The researchers had a hunch he was there. ATOS pass Richard III’s skeleton as fit to work.
Joking aside, the discovery of Richard III’s body is fascinating and wonderful. Aside from Shakespeare’s brilliant play (which is evidently not as physically inaccurate as we have been told for years), and the question of who killed the Princes in the Tower, there is a romance about lost dynasties which appeals to a deep human yearning for a golden age when things were somehow better, and for “lost futures”. What might have been, had those evil Stanleys not turned on Richard at Bosworth and put their miserable Welsh accountant on the throne?
Richard is described in today’s newspapers as the last English King. The Plantagenets were of course Angevin. The last English King – indeed the only English King of all England – was Harold Godwinson. Now there’s a lost dynasty for you.
We now know that Richard’s “Claim of Right” was almost certainly true and Edward IV a bastard, as his father was nowhere near his mother for months around the purported conception. But the so-called Royal line is, I am quite sure, sprinkled with bastards and no line at all. Not to mention that George I was 39th in line to the throne when given it 300 years ago, but the first Protestant.
Monarchy is bollocks, and something we should have outgrown a long time ago. Nice to see that today’s Prince Harry retains the tradition of remorseless homicide though.
Leicester University deserve congratulations on a genuine achievement. I hope Richard can now be reburied as soon as possible – as a Catholic, which is what he was. He was a human being. The degradation and display of his fresh corpse were horrible; but there is a danger of repeating it with a po face and feigned serious intent.
Myself:
This message obviously is (cough) somewhat unpopular with parties powerful enough to subvert several large governments into some highly expensive wars; I can’t believe they wouldn’t be trying to discredit the science…
..which overlooks another disaster in the making, and another huge batch of research and data: ocean acidification.
guano, your righteous anger does make me giggle. I revere the natural laws which are indeed mightier than puny human corruption, as humans shall learn to their cost if they don’t mend their ways soon. And if someone wrote those laws, well, I revere them too, though my ignorance precludes a direct view. But maybe you’d best count me among the trolls as I like a bit of adultery, but only in the bedroom where it does little harm, and only if I can be honest with all parties involved.
“They’ll not need to have a go at me because ALL of the contributers including the owner of this blog except possibly Clark and Mary are all trolls against Allah.”
Guano, have you been at the shisha again? But do explain, why come to such godless place, oh wondrous one, what attracts you, of puerile thought, to come here and mingle with atheists and those adulterously challenged.
Fact is, this is not Allah’s place, but Craigs, only in your mind does this religious notion of omnipotence, as selfish and OTT in Islam as in any other religion, suffice to stamp your delusional thoughts upon it.
Have another puff and you’ll get over it.
Fred, you quote me as saying:
Then you reply:
I suppose you prefer the BBC’s system of giving a lot of air time to snooker but very little to volleyball.
Then you asked me to look at a BBC report about sea ice thickness. Leaving aside the issue of your evidence being supplied by the very source whose impartiality I was questioning (let’s not forget that this O/T topic started on this thread when Doug Scorgie mentioned that the BBC had had to remove an exaggerated global warming claim from one of its programmes.), I have already explained that I accept global warming is probably a reality so I’m not sure what effect you hope this report will have on me.
This research is probably reasonably accurate but selectively chosen. For example, I don’t believe the BBC would have reported it if it concluded that Arctic ice was getting thicker, or that there was a corresponding increase in Antarctic ice. We only see it because it supports the agenda. Therefore while an individual report my be true, I am unable to trust the BBC’s overall coverage of the subject.
Egypt floods Gaza tunnels to cut Palestinian lifeline
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/us-palestinians-egypt-tunnels-idUSBRE91C0RF20130213
@guano: What do you mean by the accusation “You hate Allah” ? How could I possibly hate the figment of someone else’s fevered and primitive superstitions? I might dislike the way some religious freak carries out his supposed sky-spook’s will, but hate their invented deity? That would be pretty pointless!
One might as well also hate Thor, Zeus, and so on and on. Out of curiosity, do you hate Thor? If not, why not?
Anon wrote: “Actually the NASA article was quite restrained… ”
True but you are quoting the most interesting bits of the speculation, the ‘best estimates’ etc. But the several decade long period of diminishing chaotic activity recorded in the lead up to the previous great minimum is a sobering detail. At best the speculation is about whenever or wether we might begin to lead up to another great minimum, eg. by noting, quoting, promoting, much more subtle signs in the recent and in comparison very stable activity pattern. I think it is a nuanced technical interest without any strong or clear indications for general interests. Unlike the fact that the globaly calculated 3 degree warming limit target is looking increasingly unlikely to be achieveable, due to hardly any significant action having been taken yet. Rebuffed by masses of deveil may cares, shrugging shoulders, mehs and whatabouts.
A Node
Over a third of the Autumn ice that was there between 2003 and 2008 isn’t there any more.
That’s big news, that’s all that should be concerning you.
It isn’t scientists falsifying data, it isn’t the BBC biassed reporting, it’s real, it’s happening.
Thatcrab,
Yes I’m aware I’ve quoted some of the juicier bits. That was the point 🙂 I could also link in a very recent mainstream paper on positions of the outer giants and Grand Minima but we’re already way off topic… The bottom line is that a number of different approaches are converging towards a possible Grand Minimum. And one that is shortly to begin.
The current solar cycle is not supposed to have peaked yet but both smoothed sunspot number and smoothed (over 12 months) solar flux has been trending down since February 2012. All the action has been in the northern hemisphere which appears to have peaked some time back. Will the south wake up and complete its polar shift? Nobody knows for certain in truth. A new series of Hinode observations have been performed over the last few months. I am not aware of the publication of any of these results yet – but they should be interesting.
Also note that I have only quoted mainstream Leading researchers and mainstream publications. They might be wrong of course.
Again I stress that the research in no way counters global warming. But I bring it up as a caveat. If we really do enter an immediate Grand Minimum as this cycle winds down (as it already appears to be doing early) then enhanced climate chaos may well result. And yes that *might* temporarily cool some places including the UK. It is worth keeping that in mind as it is just possible we’ll see some record UK low temperature records broken over the next decade or two with winters more commonly like December 2010.
Or none of the above may happen. If the sun is about to play silly buggers it has picked a fine time to do it.
Clark,
*~Spoiler Warning~* this post fades away to drivel. Don’t bother even starting it if you’re pushed for time.
Thanks for the offer to discuss this at length by email. I’d love to take you up on it, but my little one man business has just received an offer it can’t refuse and I expect to be pretty tied up for the next 6 weeks. I’ll take a rain check, please.
I accept everything you said about the BBC and it’s motivation. Let me ask your opinion on just one point.
You say “The BBC are […] pushing state propaganda. […] Just because it’s propaganda doesn’t mean it’s false.” I agree. I interpret this to mean that you accept the BBC does present the climate debate in a biased manner but they do so at the bidding of the government, in your words “they’re pushing state propaganda”, but nonetheless this particular propaganda is largely true. Please correct me if this isn’t a fair summary.
Presumably their motivation for declaring the scientific debate is over on this matter is because they can then push the agenda without having to dilute it with the other point of view. Good tactic. Why then, did they manufacture such an unconvincing justification for declaring the debate over? If indeed there is no credible science to counter their agenda, why not make a pretense of being even-handed, allow some sceptics to present their evidence. They could have included some dissenters for plausibility, then ignored what they said. But they didn’t, please check the rag bag of vested interests and unqualified laymen that the BBC called “some of the best scientific experts” … . insurance industry consultant? … New Economics Foundation? …. US Embassy? … Church of England? … BP International? … TV producer? …etc etc.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189491/28-gates-later-the-bbcs-nightmare-gets-worse-and-worse/
No wonder they did everything in their power to prevent the list of names going public.
The BBC have been in the propaganda business for a long time. They’re good at it. They can’t afford to squander their credibility like this. If the scientific evidence was really so clear, they surely would have made a show of airing both sides before ‘deciding’.
Och, I don’t know what question I’m asking, I’ll just let this fizzle out and leave it as a general contribution to the ‘Don’t trust the BBC’ cause.
……………………
…………..
…………………………………….
“And one that is shortly to begin.” Fanciful. There is little regularity in the sun activity record or mature theory to predict it 1,200yrs C14,100kyrs C14 – we do not know with any certainty all that governs the suns 11 year cycle, much less the occurence and duration of grand minima.
Likewise Yellowstone is thousands of years overdue eruption, it was ‘to begin’ millenia ago but is not unlikely to take many millenia more, from the record it might even take a million year break.
Nothing obvious has yet happened to the sunspot activity cycle which is known to signal major change, which would be obvious within years of beginning to happen.
The theories may be of esoteric interest but general speculation on them is very fanciful, and way off the important issue of much more powerful forcing occuring already from anthropegenic changes to the atmosphere, of a kind unprecidented in recent natural history.
“If the scientific evidence was really so clear, they surely would have made a show of airing both sides before ‘deciding’.”
