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.
Probably the next big thing in web discussion software has been released today. Just a sandbox site running so far, but it is open source and created by the same team who made Stack Exchange, which was uniquely successful for focused Q&A sites.
http://try.discourse.org/
“and that is not the point I am trying to make”
As long as you are aware now of the point you unintentionaly made when you brushed it aside.
“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?”
I would agree with it, but they do not. As I said, they have top gear, and AGW has an occasional little mention from star eyed brian cox or attenbourgh, in nature and science programs. This is nothing! On the news, there is an occasional little mention. There is none of this “promoting” you are imagining. Promoting would involve a program, like there is a weekly farming program, a weekly driving program, weekly politics programs… Or a series, bbc3 has series on technology, on poverty, on medical issues.. . bbc4 has history, arts, music, series. So where is this promoting of AGW action which bothers you enough, to compare it to Israeli propoganda ? There isnt any! It just rattles you when very occasional, diminutive, quite transient statements of the contemporary scientific advice without your favoured dismissals getting reported along side, so you can forget what matters and feel assured that you are not really so isolated with your weak arguments — there is not really a consensus, the global consultations are all distorted by a green conspiracy, there is no pressure from existing industry to repress this warning, and to keep burning and fighting over fuel, there are just corrupt eco scientists backed by windmill financiers. Its just fantasy Node, you are focused on fantasy, ignoring and demeaning reality. You have imagined the bbc are promoting attention on AGW, they have not even begun. Eventualy, there will be weekly and even daily news and lifestyle programs on it, if denialists keep their disproportionate, unpublishable, unreviewable part in it, it will be far too late.
SGR – How Influential Are The Climate Change Sceptics?
http://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/sgr.org.uk/files/SGRNL41_climatesceptics.pdf
”
In July, the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project concluded that global temperature had risen 1.4C over the past 250 years and that “essentially all of this increase results from human emission of greenhouse gases” # The thing that made this conclusion so significant was that the analysis was carried out by a group of scientists initially sceptical of climate change, and was part-funded by one of the Koch Foundations, which are major funders of US climate change sceptic groups.
This could be the death knell of the mainstream public debate over whether global climate change is happening and whether humans are the main cause. But the debate has seemed settled many times before – not least when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published their second, third and fourth ‘assessment reports’ in 1995/96, 1001 and 2007 respectively – and the sceptics have proven stubbornly resilient.
….
“
“There are qualified climate scientists who disagree with the concept of MGW. ”
I posted a link to a man with a PHD in physics who says that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the sun and stars revolve round it.
I can find you some highly qualified people who don’t believe in evolution as well.
Are you suggesting that the BBC should be putting their alternate viewpoints as well?
On the same theme, if the majority were on the verge of agreeing to end the arms trade and legislate against pre-emptive attacks and bombings and drone strikes. Who would say the warboners arguments should be given equal publicity, because they still find the majoritys position ‘controversial’?
Who would say that the massively researched and reviewed assessments, which document and conclude that we need to change at least certain things, to avoid grave planet-wide environmental and human repercussions, should be covered by the media, alongside unpublishable fragmentary random assertions by mavericks and shills, that there is really nothing to worry about?
Probably, surely I lay it on too thick. But to see a caring person hold such a position today, i think its safe to say we want you to snap out of it Node. Dont just reconsider around your gut feeling, just deconsider man, deconsider that fossil fueled FUD, eat some cake, regain a shred of faith in humanities appreciation and understanding of its home planet. That we can do something other than argue.
Also, on the subject of principles of representation – when a great amount of people say, with the best scientific process avialable, hundreds of research projects and global review, that we have to do something or there will be a huge cost to life across the whole planet, you can have and express doubts, but it is wrong to hinder their sincerely held grave cause, which involves no attack, no theft accept possibly resources to the cause, but still no theft of the kind you are already living with, military and financial and plutocratic theft of qualities and ideas and time.
The caring person can not in fairness hinder action on global warming, even if they doubt it, because too many people do not doubt it now and they believe it to be too serious, not to mention with some luck, too great an oportunity to organise and work and live for the better.
Also, on the subject of principles of representation – when a great amount of people say, with the best scientific process avialable, hundreds of research projects and global review, that we have to do something or there will be a huge cost to life across the whole planet, you can have and express doubts, but it is wrong to hinder their sincerely held grave cause, which involves no attack, no theft accept possibly to the cause, but still no theft of the kind we have lived with; financial, strategic, industrial, military, plutocratic theft of lives, vocations, time, ideas and potential.
