... 
And all the skeptics are not thrown into one bag - like the Open Mind. 
Because it&#039;s disgusting ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trends &#8211; any length of time for counting the trend, should have a scientific basis &#8211; it’s fact. Application of the IPCC trends &#8211; as shown in the figure here (Figure IPCC from 2007) &#8211; 100, 50, 25 years has no scientific justification. 150 years has a weak justification &#8211; the beginning of industrialization, but it distorts reality (GHG anthropogenic really count, after only since circa 30 years).<br />
Why not 25; 50; 100; 150 years?<br />
This ignores the major climate cycles such as AMO, CTH. 150 years is circa 2.5 AMO cycle, 100 &#8211; 1.5 cycle. How can we, in fact, combine &#8220;means&#8221; cycles of the &#8220;ends&#8221;, as does the IPCC? For 100 years &#8211; 1900-2000, (the graph of the IPCC) to give it even 0.03 degree C overstated trend (per decade) &#8230;<br />
Let us therefore start AMO + PDO &#8211; for 120 (1880 &#8211; 2000) and 60 years (1940 &#8211; 2000) trends (never 100 or 50)it’s all right, and then let us be known as &#8220;chaotic variation&#8221; &#8211; the other circulation of minor, volcanic aerosols &#8211; forcing them &#8230;<br />
And all the skeptics are not thrown into one bag &#8211; like the Open Mind.<br />
Because it&#8217;s disgusting &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on STAB Stops by softestpawn</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/stab-stops/#comment-127</link>
		<dc:creator>softestpawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=613#comment-127</guid>
		<description>I may have jumped the gun a bit; the TA may not have been performing well enough to be worth it (though I don&#039;t know how that was evaluated - it&#039;s not enough to just say that only some tip up to ops). And there might be a large scale general reorg going on, based on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6819344.ece&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Operation Entirety&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I may have jumped the gun a bit; the TA may not have been performing well enough to be worth it (though I don&#8217;t know how that was evaluated &#8211; it&#8217;s not enough to just say that only some tip up to ops). And there might be a large scale general reorg going on, based on <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6819344.ece" rel="nofollow">Operation Entirety</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on STAB Stops by Stewart Boughtflower</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/stab-stops/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Boughtflower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=613#comment-126</guid>
		<description>The difficulty of rebuilding those core skills, attitude and capacity from six months of inactivity pale in to (not quite) insignifigance in the face of the very real idea that;

Some people in the TA do it for &#039;the buzz&#039; or &#039;the craic&#039;.  If the TA just sort of stops for six months then they will go elsewhere for their fix.  Football team loyalty is arguably similar to unit loyalty.  There is a lot of football in the UK, operating on a lot of levels.  

Alternatively some in the TA have become used to the renumeration and will just either work longer hours at their regular jobs or take another &#039;second career&#039;.

Those who are motivated by public service might become retained firemen, special constables, St John&#039;s Ambulance volunteers/NHS ambulance service community first responders.  

Unless the TA is actually there, people will walk and those that do are much less likely to return when the MoD opens for business again in six months time.  Keeping TACs open for social occasions during the period won&#039;t cut the mustard either.

There are NRPS who look after a lot of the big/heavy kit.  These people will still have to be employed, along with PSIs, LECs and so on who run the TA when the TA themselves are not there.  All of those costs will still have to be covered; So it&#039;s not like the entirity of TAVR expenditure will actually be turned off for six months - only the bit that directly supports Operations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The difficulty of rebuilding those core skills, attitude and capacity from six months of inactivity pale in to (not quite) insignifigance in the face of the very real idea that;</p>
<p>Some people in the TA do it for &#8216;the buzz&#8217; or &#8216;the craic&#8217;.  If the TA just sort of stops for six months then they will go elsewhere for their fix.  Football team loyalty is arguably similar to unit loyalty.  There is a lot of football in the UK, operating on a lot of levels.  </p>
<p>Alternatively some in the TA have become used to the renumeration and will just either work longer hours at their regular jobs or take another &#8217;second career&#8217;.</p>
<p>Those who are motivated by public service might become retained firemen, special constables, St John&#8217;s Ambulance volunteers/NHS ambulance service community first responders.  </p>
<p>Unless the TA is actually there, people will walk and those that do are much less likely to return when the MoD opens for business again in six months time.  Keeping TACs open for social occasions during the period won&#8217;t cut the mustard either.</p>
<p>There are NRPS who look after a lot of the big/heavy kit.  These people will still have to be employed, along with PSIs, LECs and so on who run the TA when the TA themselves are not there.  All of those costs will still have to be covered; So it&#8217;s not like the entirity of TAVR expenditure will actually be turned off for six months &#8211; only the bit that directly supports Operations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Fool on 4 by Stewart Boughtflower</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/fool-on-4/#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Boughtflower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:55:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=586#comment-123</guid>
		<description>Given the particular naunces of the situation, I think you&#039;re right on the money here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given the particular naunces of the situation, I think you&#8217;re right on the money here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When there is no evidence by softestpawn</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/noevidence/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>softestpawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=458#comment-121</guid>
		<description>And he would have deserved it</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And he would have deserved it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on When there is no evidence by Stewart Boughtflower</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/noevidence/#comment-120</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Boughtflower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:17:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=458#comment-120</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d have punched the mathematician.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d have punched the mathematician.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Equality Mistrust by Stewart Boughtflower</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/the-equality-mistrust/#comment-115</link>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Boughtflower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=486#comment-115</guid>
		<description>Knee jerk reaction:

