Early Britons: Have we underestimated our ancestors? Horizon tonight
- Thread starter Rich D
- Start date
I dont think I've ever heard someone say that on a programme - if only because it makes it would make them sound like an arrogant prat (OK, Sir Roy Strong, but he is really arrogant). A clever presenter actually underplays the knowledge they have, and uses it to get the right answers for the audience, who of course are not experts and are wanting often fairly simply questions answered. Presenters on something like The Antiques Roadshow dont need to know much about antiques (although Hugh Scully was hired as the first presenter partially because he was a knowledgeable amatuer), but they do know how to present, interview, and talk fluently on camera.
As for Ric Wheeler, he had started as a professional archaeologist (after studying Classics at UCL), and it was only in 1914 (when he was 24) that he became a soldier. Its true that he thought about battles a lot (although the ballista bolt through the blokes spine at Maiden Castle clearly says something was pretty unfluffy), but at that period, pretty much all movements and changes were seen in the light of invasions. A lot of the stuff he wrote was wrong, but he was very much open to his ideas being overturned by new evidence (a 1976 programme about him might be on Iplayer or YouTube - worth a look).
Dewi - you are incorrect about the Pyramids. Nobody has thought that most builders were slaves for a very long time (just because its in the Bible and the Greeks thought it...), and despite the fact that there are different theories on how exactly the Pyramids were constructed, ramps were certainly used, and there are traces around some sites http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/great_pyramid_01.shtml. Now what form they were is subject to arguement (no surprise there), but short of magic, there is no way those blocks could have been moved in any other way.
As for climate change, you are very much misinformed. Since the basis of climate change comes largely from the effect that CO2 has on IR radiation, something discovered by Tyndall in 1864 and observable by an experiement that can done in the average secondary school science lab, climate change has nothing to do with tax, religion or computers - its just basic physics. And Arctic sea ice is decreasing http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/2015-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-annual-extent-is-lowest-on-record
Antarctic sea ice is growing, but the reasons for this are not positive.
If you start by looking at the Royal Societies website on climate change, it clearly explains the basics. The Met Office and Nasa also have good websites, and The AAAS has produced http://whatweknow.aaas.org/ , which is very good. For people derping the various denier talking points, I normally send them to the excellent SkepticalScience.com, which has a list of all the various meme's and links to peer reviewed publications refuting them. Also very good on news, as is The Carbon Brief.
RealClimate is run by real climate scientists, and helps explain what is happening in the various areas of research, and Tamino's blog is great. And if anyone thinks that somehow there is a 'debate', then watch the excellent clip from John Oliver's show on YouTube.
<span id="q779427">[video=youtube;cjuGCJJUGsg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg[/video]
In reality, 97% of climate scientists (and every single scientific body on the planet) agrees that climate change is real, man made and is happening now. In fact this year will be the hottest year for average tempertures on the planet since records began. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ay-2015-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record
And Noaa has a lovely realtime presentation of winds etc that you can play with http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/weatherview/index.html, but the similar (and earlier) Earth loads a bit quicker http://earth.nullschool.net/ - both great as screen savers, and show off just how complex the Earths climate systems are.
Care to give a specific date when this came about?
Without meaning to derail the original thread, what you've just said, if that is 97% of the scientifically endorsed, means we've shifted from science to something else.
The debate never closes in science, or at least it shouldn't.
Theory after theory is proved to be wrong, but oh my, a comedian puts something on YouTube, the IPCC has spoken and the world's governments can see a money tree.
Sorry, debate has closed, time for 'deniers' to accept this is reality...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01...f-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
Oops.
Last edited:
Old Bones.
As I've said I don't have a telly; though I try to catch up on some of the better history and science programs that.there are about.
I wont name names, partly because I respect some of the guilty and they are proper scientists, though there are curly haired presenters who have no qualifications and those that do, but to a T every blinking one of them uses the phrase "...as a..." and it really grates on my nerves. If it isn't that phrase exactly it's a royal "we" explaining how "they've" discovered it.
Now this may be bad script writting, it may be hubris, but this pumped up bit of TV fluff when you read their bio or hear them being interviewed couldn't tell their elbow joint from their posterior.
But hey they may be polymaths in disguise so I'll just settle and be quiet.
Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.