What both sides?
The two sides are the side that think there’s still a chance we can do something about it and the side that think it’s already too late.
It’s the latter who are driving the climate denier’s agenda in the hope of amassing enough wealth to be among those who survive after positive feedback kicks in. Quite possibly after the ice melts over Greenland.
Among the people who know there is only one side, it’s real, it’s happening, there is a consensus among climate scientists, there isn’t any doubt.
What are you asking? When they report what the qualified scientists say they should also give the opinion of the bloke down the chip shop?
thatcrab,
let me try once more time with you. Let us assume that you feel that you may have fever. Normally, you would get a thermometer and stuff it into your mouth or some other orrifice. Would you, once you get the reading say 38.7 degrees, run to the doctor and ask him to measure your haemoglobin saturation, skin reflectometry and the diameter of your hairs just to get a corroborative evidence that your temperature measured at home was indeed 38.7 degrees. He would most probably, and rightly so, call for a psychiatrist.
Do not annoy me and anyone else with your ideas anymore. If you think that you have discovered a new method to evaluate climate change, please have it patented and you will become a rich man.
A Node, 13 Feb, 9:08 pm:
That’s the trouble when you’re surrounded by propaganda. It borks absolutely everything.
The ice is melting:
http://fourmilab.ch/images/eclipse_2008/S015.html
“If you think that you have discovered a new method to evaluate climate change, please have it patented and you will become a rich man.”
Yours was the rare opinion wanting of substance, and the solitary interpretation Karel. I see you left instructions for me, am i free to excercise my own judgement and preference in what comments i observe now, or would i be crazy to miss out on your next?
Thatcrab,
It is interesting you dismiss likely very carefully worded quotes from NASA press releases as “loose hyperbole” and opinions of leading solar scientists as “fanciful”. I also suspect you’re not really reading the links I provided. There’s a lot of real physics in there. They could, in the end, have egg on their faces but the NASA press release I’m sure was well thought over.
But forget the projections. Go look at the Sun right now. We are supposed to be approaching Solar Maximum. Virtually nothing is happening. No X Class flares – hardly even any M Class. No big CMEs. The sunspots that do form have very simple magnetic structure. Total magnetic field continues to decline. All smoothed cycle indicators continue to trend down.
And all this as we are supposed to be approaching a Maximum.
Mary – Have you read the uncensored Dorner’s manifesto?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/UKCollapse/doc/454905821243219/
Some enlightening moments such as:
“Westboro Baptist Church, may you all burn slowly in a fire, not from smoke inhalation, but from the flames and only the flames.”
“If possible, I want my brain preserved for science/research to study the effects of severe depression on an individual’s brain. Since 6/26/08 when I was relieved of duty and 1/2/09 when I was terminated I have been afflicted with severe depression.”
Clark,
An interesting page you link which I had to log into Facebook to read. FB would not allow me to read it without a FB account.
NOT “Clark” – but “Mark” apologies. Should read
Mark,
An interesting page you link which I had to log into Facebook to read. FB would not allow me to read it without a FB account.
====
Anon said, “And all this as we are supposed to be approaching a Maximum.”
Indeed, but not to worry. After that, it’ll be the next thing, and the next, and the next. I suggested to the slippery and disingenuous (not to say intellectually dishonest) Jimmy Giro on an earlier thread, that the only convincing evidence suitable for the likes of him, would be to see the charred remains of the Earth at some point in the future, after all life is already extinct. But even then, the idea that our inept custodianship had any possible influence would be waved away.
Upton Sinclair said, ““It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” With these denialists, it could be that it’s too terrible to think about, that they’ve been subsumed with the standard denial propaganda (as with smoking/lung cancer), that they are employed in an industry which contributes hugely to climate change, that they are paid shills, or simply that they have youngsters they care for and love, and cannot countenance the disaster we are actually bestowing them.
*
When are we going to get to talk about the supposed link between lung cancer and smoking, anyway? And what’s this nonsense about tobacco being somehow “addictive” ? Let’s wait for a lot more proof, and see really conclusive evidence that nobody disputes, before we do anything about this supposed problem of smoking. Exact same playbook.
Hmm a quick read of the “Dorner manifesto” – Looks faked to me. But then it’s late and I’m probably in my cups.
Bill Gates did an ‘Ask me Anything’ on reddit recently, he was rather personable, but reddit has been fawning towards him in recent years anyway.
One of his personable answers concerns internet tracking etc.
@ Fred 13 Feb, 2013 – 11:05 pm
“What are you asking? When they report what the qualified scientists say they should also give the opinion of the bloke down the chip shop?”
I’m asking that they report what all the qualified scientists say. You seem to presume that a scientist who disagrees with MGW is automatically disqualified. Don’t know about you but I want to hear both sides of a debate before I make my mind up.
@A Node: How much “debate” would you entertain on both sides, on whether the Earth is flat? Or that it is under 6000 years old, for that matter?
How do you judge the merits of their argument – on popular opinion (a clapometer perhaps), their oratory skills, maybe the the sharpness of their suits?
Anon wrote:
“Go look at the Sun right now. We are supposed to be approaching Solar Maximum. Virtually nothing is happening. No X Class flares – hardly even any M Class. No big CMEs.”
Ok, but our only reference for the sort of low which is -referenced as a possibility here, had chaotic activity, short periods of highs and lows, non 11yr cyclic activity, for several decades before it settled for about 100 yrs. We have had steady 11yr cycles until very recently, so this latest discontinuity is so far a blip. Thats my point, i dont mean to be as argumentative as i have been.
“I’m asking that they report what all the qualified scientists say. You seem to presume that a scientist who disagrees with MGW is automatically disqualified. Don’t know about you but I want to hear both sides of a debate before I make my mind up.”
Then you really must hear what this one has to say and urge the BBC to mention him in all their astronomy articles.
http://geocentricuniverse.com/Geocentrism.htm
And remind them they have to mention the rockets every time they report another Israeli atrocity.
Fred and Glenn_uk
There are qualified climate scientists who disagree with the concept of MGW. I could post links but then you will both post contradictory links back, and we’ll argue over their respective credibility, and that is not the point I am trying to make. Since you, Fred, mentioned Israel, let me use the BBC’s reporting of that issue as an example.
We all three agree that the BBC present a very one-sided view of that conflict. Suppose the BBC announce that they have consulted with some of the best political experts and decided that Israel has proved its case, the debate is over, Israel is fighting for its existence, the Palestinians are all terrorists and from now on will not be given the oxygen of publicity, their point of view will not be aired. The BBC refuse to name the ‘experts’ but eventually it transpires that the entire list is composed of Israelis, Zionists, and people with business interests in Israel.
Would we not argue
(1) The BBC’s justification for its decision is outrageous.
(2) The debate is patently not over – look how many people disagree that Palestinians are terrorists, including experienced (qualified) politicians.
(3) If the evidence is so obvious, surely the BBC should let these dissenters condemn themselves from their own mouths.
(4) The BBC has no business making decisions like this. They should air both sides and let the licence payers decide for themselves.
(5) That comparisons with the Flat Earth Society and some bloke down the chip shop are not addressing our concerns.
I see the names of Netanyahu and Romney in this list!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_employees_of_Boston_Consulting_Group
Apart from Purnell benefiting from the second homes fiddle (see Wiki), he did quite well for himself outside Parliament. His register of interests includes three trips to Israel with Labour Friends of Israel of which he was Chair.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=11176
Node, I still watch a bit of bbc and i rarely come across any significant statements on climate change. You may baulk Node at every little one that you come across, or which is noticed and circulated by people who are opposed to action on AGW, but the bbc are not campaigning on climate change in any way representitive of the multiple major global scientific and political consultations which have agreed there is an urgent need for serious action. They do not have a single regular series dedicated to it, which large numbers of people would be captivated and motivated by. They have at least one longstanding series for nonplussed deniers – called “Top Gear”.– You baulk over occasion mentions of the situation in nature and soft science programs.
.
Node your argument here is very far from credible, the statement, (paraphrased accurately)~’there are qualified deniers but i wont link them because you will just argue over their credibility… lets compare how the bbc reports on israel…’~ You should be embarassed to have to resort to that, you really need to be able to link to credible deniers, and not to just shitpick mass media editorial policy to establish that very occasional msm statements on the impending tragedy are questionable.
thatcrab 14 Feb, 2013 – 12:14 pm
”
No, that is not paraphrased accurately. In fact you missed the point of it. Here’s it with the point in bold.
”
Translation: I am not arguing about the merits of either side of the climate change debate, so let’s not bother with link and counterlink. Rather, I want to discuss the BBC’s treatment of it, I’ve tried several times but rather than address this issue, you keep wanting me to defend the ‘denier’ position, which I have no interest in doing, so I’ll try a new approach, using a different issue to illustrate my point.
Let me ask you directly, thatcrab. Do you agree with the BBC’s policy of promoting only one side of this debate? And if so, are you happy to let the BBC make similar decisions on other controversial issues?