People are obviously not equal.  Neither in nature nor nuture.

Some are smarter, healthier, faster and so on than others.  Some are brought up pious, some criminal, some hardworking, some idle, some questioning, some receptive, some dogmatic, some altrustic and some violent.  Most are self centred to a large degree.

Attempts to provide equality of opportunity are laudable and arguably morally right. Equality of Opportunity will not result in greater equality in 1st world societies; because people just are not equal.  

For any chance of equality on the level the ET seems to be alluding to, all people within their sample (the entirity of society) would have to share a selfless, collectivist moral and philosophical standpoint.  Some persons are too self centred to give up their every advantage for the sake of societies wasters, no hopers and ne&#039;erdowells.  Some people lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the morality and philosophy required.  I do not want my hard work to be wasted on evil persons and so on.  I know that this morally weak in and of itself; but there you are.  Given the diversity in our ever expanding population, equality has, for me at least, ceased to be a laudible goal.  Not least because it is blatantly unachievable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Knee jerk reaction:</p>
<p>People are obviously not equal.  Neither in nature nor nuture.</p>
<p>Some are smarter, healthier, faster and so on than others.  Some are brought up pious, some criminal, some hardworking, some idle, some questioning, some receptive, some dogmatic, some altrustic and some violent.  Most are self centred to a large degree.</p>
<p>Attempts to provide equality of opportunity are laudable and arguably morally right. Equality of Opportunity will not result in greater equality in 1st world societies; because people just are not equal.  </p>
<p>For any chance of equality on the level the ET seems to be alluding to, all people within their sample (the entirity of society) would have to share a selfless, collectivist moral and philosophical standpoint.  Some persons are too self centred to give up their every advantage for the sake of societies wasters, no hopers and ne&#8217;erdowells.  Some people lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the morality and philosophy required.  I do not want my hard work to be wasted on evil persons and so on.  I know that this morally weak in and of itself; but there you are.  Given the diversity in our ever expanding population, equality has, for me at least, ceased to be a laudible goal.  Not least because it is blatantly unachievable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cautiously Approaching the Precautionary Approach by softestpawn</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/cautiously-approaching-the-precautionary-approach/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator>softestpawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:03:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=279#comment-110</guid>
		<description>Heh, I know I tend to go on about climate change, but my critique is meant to be broader than that and apply to the general case. I think your take on other aspects of it - or what it is perceived to be - also show that it&#039;s not very useful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh, I know I tend to go on about climate change, but my critique is meant to be broader than that and apply to the general case. I think your take on other aspects of it &#8211; or what it is perceived to be &#8211; also show that it&#8217;s not very useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cautiously Approaching the Precautionary Approach by Martin  Locock</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/cautiously-approaching-the-precautionary-approach/#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin  Locock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=279#comment-109</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve looked at the same question from a more managerial approach on my blog &lt;a href=&quot;http://locock.blogspot.com/2009/08/you-can-be-too-careful-when.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A few words&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve looked at the same question from a more managerial approach on my blog <a href="http://locock.blogspot.com/2009/08/you-can-be-too-careful-when.html" rel="nofollow">A few words</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Even Sterile Seeds Are Better Than Natural Seeds by Cautiously Approaching the Precautionary Approach &#171; SoftestPawn&#8217;s Weblog</title>
		<link>http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/sterile-seeds-are-better-than-nature/#comment-107</link>
		<dc:creator>Cautiously Approaching the Precautionary Approach &#171; SoftestPawn&#8217;s Weblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:17:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://softestpawn.wordpress.com/?p=228#comment-107</guid>
		<description>[...] Even Sterile Seeds Are Better Than Natural&#160;Seeds [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Even Sterile Seeds Are Better Than Natural&nbsp;Seeds [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