As I've said I don't have a telly; though I try to catch up on some of the better history and science programs that.there are about.
I wont name names, partly because I respect some of the guilty and they are proper scientists, though there are curly haired presenters who have no qualifications and those that do, but to a T every blinking one of them uses the phrase "...as a..." and it really grates on my nerves. If it isn't that phrase exactly it's a royal "we" explaining how "they've" discovered it.
Now this may be bad script writting, it may be hubris, but this pumped up bit of TV fluff when you read their bio or hear them being interviewed couldn't tell their elbow joint from their posterior.
But hey they may be polymaths in disguise so I'll just settle and be quiet.
Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.
Last edited:
Why shouldn't one speak from whatever one is? If that is the expertise for which one has been asked to speak. After all academic papers require listings of qualifications and area of knowledge. Perhaps the problem is that it grates that someone doesn't speak a a regular guy or gal in which case how valid would be the opinion given?
This a far from my area of expertise (if I ever had one), although I did share a room with an Egyptologist for a year and we had undergrad lectures on the subject. However. even 19th/early 20th century books on Egypt (remember that Ancient Egypt is ground zero for kooks (I'm trying to research pseudo-archaology), and that was even more true the 19th century) do mention the idea of a skilled longterm workforce, but at that time, excavating the settlements near to the pyramid complexes wasn't really their first concern. However, its the popular media that goes with the slaves idea:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191
In fact its a good example of how Biblical stories and popular media embed something so deep that its really difficult to dislodge it, even though actual scientists have refuted it years before.
If someone could disprove the idea of AGM, they would be rich beyond their wildest dreams. Every fossil fuel (or dependent) industry on Earth would be very grateful (Exxxon alone posted the largest corporate profit in history a year or two back), and governments would also be quite happy that is one less hassle to worry about. And there are prizes they could have - there is a $40,000 prize right now, and I dont think its the only one. And you'd certainly get the Nobel prize for Physics, possibly Chemistry, and perhaps they'd thrown in the Peace prize and a bunch of strippers as well. Yet nobody has collected, nobody has published anything in Science or Nature. Nadda. Zilch. Zero.
The data is robust, and the tend is clear - just look at the graphs https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/nasa-and-noaa/ . In fact the amount of publically available data is huge - you can even use datasets to run your own simulations (I think NASA and the Met Office have those). And for those who think that the scientists are up to something, its worth pointing out that the BEST study, which the WhatsUp website reckoned was going to blow AGM away, found exactly the same thing as everyone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
Which theories are wrong? If you can refute the science of climate change, go ahead, but I know I can't, because I dont have that expertise. All I can do is follow the best evidence. We are not part of a 'debate', because we are simply not equiped, any more than we are part of the 'debate' about the best form of operating on a gallbladder. However, if you need your gallbladder operated on, is it better to follow the advice of 97% of gallbladder specialists, or the opinions of someone on the internet?
John Oliver simply points out the stupid position of the media, and its 'false balance'. As for the IPCC, you can go read all the reports if you like, and can even be a reviewer (its actually an incrediably open process). However, the IPCC is widely seen as fairly conservative in its reports, and the science is not in doubt. In 2001, George W Bush was unhappy about the latest IPCC report, so commisioned another report from the US National Academy of Sciences, hoping that they would disagree with it. They did - they said the situation was worse http://www.economist.com/node/655664
Ultimately, you are entitled to your opinions, but equally, your not entitled to your own facts. Climate Depot is well known denier website, as the very useful DeSmogblog points out: http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4621 and this site (which I'm delighted to discover - what a great name) also has background http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_marc_morano
If you want actual facts, then start with some of the excellent sources above, such as The Royal Society (the oldest and one of the most prestigous scientific bodies on Earth), rather than some bloke on the intertubes. And SkepticalScience has a very good list of all the sort of anti science derp that appears on the web, in the papers, etc http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ,and one of the people who works on that site has a useful 'top 5'http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/
My view of science is 'In God we trust, all other bring data'. And since we've had one comedian, we might as well have another. Dara O'Briain (who as a degree in Maths and theoretcial Physics) does a great thing on evidence:
[video=youtube;YMvMb90hem8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8[/video]
Goatboy - can you actually find someone who has actually said 'as an expert' on TV, as in a clip on YouTube, etc? I have never heard anyone say this, although I've heard plenty of 'city commentators' saying something only to be proved totally wrong. While an interviewer might ask a question of someone, prefacing with the phrase, 'as an expert', but if someone did use the phrase you suggest themselves , they probably wouldn't get invited back again...