It is widely believed and agreed now we need to try avert a catastrophy – Dont stand in the doorway dont block up the hall. If we are lucky things will improve , we will organise together in time, cast off the previous bullshit and work towards the most hospitable world still possible. If it turns out by chance or foolishness to not be The great endevour – at least it would be a fine endevour, one we could learn from. But if we are unlucky and/or dont work for care, we are more tragically wasted than ever. The majority believe this now, the great majority of involved scientists believe this. Those who truely care have no choice but to cooperate.
“The caring person can not in fairness hinder action on global warming, even if they doubt it, because too many people do not doubt it now and they believe it to be too serious, not to mention with some luck, too great an oportunity to organise and work and live for the better.”
Let’s face it, if we listen to the experts and it turns out they were wrong it just means we will have left some fossil fuels for our grandchildren instead of squandering it all ourselves. It’s not the end of the world.
If we listen to the sceptics and it turns out they are wrong it could well be.
oops, i thought i lost one and struggled to rewrite the ending. What a flood anyway! Ill take a break. Hope some of that sticks. better days…
Right Fred that was the better ending –lets face it.
Glenn_uk
I don’t like Thor, but this Thorsday has been quite productive so far, Praise be to Allah.
Lordy, Lordy, what would you all be like if I held a truly controversial view.
To remind you of how we got here, my first comment on the topic was about the BBC’s one-sided policy and an attempt to do the same to Wikipaedia. When all the responses were aggressive, insulting, and assumed I was a “climate denier”, I clarified …
I did admit to leaning towards the sceptic position and explained my reasoning. Since then, I have been defending my right to hear both sides in order to make an informed decision. It seems to have become important that I back up my statement that some sceptics are qualified. Well here’s a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I am NOT going to get into an argument about their credibility, my point is that I don’t want the BBC to decide for me which qualified commentators I should hear. It’s unjustified in this case, and a dangerous precedent. Glenn_uk compared me to a flat-earther. Consider – if the BBC were around in those days, they might very well have concluded that ‘flat earth deniers’ like Galileo were not to be given a platform for their opinions.
I believe the position of being a ‘don’t know’ on this issue is a sensible and honourable one. There are huge vested interests on both sides trying to confuse the issue and I learned quite a while ago not to underestimate the MSM’s powers of deception. I’ve found it’s wise to be less certain. I respect your right to be absolutely 100% rock solid certain that you’re right and anybody who disagrees is wrong. Please accept my right to differ very slightly.
I’m pretty busy at the moment, so I’m going to leave it there.
guano
14 Feb, 2013 – 4:36 pm
“I don’t like Thor, but this Thorsday has been quite productive so far, Praise be to Allah.”
Guano, aren’t Muslims who mention Allah supposed to add the words: peace be upon Him?
“Well here’s a list:”
Don’t you think you are being biassed there? You post a link to scientists who don’t agree with parts of the consensus on climate change but not a list of those who support it.
I’ll rectify your mistake now with this link and please note not only is this list a lot longer than yours but it also has a lot of people in the field of climatology on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis
“Lordy, Lordy, what would you all be like if I held a truly controversial view.”
Your view isnt truely controversial no, because it is settled to all of the attentive people, whe are not shuffling from channel to channel getting annoyed that people are saying something which you would rather ignore and cling to whatever and whoever ignores it. But it is truely damaging and divisive and isolating for that. We have given the whole planet a distinct, predicted, modelled, observed, relatively well understood, disease and we need to change or suffer more and more greatly from it. All you can do sketch caractures, you are denying and avoiding the most extensive and evidenced facts, quibbling over disparate tellybox articles and statements which happen to occur less often than pro peace messages manage to appear in the warbone media, yet you feel they constitute a grand campaign waged by mammons secret environmentalist core.
As you admit Node your view isnt truely controversial. It is more problematic for that, while it is truely ostructive to very grave matters. So after frustration, reflection, hope and sincere appeals, you still dont get it and need to reject it –you can get off planet care, you can take yourself and your demands for representation away and represent them as you can, if you dont want to help, you need not dont apply.
Guano: Why don’t you like Thor? Surely – in your opinion – He doesn’t exist, so why express a like or dislike for yet another supposed sky-spook?
