Dumb down more like it. They pick a presenter more for his working class
accent than knowledge, they seemed to do this quite often. That swimming
with monsters series -was that the same bloke?

As for the content we've heard it all before blah blah blah.. I'm fed up to
the back teeth of this dewy eyed view of history, Christ it's like a moan
fest.
Oooohh, ooohhh it's so bad, we've never had it so bad.
Awww shut up and give it a rest.

We had Glaciers in retreat, sure evidence of GW. Then we had glaciers in
advance more sure signs of GW.
The presenter did plenty of traveling by plane and cab with no obvious
regard to Co2 emmissions.

We then had the comtroversial Hockey stick-which conveniently patched over
the global cooling of the late 50's, 60's amd early 70's.
This was such a concern by the late 60's and 70's that climatologist and
other sciences were fearing a steady global cooling, leading to crop failure
on a massive scale and possibly a new ice age.
And so it went on.

AND ITS ALL MAN'S FAULT
If only humans had died of cold and hunger and become extinct. If only
they'd not grown crops and burnt fossil fuels , why none of us would be here
now and the world would have been saved from Global Boring.

Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Dumb down more like it. They pick a presenter more for his working class
accent than knowledge, they seemed to do this quite often. That swimming
with monsters series -was that the same bloke?


You could have turned it off...

"Chris Smith" wrote in message
...
Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
Dumb down more like it. They pick a presenter more for his working class
accent than knowledge, they seemed to do this quite often. That swimming
with monsters series -was that the same bloke?


You could have turned it off...


I did.

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in
:

Dumb down more like it. They pick a presenter more for his working
class accent than knowledge, they seemed to do this quite often. That
swimming with monsters series -was that the same bloke?

I thought it was quite well presented and easy to understand; I quite liked
the golfball analogy for ensemble spread. I've also seen Tim Palmer using
guns to demonstrate it !!

It's worth remembering the majority of the viewers may not have watched any
such a programme before.

I've always said we should save the more complex stuff for a Sky at Night
type of monthly programme.

Richard

"Richard Dixon" wrote in message
...
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in
:

Dumb down more like it. They pick a presenter more for his working
class accent than knowledge, they seemed to do this quite often. That
swimming with monsters series -was that the same bloke?

I thought it was quite well presented and easy to understand; I quite
liked
the golfball analogy for ensemble spread. I've also seen Tim Palmer using
guns to demonstrate it !!

It's worth remembering the majority of the viewers may not have watched
any
such a programme before.

I've always said we should save the more complex stuff for a Sky at Night
type of monthly programme.

Richard

Okay Richard fair dues. But personally I felt the whole programme was an
attempt to show objectivity, when in essence the mind had already been
decided.
If the same type of procramme had been available and shown in the early 70's
we'd all be stocking fossil fuels and preparing for armageddon.

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in
:

Okay Richard fair dues. But personally I felt the whole programme was
an attempt to show objectivity, when in essence the mind had already
been decided.
If the same type of procramme had been available and shown in the
early 70's we'd all be stocking fossil fuels and preparing for
armageddon.

Of course the difference between the 70s with its "new ice age" and now is
that we've got climate models that are helping us (maybe) understand what
the future holds.

But I do agree that phrases like "Climate Chaos" that I've just heard tend
to overdramatise. But don't worry - the unforecasted 2-week snowy spell
starting on Friday will dampen/freeze any global warming spirits.

Richard

On 21 Feb 2006 00:02:34 GMT, Richard Dixon
wrote:

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in
:

Okay Richard fair dues. But personally I felt the whole programme was
an attempt to show objectivity, when in essence the mind had already
been decided.
If the same type of procramme had been available and shown in the
early 70's we'd all be stocking fossil fuels and preparing for
armageddon.

Of course the difference between the 70s with its "new ice age" and now is
that we've got climate models that are helping us (maybe) understand what
the future holds.

But I do agree that phrases like "Climate Chaos" that I've just heard tend
to overdramatise. But don't worry - the unforecasted 2-week snowy spell
starting on Friday will dampen/freeze any global warming spirits.

I found the three one-hour programmes on GW, El Niño and the Jetstream
to be quite interesting. The GW one was entirely predictable - 40
minutes of apparent scepticism (but you knew what was coming)
followed by the hockey stick - and all became clear in an
unquestioning flash... to the presenter.

Better were the second and third programmes... albeit with a most of
it that I already knew. The historical perspectives were interesting.

As for Helen Young's feeble attempt to explain why in the US the
Jetsream is featured in daily weather forecasts but in te UK it is
ignored... well the less said about that the better. Pathetic.

--
Dave

Dave Ludlow wrote in
:

As for Helen Young's feeble attempt to explain why in the US the
Jetsream is featured in daily weather forecasts but in te UK it is
ignored... well the less said about that the better. Pathetic.

My boss was on that at the end! Very exciting. The make-up took 10 years
off him (I hope he's not reading this...!). We showed "the man from the
Beeb" some reanalysis data on the jetstream and how it's changed markedly
since the 1950s (part of which is surely due to the availability of data
for the reanalysis). Fortunately I was hiding in a cupboard when the
cameras came round.

Yes, Helen Young was quite poor. It was a feeble reason "the jetstream is
used in US forecasts because it's always been on them". Then in which
case why do they also mention dewpoints, upper level lows and other such
technicalities? Helen? I also didn't like her words to the effect of "so
Bracknell will tell me that we're in the left exit region of a jet which
means nothing to anyone unless of course you're a meteorologist like me"
which sounded very aloof!

Richard

Very arrogant of her. what she forgets is the 'people it means nothing
to' arn't interested in the forecasts anyway and would only hear the
bits they wanted to and get the wrong end of the stick. It's an
assumption that everyone in the UK is thick!

Answers on a postcard please :-)

Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net

"Richard Dixon" My boss was on that at the end! Very exciting. The make-up
took 10 years
off him (I hope he's not reading this...!). We showed "the man from the
Beeb" some reanalysis data on the jetstream and how it's changed markedly
since the 1950s (part of which is surely due to the availability of data
for the reanalysis). Fortunately I was hiding in a cupboard when the
cameras came round.
Richard

What an interesting insight into your world at work Rich,
;-)

David