People like Brian Cox or Jim Al-Khalili could say that and be correct - they both hold professorships, but they really really dont.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4191
In fact its a good example of how Biblical stories and popular media embed something so deep that its really difficult to dislodge it, even though actual scientists have refuted it years before.
Which is why scientists use phrases like '95% certainty', because they are so careful. However, thats also misunderstanding how science actually works. If you want a Nobel prize, you really seek to disprove something that everyone believes is true, and replace it with your own idea. Science is pretty Darwinian. But their are certain things which everyone agrees on, and have done for a long time. Evolution, climate change, germs, gravity, the movement of the continental plates, etc. When no one comes up with a better explaination, then its probably fine. As Carl Sagan put it 'Extraordinary claims require extrardinary evidence'. When you have that much evidence, the ball is in the other peoples court.
If someone could disprove the idea of AGM, they would be rich beyond their wildest dreams. Every fossil fuel (or dependent) industry on Earth would be very grateful (Exxxon alone posted the largest corporate profit in history a year or two back), and governments would also be quite happy that is one less hassle to worry about. And there are prizes they could have - there is a $40,000 prize right now, and I dont think its the only one. And you'd certainly get the Nobel prize for Physics, possibly Chemistry, and perhaps they'd thrown in the Peace prize and a bunch of strippers as well. Yet nobody has collected, nobody has published anything in Science or Nature. Nadda. Zilch. Zero.
The data is robust, and the tend is clear - just look at the graphs https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/nasa-and-noaa/ . In fact the amount of publically available data is huge - you can even use datasets to run your own simulations (I think NASA and the Met Office have those). And for those who think that the scientists are up to something, its worth pointing out that the BEST study, which the WhatsUp website reckoned was going to blow AGM away, found exactly the same thing as everyone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
Which theories are wrong? If you can refute the science of climate change, go ahead, but I know I can't, because I dont have that expertise. All I can do is follow the best evidence. We are not part of a 'debate', because we are simply not equiped, any more than we are part of the 'debate' about the best form of operating on a gallbladder. However, if you need your gallbladder operated on, is it better to follow the advice of 97% of gallbladder specialists, or the opinions of someone on the internet?
John Oliver simply points out the stupid position of the media, and its 'false balance'. As for the IPCC, you can go read all the reports if you like, and can even be a reviewer (its actually an incrediably open process). However, the IPCC is widely seen as fairly conservative in its reports, and the science is not in doubt. In 2001, George W Bush was unhappy about the latest IPCC report, so commisioned another report from the US National Academy of Sciences, hoping that they would disagree with it. They did - they said the situation was worse http://www.economist.com/node/655664
Ultimately, you are entitled to your opinions, but equally, your not entitled to your own facts. Climate Depot is well known denier website, as the very useful DeSmogblog points out: http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4621 and this site (which I'm delighted to discover - what a great name) also has background http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_marc_morano
If you want actual facts, then start with some of the excellent sources above, such as The Royal Society (the oldest and one of the most prestigous scientific bodies on Earth), rather than some bloke on the intertubes. And SkepticalScience has a very good list of all the sort of anti science derp that appears on the web, in the papers, etc http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ,and one of the people who works on that site has a useful 'top 5'http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/22/opinions/cook-techniques-climate-change-denial/
My view of science is 'In God we trust, all other bring data'. And since we've had one comedian, we might as well have another. Dara O'Briain (who as a degree in Maths and theoretcial Physics) does a great thing on evidence:
[video=youtube;YMvMb90hem8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8[/video]
Goatboy - can you actually find someone who has actually said 'as an expert' on TV, as in a clip on YouTube, etc? I have never heard anyone say this, although I've heard plenty of 'city commentators' saying something only to be proved totally wrong. While an interviewer might ask a question of someone, prefacing with the phrase, 'as an expert', but if someone did use the phrase you suggest themselves , they probably wouldn't get invited back again...
People like Brian Cox or Jim Al-Khalili could say that and be correct - they both hold professorships, but they really really dont.
Last edited:
