Topics about a single subject's Daily Mail experience
:sunglasses: 57.1 % ❤ 14.3 % :grinning: 14.3 % :cry: 14.3 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By ezinra
Membership Days Posts
#242507
I listened to it, and was astonished by the patience and good humour of the interviewee. The questions were the kind you'd expect on a webchat — narcissistic (look at me the clever interviewer), lowest common denominator, and failing to pick up on or take forward anything the interviewee said. Might as well have got Ali G to do it, at least he makes jokes.

Today has a specialist interviewer for the business segment and, for some reason, sport. It desperately needs one for science, because not only Humphries but also Naughtie and Sarah Montague are way out of their depth. I don't know much about science, but with interviews like this morning's I don't learn anything either — it just bogs down in a tedious non-debate about whether science is more scientific than corporate propaganda and woo.
#242514
Humphrys detests science and scientists, he sees it as beneath his lofty intellect. He is an arts person, a wordsmith and a legend in his own bodice. Or a total, aged, ossified twatbasket - you choose.
By Hallucigenia
Membership Days
#242814
Big Rob wrote:
shit for brains wrote:You can't absolutely prove, can you, that CO2 is responsible for global warming?'
Where do you go from there?
You go for a drink and a sit down.

But, from a scientific perspective, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and *is* one of the molecules that helps keep earth as warm as it is, is as close to 'absolutely proven' as you can get in science.

The question he should have asked is "You can't absolutely prove, can you, that CO2 released by human activity is responsible for the enhanced global warming effects we are currently measuring?"
By Coupled Moment
Membership Days
#242819
Hallucigenia wrote:The question he should have asked is "You can't absolutely prove, can you, that CO2 released by human activity is responsible for the enhanced global warming effects we are currently measuring?"
It still wouldn't have been all that much of a question, though. If we take carbon dioxide being a warming agent as a given and the enhanced warming effects as a given it seems difficult to argue that human activity isn't having an effect. That's why denialists tend to argue at more fundamental levels (it isn't happening/ it isn't caused by carbon dioxide (or methane, or whatever)) because their position just looks ludicrous if those things are accepted.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#242825
I'm reading "The Geek Manifesto" at the moment, it's unsurprising and a little scary that there's only one scientist MP, and a similar dearth of scientists among top line journalists.

This sounds almost on a par with Jeremy Whine covering the Higgs Boson, and asking 'layman' (aka fucking stupid) questions. My favourite exchange went a bit like this:

Whine: But couldn't all this expertise and money be better spent on, say, curing cancer?

Scientist: For starters I'm a physicist, so quite what use I'd be trying to cure cancer is debatable. Second, a by-product of CERN has been the MRI scanner, so yes, we have contributed quite a bit to combatting cancer.
By Big Rob
#243055
Climate change deniers are not even that good at hiding their motives. The argument tends to fall down to, "We cannot afford to give up burning fossil fuels because that would impact our lives".

As if global warming cares or has an opinion on whether we continue to burn fossil fuels or not.
By Big Rob
#243057
Coupled Moment wrote: It still wouldn't have been all that much of a question, though. If we take carbon dioxide being a warming agent as a given and the enhanced warming effects as a given it seems difficult to argue that human activity isn't having an effect. That's why denialists tend to argue at more fundamental levels (it isn't happening/ it isn't caused by carbon dioxide (or methane, or whatever)) because their position just looks ludicrous if those things are accepted.
It takes a basic understand of calculus understand that something is different about this warming to previous warming/cooling episodes.

The rate of warming is unprecedented.
By smod
Membership Days Posts
#245412
The big thaw: NASA scientists stunned as satellite pictures show 'unprecedented' melting of Greenland's ice sheet

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z21esQqJdu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Top rated comments:
The way these results are presented is grossly misleading. The suggestion to the casual reader is that the red area on the second map (almost the whole) has become denuded of ice. This is wrong. Actually the red area is the area over which SOME melting has occurred this summer, even one millimeter. More ridiculous alarmism.

- Thomas Goodey, Comanesti, Romania, 25/7/2012 8:00 126
ICE MELTS IN SUMMER! Hold the front page

- Paul, Barnsley, UK, 25/7/2012 8:26 115
Yet,
The expert recalled noticing that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12 while analysing data from the Indian Space Research Organisation's Oceansat-2 satellite.

Results from other satellites confirmed the findings. Melt maps drawn up showed that on July 8 about 40 per cent of the ice sheet's surface had melted, rising to 97 per cent four days later.

Until now, the most extensive melt seen by satellites in the past 30 years was about 55 per cent.

The news comes just days after NASA satellite imagery showed that a massive iceberg twice the size of Manhattan had broken off the Petermann Glacier in Greenland.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/20 ... 01478.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
#246457
Big Rob wrote:An aside from the mail......

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
Various anti-AGW groups who said they'd go along with the findings of the BEST study (including delusions-of-grandeur US TV weatherman Tony Watts) are already backtracking now that it has served up answers they don't like and in an entirely open manner. Watts's reasoning is particularly stupid - he says it's flawed because it looks at a longer time period. A factor that, if anything, would skew the results on average towards the non-AGW crowd.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#246559
ICE MELTS IN SUMMER! Hold the front page

- Paul, Barnsley, UK, 25/7/2012 8:26
To be fair to Paul of Barnsley, some experts have shown themselves unable to distinguish between winter and summer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ebook.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He even did a graph to try and look clever:

Image
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#246561
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Humphrys detests science and scientists, he sees it as beneath his lofty intellect. He is an arts person, a wordsmith and a legend in his own bodice. Or a total, aged, ossified twatbasket - you choose.
brilliant stuff!!

And he became so clever without going to university, don't you know?
By Big Rob
#246600
I read an article by Johnny "Think of a Number" Ball who said that climate denying scientists' voices were being drowned out. He even said he did some "sums" regarding renewable energy versus fossil fuels. He said the figures did not add up.

He has an 'O' level in mathematics and an 'O' level in Geography to his name.
  • 1
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 49

I wonder if Saika Ali and husband Muazzam is a c[…]

Labour, Generally.

Could we rein back the childish insults? Watso[…]

The Trump Presidency

It's just not shocking anymore - which, I suppose […]

Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn has not advocated for hard brexit th[…]