This is the point I was trying to make, unfortunately you ducked it. You accused everyone here (just about) of “hating Allah”. To me, this is as ludicrous as hating Thor. In my opinion, you can delude yourself with whatever fantasy pleases you the most – as long as it does no harm to others. But in your opinion, favouring one delusion means hating all others. I hoped you’d explain why this might be.
Because you are operating under a delusion, and a dangerous one too – you think nearly everyone hates your God. And that’s simply not the case.
A-Node: A misunderstanding, I was not accusing (or even comparing) you with a flat-Earther. Rather, the aim was to ask whether you think equal consideration should be put to the proponents of scientifically dead articles.
Scientists have a bit of a problem. They think that if they put more and more evidence forward then people will become convinced. Sadly, they reckon without the force of denial, scientific illiteracy, and – frankly – the blind greed of those making vast fortunes out of the status quo and the force of their propaganda.
Yet despite piling more and more evidence onto that which is already confirmed, and despite the most conservative models of climate prediction being put forward in order to avoid a charge of hysteria, public interest is flat-lined or waning on the issue.
This is rather serious, because we’re talking about our Earth becoming unfit for habitation for our species in a very short timescale. The result will surely be so catastrophic, on an unprecedented scale in the history of humanity, that no metaphor will serve. Yet the attitude of the likes of your good self is to push ahead in that direction ever faster, because we still can’t quite explain it to the layman in an easy to understand sentence, at least not without some denier popping up to nay-say it and demand yet further study/proof.
*
As mentioned before, this is the exact playbook the tobacco industry used successfully for decades. But this time, we’re talking about something a lot more serious than just tens of millions of people dying of cancer.
A Node, you asked what the BBC was up to when they hid the membership of the group they consulted about climate change. My answer, my guess, is that they’re being multi-faced, trying to please all the major groups at once.
The face they present to the climate experts and environmental groups is “we are being fair and unbiased. Look, we haven’t invited anyone from that denial rubbish camp. We know that the matter is settled, human activity increases the global temperature, so we’ve only invited you lot and we won’t give them a platform. The BBC is on-message; you don’t need to worry about us”.
The face they present to the public is described by Thatcrab above. They don’t mention the matter much, they don’t have a weekly programme about it, they do regularly broadcast popular anti-AWG Jeremy Clarkson, but they take the pro-AGW line for a sentence or two at the end of related news items. They don’t want to put their viewers off or scare them away.
If they push the AGW argument at all, it’s “unplug your telly and half fill your kettle; the power is in your hands”. It certainly isn’t “get out on the street and campaign. Here’s a supportive documentary about activists who occupy open-cast mines and shut them down. Your government isn’t restricting big companies enough, and unless they do we’re all going to roast”. This constitutes their third face, which they present to the big businesses in which they’re embedded; “don’t worry, we’re not rocking your boat”.
So they’re pleasing everyone except us here, arguing, and we barely matter.
A Node, the BBC’s message to all three groups is “Don’t worry”.
The British state and its broadcaster the BBC have been sending this message for seven decades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On
Well i want my weekly world climate watch program, preferably presented by the countdown numbers bombshell , and the professor from the bbc4 science documentries that actually contain an intresting flow of information admist the hypnotic effects and orchestrals.
Go to phase 2 Eco Conspiracy bbc: Arrange for Clarkson to run over a brood of bewildered cygnets on the test track, and produce a cruel skit about it which will backfire and shut down the franchise. Install the bombshell and proffessor in the time slot. Have them instruct the nations eco air heads to cover roofs and walls with reflective paint, supplied by our secret masters…
Fred, thatcrab, Glenn_uk and Clark
Thank you all for your concern. Excuse me if I answer you all at once, time constraints and all that.
Three of you are making the same wrong assumption so I’ll address that first.
You assume that because I do not accept global warming is necessarily manmade, I behave irresponsibly towards the environment. I can assure you this is not true. Even if there were no environmental issues to worry about, and there are many, I would advocate responsible use of our resources, in fact I have done so since before global warming became an issue. It is unsustainable to squander one-off resources, it is wicked to pollute our environment, it is stupid to throw away rather than re-use. These things are obvious without a doctrine to refer to. I’m a mechanical designer. I create elegant machines. Right now the Earth is not one and it hurts me. A recurring theme in my posts on other topics is that the individual should take responsibility for his situation … don’t demand a moderator sorts out the trolls, – stop feeding them … litter all over your street – pick it up … march, protest, petition. Believe me, I’m doing what I can for the environment.
I do not accept that being a ‘don’t know’ is ” truely damaging and divisive and isolating”, or likely “to push [the Earth] ahead in the direction of becoming unfit for habitation”. I say it’s a responsible position. Whilst I’m grateful for your attempts to persuade me to come off the fence, in the meantime I’ll listen to the other side too and not jump till I’m sure I’m on the right side, the side which will result in the best outcome for us and the Earth. I’ve been fooled too often in the past. You’ve all made your minds up, fair enough. I think the jury’s still out.
And that’s the heart of the matter. You all (I think) believe there is no room for doubt. Again I don’t accept that. There are many decent, responsible , intelligent, knowledgeable, even qualified, people who disagree. It’s not good enough to dismiss their opinions as narrow-minded ravings. There is a debate, there is controversy, and saying there isn’t, it’s been settled, doesn’t make it so. And this, finally, get’s me to my point, the one I’ve repeated throughout. I’m not interested in defending the ‘denier’ position, I’m not one (see my earlier comments about manmade versus climate cycle) and anyway I don’t have a position. I’m interested in defending my right to hear both sides of this debate.
Clark is the only one who has actually focussed on this aspect. I resent that the entire MSM has declared the debate over and marginalised and demonised dissent. I resent that attempts have been made on Wikipaedia to airbrush history to suit only one side. But I have mostly saved my vitriol for the BBC, not just because I pay them and thus have the right to criticise them, but because of a very important principal. It is one thing for the BBC to favour one side in a debate – they do it all the time, it’s what they exist for. It is quite another for them to publicly claim the right to arbitrate on a hugely important issue, decide which side is right, and then, as a matter of policy suppress one side of the argument. To be absolutely clear, I am not complaining about them favouring one side at the expense of the other, I expect that. I am complaining that they have assumed the right to make it a policy. No, I am not demanding that they include the paedophile’s point of view when they report child abuse. I am demanding my right to make my own mind up on important issues and I am refuting the BBC’s right to do it for me. I am not aware of other instances of this importance where the BBC have behaved similarly. To repeat an earlier point, if we accord the BBC the right to make these decisions, why should they not similarly declare (after due consultation with a panel of expert Zionists!) that the Israel/Palestine issue is decided and henceforth the Palestinian point of view does not have to be given. You might say that that’s the existing reality, but would you endorse the BBC’s right to do it?
And that’s about it. If anyone wants to reply, I would appreciate if they focussed on the ‘my right to be told’ part. I don’t what I can usefully add to the climate debate.
Really, I just don’t know.
“There are many decent, responsible , intelligent, knowledgeable, even qualified, people who disagree.”
There was a graph on the page you linked to showing how many disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png
It didn’t say how decent and honest they were or if they work for ExxonMobil or not.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding
“I don’t what I can usefully add to the climate debate.”
So Node, you argue with nothing but parallels and metaphors, which by nature can be stretched in any direction at all. Your equating of disintrest in climate change denialism to disintrest in the Palestinian plight, is frankly quite revolting on multiple levels and not tenable here. Observe your fresh won status as a callous and disingenuous twit for it.
You could give yourself and everyone else a break, but you declare a right to have any choosen disagreement prominently aired regardless of quality. Expect a rise in temperature.
Glenn_uk
Sorry tovarich, what is the reference number for the wonky religion you are subscribing to? Have I been tricked into some logic double-bind, where I have been towed away and have to pay a thought-police release fine? Can I claim on my insurance.
Doug Scorbie
You can say Allah as many times as you like. No need for any additions.
Thatcrab, you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the climate denier you want me to be.
You’re not responding to anything I say, you’re scanning my words looking for a starting point for your next blog rage rant.
Calm down. Tell me what it is about my opinions that’s makes you so angry.
(1) I believe global warming is probably happening.
(2) I haven’t decided if the cause is anthropological or part of a natural climate cycle.
(3) I don’t want the BBC to decide for me.
(4) Other (please specify)
Im not responding to anything you say? Really? – No.
Im just not returning the conclusions which your convienient arrangement of parts very simplisticaly beg.
And I am angry because you pretend victimhood for your inner ignoramous climate denialist refusnik, on the coat tails of the Palestinian plight and fundamentaly anyone else who you could possibly illude to share a repressed status with.
And you pretend the BBC is a major source of information on climate change – it isnt. Ive kept saying, i havent seen a thing about climate change on the bbc for ages, and what i have seen was often cheap and flakey. So you’re pissing in the brook with thousands of words of self focused ‘convince me’ fud over the damn serious situation, which you arent taking seriously, and wont until you are ‘convinced’ but you cant be convinced because you are lightly hoping all over the place, making the situation about this program or that email, or wikipedia or anything you can find in the massive realm of human interaction, EXCPET the mass of evidence and sincere agreement and comprehension of the situation by interested, serious , researchers. You talk of decent researchers who know altered atmospheric composition not to be a problem, but cant reference any, because it will only be criticised – That is willful idiots position in debate on science!
You are not researching seriously, maybe you even cant who knows, you arent dealing with anything that might challenge you, youre just wasting attention asking to have your favourite doubts pondered. Well they have been pondered, and you have been talking crap Node, and have exemplified the endlessly unsure and willfuly reality avoidant, denialist position very well here to everyone, and with luck someday read back, to your future wised up self.
Thatcrab, thank you for your reply. It’s a perfect example of the point I made in my last email, that “you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the climate denier you want me to be.” I’m going to spend some time explaining why because you make reasonable intelligent posts elsewhere on this blog and I am mystified why you have taken such exception to my views. They seem moderate to me. I think you misunderstood my position early on, and continue to view my posts in that early light rather than re-evaluate them.
Otherwise, you seem to be saying that I have no right to hold the views I do, and then I would have to re-evaluate my “intelligent reasonable” description above.
I wouldn’t have used the word “victim” , but I will because you have. I am not pretending victimhood, I am a victim, we all are, of a state-run corporation taking away our right to make important decisions for ourselves. Just because you agree with their decision doesn’t mean they have the right to make it.
In what way am I a climate denier? As I understand the term, I am not. If you have a definition that makes me one, tell me.
I am trying to illustrate a great danger if we let the BBC off with this precedent. You won’t acknowledge a danger because you agree with the BBC’s choice in the case of global warming. I chose the Palestinian cause because I knew everybody I was addressing would vehemently deny the BBC’s right to behave similarly in that case. I used the same argument back in Thatcher’s day when the police were granted the right to ban National Front marches for public order reasons. Once they had the right, they could, and did, ban left wing protests for the same reason. Today, climate deniers, tomorrow the Palestinians. If you want to criticise my use of that example, you’ll need to show why the power you’re happy to give the BBC doesn’t threaten the Palestinians.
No I don’t. Show me where I say that. My point is one of principal.
No I’m not. I repeatedly say I’m not interested in debating AGW. I am happy to listen to you, but I maintain the right to listen to the other side too. In my last post I asked you to stop trying to convince me about AGW. How can I be clearer?
Yes I am. I’ve told you I take it seriously. I’m busy, I wouldn’t be in this dialogue if I didn’t take it seriously.
I am only hopping all over the place to answer specific points that you keep raising. I keep saying I want to talk about the BBC, you ignore that and condemn me for things I haven’t said , I address your points and repeat I only want to talk about the BBC, you ignore that and make more unfounded accusation, etc, etc. And you accuse me off hopping about?
No I didn’t. Show me where.
I’ve answered this point several times. Fred said “When they report what the qualified scientists say they should also give the opinion of the bloke down the chip shop?” I pointed out that there were qualified scientists in the sceptic camp too, in other words the debate is not between qualified scientists and blokes down the chip shop, there are qualified people on both side. I linked to a list. If you are saying the people on that list are not qualified, prove it.
This is mostly gratuitous insult. The only point worth picking up on is “youre [….] asking to have your favourite doubts pondered.” Well do me a favour and fucking ponder them then. I’d like you to ponder the BBC issue. I asked you a specific question a few posts ago, but all I’ve had back is aggression and insults. I hope I’ve answered every point you made. Now answer mine:
Do you agree with the BBC’s policy of promoting only one side of the climate debate? And if so, are you happy to let the BBC make similar decisions on other controversial issues?
Listen Einstien, one last time — i do not think the bbc does properly promote the extremely well researched and reviewed contemporary scientific warning to the worlds industry and people that we are causing a massive environmental climate crisis, and need to act upon the well identified causes.
Hmmm, sarcasm ….. I suppose it’s an improvement on plain insults, but you haven’t answered either question.