Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

tomo. I would like to see Dr Helen Caldicot interviewed by Jeremy Clarkson after he had been deprived of his steak dinner.

Apr 25, 2017 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

tomo I must have been living in a cave. The lady Dr Helen Caldicot has, until today, gone completely unnoticed by me. and yet what a busy, busy Aussi she has been, spawning anti-nuclear groups across the globe willi-nilli, some with acronyms that make you twitch. I read up on her on Wikki this afternoon, and the best thing for me was her spat with Moonbat. He claimed one of her many books lacked scientific content, and she, in turn, accused him of being duped by nuclear supporters propaganda just as others have by tobacco companies. This must have really struck home since Moonbat commonly levels this charge at climate change "deniers". Oh just desserts do come to those who wait!

Apr 25, 2017 at 4:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Stewgreen , Supertroll

Jim A-K + "A Life Scientific" huh?

I would pay for him to have Dr Helen Caldicot on the prog - she's really big on science she is....

I'd add that Jim Al Khalili does seem on occasion to actually insist on tech stuff in the scripts he delivers - unlike say the boy wundah from Manchester and Helen of the unpronounceable surname.

Apr 25, 2017 at 3:26 PM | Registered Commentertomo

Stewgreen. In defence of Al-Khalili, his programmes don't appear to be scripted and so he probably did not anticipate the comment about mammals not eating salt ( a more complete quote was that most mammals live away from the sea and none eats salt). Al-Khalili is a physicist and may not have considered salt licks. Even if he had, I suspect he would have let it go, not wishing to sacrifice losing too much time on what he might have considered an unimportant inaccuracy.

Generally I find Al-Khalili's programme a must listen to. Last week's was excellent with Liz Socett on a predatory bacterium. I was fascinated by this and contacted her with a question. I got a most pleasant and detailed reply within a few hours.

One change to the Al-Khalili programme I regret. Early programmes spent most of their time following the career of the interviewee, but now some programmes are devoted entirely to the science conducted by them -as was the case this week.

Apr 25, 2017 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

@Tomo that was a useful tweet someone had added to wheelybin's
That video is the old honest BBC

But doesn't suit the dieselsRpaedos narrative so is a bit suppressed.bet the maker's been wheeledin

Apr 25, 2017 at 3:25 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Sunday Politics Dec18th called out pollution hyperbola
Features Frew and Spiegelhalter
video

Apr 25, 2017 at 3:04 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@ST Yep that's the second time You and I have both called Alkhalili out for not picking up on his guests obvious flawed claims
I tweeted but got no reply
"@No2BS
Replying to @jimalkhalili
Graham MacGregor just said
"No mammal eats (extra) salt"
Salt Licks ?
And sea mammals must have high intake
@BbcRadio4 #LifeScientific
9:18 AM · Apr 25, 2017"
No one else commented. 30 praised the prog. Some calling it mythbusting.

Apr 25, 2017 at 2:24 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Supertroll

I invoked Helen Caldicott there as the parallels are clear - the repeated promulgation of untruths which aren't challenged by the interviewer.

A pal of mine (mildly) challenged the unhinged lady at a Hinckley Point public meeting where she selectively quoted from a UN report - with the actual conclusions from that report - her response was irrational raving, inconsistent and wildly exaggerated "facts" and claims of a "UN conspiracy".

When activists are prodded / challenged this is an all too familiar experience. The activists are careful to frame their position as "reasonable" and arrange their evidence - but get quite agitated and even aggressive when subject to challenge.

Apr 25, 2017 at 12:50 PM | Registered Commentertomo

tomo. Most of what Graham MacGregor had to say seemed reasonable with some of it backed by double-blind testing results. However, I couldn't unconditionally accept it because of the initial falsehood I previously mentioned. Crass stupidity on his part, all for a completely unnecessary (and easily demonstrably inaccurate) sound-bite.

Apr 25, 2017 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Wikibias
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
Yep they put "Climate Denial" in there
Clearly wrongly as skepticism isn't a theory.

Apr 25, 2017 at 12:17 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>