Well, I don't know about that myself, but there is one fact taken from fossil records, we have all been here before as a planet, whether it be due to volcanoes or whatever, and thus the world survived that, but we were not around at the time, so surely with our oft over blown confidence, lets get down to mitigation whatever the reason. Why hide things?
Brian
Money, Brian.
Qui bono?
Frankly speaking, I was appalled at the programme's makers. Most of what the interviewee was saying was about her scientific life, not necessarily defending any controversial view that that her scientific life might have been involved in, but a description of how she got where she has and what it meant to her. I feel that the programme's makers couldn't help larding in dismissive stuff about 'climate change deniers' where it simply wasn't needed and wasn't particularly relevant.
I suppose I should listen to it myself, but I have to say I have found the "The Life Scientific" exceeding dull listening on the few occasions I've tried to pay attention.
Mmm. I'd suggest that a more likely scenario was that they thought it might attract more listeners if they played up a "controversy!" angle. After all, Harry Potter has little to do with the science of invisibilty cloaking, but they nevertheless drag HP in almost without exception - because it is the current popular invisibilty cliche, and attracts attention. Of course, us scientists also know the power of a fully operational Harry Potter reference. :-)
#Paul
I've actually examined the Vostok ice core "Deuterium Concentrations and Temperature Reconstructions" data, Petit, J.R., et al., 2001, ...
... to get a ball-park idea if natural post ice-age warming really could be having an effect. The results are in the following spreadsheet ...
... but for the lazy are summarised below:
Muller's 259 year result Fraction of: 1/4 1/2 1 (259 yrs): 0.375 0.75 1.5 (annual): 0.001447876 0.002895753 0.005791506 # >: 2021 1353 581 Percentage: 61% 41% 18%
Muller's 60 year result Fraction of: 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 (60 yrs): 0.1125 0.225 0.45 0.9 (annual): 0.00188 0.0038 0.0075 0.015 # >: 1772 1037 368 83 Percentage: 54% 31% 11% 3%
So, while it is not impossible that all Muller et alia's results could be expla>
Please tell us the name of this "proper scientist". I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the thread.
...
The fun bit is when you get a telephone call, out of the blue, from a national newspaper with about 20 minutes to deadline on a breaking story they need background on.
Colin Bignell
Joanna Haigh, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Imperial College, London.
Bear in mind the format of The Life Scientific is biographical. The science they have done/doing is not discussed in any great detail. I find them sort of interesting but hard going.
Discovery and Science in Action on the BBC World Service are science programmes about the science, most of the time. The recent two parter about SARS was more "human interest" but still a good couple of programmes. Click (on the radio) is good for "tech". I've not listened to enough Health Check's to know what they are like. There is also a summary programme Science Hour that pulls the "best bits" from that four, not listened to that but as I regularly listen to all of them apart from Health Check it might be a bit repetative. B-)
Why are these interesting science programmes on the World Service and not Radio 4? Podcasts are great...
I thought as much. She's just one of the relatively few climate alarmist sc ientists. Anyone who calls sceptics "deniers" is not worth reading or liste ning to, and nor is the BBC and IPCC. If the latter are to be quoted here, allow me to quote some of the views about Haigh:
uk.d-i-y is full of practical people, some of whom are highly qualified and experienced in a wide range of areas. Most of us know how to read a thermo meter and record the readings, and not to change those readings later to su it our arguments, like the IPCC has done. Most of us have noticed that the sea level is not rising to a significant extent. Sure there are some Pacifi c atolls that are sinking as they have done for thousands of years, while t he coral keeps up with the sea level change.
Said like a true denier!
[overlength line split with spurious intervening newlines] [overlength line split with spurious intervening newlines] [overlength line split with spurious intervening newlines] [overlength line split with spurious intervening newlines] [overlength line split with spurious intervening newlines] [overlength line split] [overlength line split] alarmist scientists. Anyone who calls sceptics "deniers" is not worth [overlength line split] reading or listening to, and nor is the BBC and IPCC. If the latter [overlength line split] are to be quoted here, allow me to quote some of the views about [overlength line split] Haigh: [overlength line split] [overlength line split] prof-joanna-haigh-attempts-to-fool-telegraph-readers-about-boris- [overlength line split] johnsons-climate-views/ [overlength line split] propagandic.html#comments [overlength line split] of-errors/ [overlength line split] qualified and experienced in a wide range of areas. Most of us know [overlength line split] how to read a thermometer and record the readings, and not to change [overlength line split] those readings later to suit our arguments, like the IPCC has done. [overlength line split] Most of us have noticed that the sea level is not rising to a [overlength line split] significant extent. Sure there are some Pacific atolls that are [overlength line split] sinking as they have done for thousands of years, while the coral [overlength line split] keeps up with the sea level change. [overlength line split]
Now that I can read it, I see that it wasn't worth all that effort - usual unscientific climate change denials by those for whom it has become an 'alternative religion' - rather like the so-called druids who gather at Stonehenge every Summer Solstice and who claim to be part of a tradition going right back to pre-historic times, but in fact all the archaeological evidence suggests that they all gather there at the wrong, exactly opposite, time of year!
Oh, and BTW, you forgot to bring ley-lines into it somewhere.
If this seems a little cavalier and off-hand, there's a reason for that - there's nothing in any of those links that even deserves the compliment of anyone wasting their time to give a considered, scientific rebuttal.
I had a bizarre one of those once. A national newspaper calling to ask if
4711 Cologne was a cure for arthritis. "Someone", and I suspect that was one of their own reporters, had been arrested for drunk driving on the M6 near Sheffield. When plod got to the car the driver was swigging from a litre bottle of cologne.Plod suspected, correctly IMO, that he was trying to mask the reek of alcohol on his breath. He insisted that it was recommended by an osteopath as a cure for arthritis. Fortunately because it was medical I could decline to comment and passed it on to the registrar in the room next door. Listening to him laughing out loud was amusing.
Never saw the piece published which made me suspect that they were fishing for get-out clauses.
Single line paragraphs have been about for a long time and decent clients wrap them to the window size as required. Long gone is the requirement for line termination sequences at intervals less than 80 chracters to prevent the teletype printing a black blob at the end of a line.
As to what is inserting the double line spacing: google groups.
I was wondering if they were coming from mobile phones, or something similar. It seems Agent can't cope with them at all. I'll have a look in the settings though.
That's almost as bad, because it strings out the content and makes it harder to connect one line or paragraph with the next.
I read some of them, none being particularly incisive, since they tended rather towards the knee-jerk. I don't think that you pointing us to them does your position any credit.
#Paul
My position? I don't think that uk.d-i-y is the place for climate propaganda. If people like Tim Streater start off topic non-archived discussions I reserve the right to call his view bollocks.
It's not.
However, Tim was merely post>
That is not propaganda.
However, if this group is not the place for climate propaganda, by implication it is equally not the place for anti-climate-scientist propaganda, so your posting links to such crap makes you a hypocrite.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.