Horizon

[Arkle]

When did it become good again? Last week's was very good and tonight's about the science of pain is excellent television.

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Originally Posted by Arkle

When did it become good again? Last week's was very good and tonight's about the science of pain is excellent television.

Since I tortured the editor

[Windypants]

Last week's was very good

I can't remember if the one where dodgy Professor What'shisface spent an hour being deliberately and consciously misleading about climate science was last week's, on the basis that it might have been, I'm curious as to what you thought was 'good' about last week's Horizon. It was one of the most unscientific and showboating attempts to mis-direct opinion that the increasingly politicised Horizon has punted at us under the guise of this being scientific documentary.

For someone who was advocating the pursuit of the scientific method and the stringency of testing theories to destruction, Professor What'shisface was appallingly unscientific, one eyed and provided no stringency to his arguments. One of the most glaring example was the hilarious scenario where they were discussing the correlation between tree rings and temperature, but no-one pointed out that, since people have been mapping tree rings against recorded temperature, they don't correlate, but that this didn't result in even a review of the dendrochronolgy and temperature correlation theory. Call me picky, but if the data you have in terms of a verifiable comparison doesn't match up, this has to call into question your theories and extrapolations of data that doesn't have a recorded temperature baseline. Just saying.

Also, the programme was full of flawed analogies masquerading as scientific evidence like the NASA climate model, which has a history of having to be regularly reset as it tends to boil the planet or create an ice age if left to it's own devices, yet this was held up as a shining example of how brilliant the scientific modelling of climate is.

Please do not assume by this that I am in any way some sort of global warming denier or the like, I'm AGW agnostic, so am quite keen that the science being done is proper science and that it is properly represented and presented.

Didn't watch the Pain one, have it sky +ed, will watch tomorrow, although not hopeful.

P.S. We should paint all the roofs white for the low cost solution, if there is a problem, sod everything else, white rooves equals lots of reflected heat. As I am massively ITK about science, this is by far the easiest and cheapest solution to any global warming problem. It also has very few downsides; other than the price of paint might go up once it becomes our principal weapon in the fight against global warming.

Apologies for the long and probably boring post.

Fuck! meant to put a smiley after ITK, but didn't. Please imagine a smiley after ITK in my previous post.

[ravydavygravy]

Originally Posted by Windypants

P.S. We should paint all the roofs white for the low cost solution, if there is a problem, sod everything else, white rooves equals lots of reflected heat. As I am massively ITK about science, this is by far the easiest and cheapest solution to any global warming problem. It also has very few downsides; other than the price of paint might go up once it becomes our principal weapon in the fight against global warming.

I thought dendroclimatology was pretty watertight? Anyhoo..

I thought CO2 stopped radiation escaping the atmosphere - rendering your white roof theory a bit dud?

[Windypants]

Eh, wtf?

Erm no, most energy coming if from the Sun isn't absorbed by 'greenhouse' gases as it's the wrong wavelength. If you reflect this energy, then it doesn't get absorbed by the 'greenhouse' gases. It's only when the energy is absorbed by the planet and then emitted as IR that it is the correct wavelength for 'greenhouse' gas absorption.

Re. dendrochronology and it's mutant bastard offspring... the mapping of tree rings as a measure of temperature doesn't correlate when you apply known tree rings against known temperature. This could be due to cooler, but wetter, years and warmer, drier years resulting in similar growth patterns. Until the anomaly where the recorded data cannot be resolved is rationalised, there is a significant question against this as a valid data source.

[Floyd]

Originally Posted by Windypants

I can't remember if the one where dodgy Professor What'shisface spent an hour being deliberately and consciously misleading about climate science was last week's, on the basis that it might have been, I'm curious as to what you thought was 'good' about last week's Horizon. It was one of the most unscientific and showboating attempts to mis-direct opinion that the increasingly politicised Horizon has punted at us under the guise of this being scientific documentary.

Great post (pearls before the global warming alarmist swine on here I'm afraid). the "dodgy Professor" is Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, well dodgy as it happens because he is an expert in genetics, not climatology. Haven't seen the two episodes in the original post but Horizon's been rubbish for a good few years now, there's an excellent dissemination and damning critique of the global warming episode here though, so it would appear that little has changed: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...e-science.html

Re your comments on the scientific method, the leaked emails from the CRU show how blatantly it has been denigrated, usurped and rode roughshod over by the warming alarmists. It's quite amazing how their preposterous junk science can still be thought of as the "consensus".

[alzeebub]

This needs a bump purely for that fantastic post by Windypants.

[Arkle]

Originally Posted by Floyd

Great post (pearls before the global warming alarmist swine on here I'm afraid). the "dodgy Professor" is Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, well dodgy as it happens because he is an expert in genetics, not climatology. Haven't seen the two episodes in the original post but Horizon's been rubbish for a good few years now, there's an excellent dissemination and damning critique of the global warming episode here though, so it would appear that little has changed: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...e-science.html

Re your comments on the scientific method, the leaked emails from the CRU show how blatantly it has been denigrated, usurped and rode roughshod over by the warming alarmists. It's quite amazing how their preposterous junk science can still be thought of as the "consensus".

That's why I'm asking when it got good again. I've not watched it for years.

As for last week's episode, you're right that Sir Paul Nurse isn't a climate change expert but last week's Horizon wasn't about climate change (although it was the only subject covered that seems to have registered for a lot of people). It was about the increasing distance between scientists and the general public and the causes of this. Climate change was featured (as it had to be), as was GM food and HIV.

As it happens, I thought last night's episode took a down turn in the second half.

[Windypants]

That's why I'm asking when it got good again. I've not watched it for years.

As for last week's episode, you're right that Sir Paul Nurse isn't a climate change expert but last week's Horizon wasn't about climate change (although it was the only subject covered that seems to have registered for a lot of people). It was about the increasing distance between scientists and the general public and the causes of this. Climate change was featured (as it had to be), as was GM food and HIV.

As it happens, I thought last night's episode took a down turn in the second half.

But it hasn't got good, that's the point. The only reason that GM food and the bloke with the somewhat bizarre take on AIDS were included was in an attempt to marginalise anyone who questions AGW by lumping it in with some fairly 'innovative' perceptions then saying 'these people are nutters, just like the people who express doubts about AGW' - an attempt to discredit by (tenuous) association.

Despite the title, this programme wasn't about science becoming detached and distrusted, it was an attempt to validate AGW science by using some very suspect processes.

[Arkle]

Originally Posted by Windypants

But it hasn't got good, that's the point. The only reason that GM food and the bloke with the somewhat bizarre take on AIDS were included was in an attempt to marginalise anyone who questions AGW by lumping it in with some fairly 'innovative' perceptions then saying 'these people are nutters, just like the people who express doubts about AGW' - an attempt to discredit by (tenuous) association.

Despite the title, this programme wasn't about science becoming detached and distrusted, it was an attempt to validate AGW science by using some very suspect processes.

That would be your opinion and the opinion voiced in the Telegraph article Floyd linked to above. Mine, as someone who works in science, is that it was a program which set out to do what it said in the title. Incidentally, the author of the Telegraph article is a supporter of intelligent design (and, somewhat oddly, a believer that white asbestos isn't harmful).

I'm undecided on climate change and mans' effect on it BTW but I tend to think that most of the suggested "cures" for it are beneficial for the general health of the planet.