On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:08:29 +0200, Martin wrote:


There isn't any difference. There should be. Commercial stations need
high viewing numbers otherwise they don't attract advertisers and
income. The BBC gets income whatever it shows. The BBC used to set
standards. It is not obliged to target those with the lowest
intelligence or poor education. 80-90% of BBC programmes are repeats.
They have plenty of time to show serious science programmes.
Countryfile spent a lot of time on pesticides and bees, and recapping
what had been said earlier in the programme. It wouldn't have taken
much time to have given a more balanced view of the problem, but of
course saying that 5% of bees deaths can be attributed to pesticides
is neither dramatic nor entertaining. They might have least got the
facts right about the proposed EU Commissioners pesticide ban, which
was rejected by EU member states at the beginning of March

I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have
declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found
anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there
are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4
that are worth watching.

From memory the EC proposals to restrict the use of neonicotinoids
failed to get the necessary qualified majority in an EU vote but the
Commission have not dropped the proposition. I understood that they
were awaiting a response from Bayer et al before proceeding.
--
rbel

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote:

I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have declined
dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found anything
worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there are the
occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4 that are
worth watching.

I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim science' (whatever that means), when he
stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in ~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely
ignoring the previous measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in 200BC.

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:09:34 +0200, Martin wrote:

On 24 Apr 2013 09:47:36 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote:

I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have
declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found
anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully there
are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on BBC4
that are worth watching.

I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim science'
(whatever that means)

It means that in terms of science and attitudes to science, the Muslim
world was hundreds of years ahead of the Christian world.

And a millennium behind the Greeks, and centuries behind the Indians

Blindingly obvious or what?

Is it?

It certainly isn't the scientific method - which, we are told, was invented by Muslims.

, when he stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in
~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely ignoring the previous
measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in
200BC.

AFAIR he covered those in another programme. He even gave a
demonstration of how the Greeks measured the circumference of the world.

Well, the scientific method is to build on what went before.

--
Terry Fields

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:26:40 +0200, Martin wrote:

On 24 Apr 2013 13:11:36 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:09:34 +0200, Martin wrote:

On 24 Apr 2013 09:47:36 GMT, Terry Fields
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:34 +0100, rbel wrote:

I agree entirely with your view that BBC tv documentaries have
declined dramatically in quality in recent years. I have not found
anything worth watching on BBC2 for at least a year. Thankfully
there are the occasional programmes by Al Khalili and Januszczak on
BBC4 that are worth watching.

I went off Al Khalili when he presented a programme on 'Muslim
science' (whatever that means)

It means that in terms of science and attitudes to science, the Muslim
world was hundreds of years ahead of the Christian world.

And a millennium behind the Greeks, and centuries behind the Indians

What does that say about Western civilisation and Christianity?

Who cares? The issue is the correct attribution of the work, in which 'muslim scientists' came third after the
Greeks and Indians.

Blindingly obvious or what?

Is it?

It was to others.

Ad populem.

Does it upset you that Arabs were a thousand years
ahead of Western European Christians?

The issue is the correct attribution of the work, in which 'muslim scientists' came third after the Greeks and
Indians.

It certainly isn't the scientific method - which, we are told, was
invented by Muslims.

, when he stated that the circumference of the Earth was eastimated in
~800AD by a Muslim scientist - completely ignoring the previous
measurements made in India 400 years previously and by the Greeks in
200BC.

AFAIR he covered those in another programme. He even gave a
demonstration of how the Greeks measured the circumference of the
world.

Well, the scientific method is to build on what went before.

They did.

Did they?

It never stopped Isaac Newton rediscovering things.

Did he steal Greek discoveries too?

--
Terry Fields

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:29:13 +0200, Martin wrote:



From memory the EC proposals to restrict the use of neonicotinoids
failed to get the necessary qualified majority in an EU vote but the
Commission have not dropped the proposition. I understood that they
were awaiting a response from Bayer et al before proceeding.

The EU Commissioners need to provide scientific proof that the
pesticides cause a problem to bees. The onus to provide proof is on
the EU Commissioners, not Bayer. The EU Commissioners can't impose a
ban without the agreement of member states.

From a practical perspective it is, of course, unlikely that Bayer
will provide anything that will be sufficient to mollify the
Commission (eg the suggestion of wider field margins - which could
well help but is not deliverable by the pesticide manufacturers unless
they pay the farmers to implement them). Given the Commission's
stance on this matter it is very likely to persuade just sufficient
member states to amend their previous position to achieve
implementation. It will be interesting to observe the machinations.
--
rbel

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:16:27 +0100, Jake
wrote:


In this case, the Soil Association and similar organisations have
quite effectively alerted the farming lobby to the issues. The farming
lobby has got at the Governments of Europe and they have reacted.

Whilst I have little time for the Soil Association and the rest of the
organics lobby (IMHO they are both misguided and ineffectual), in this
case the blame undoubtedly lays elsewhere.

In this country the NFU, CLA and TFA would have been rapidly alerted
to the potential problem by the Crop Protection Association (used to
be called the agri chemical association) years ago when the first
papers were being published. Since then the CPA have maintained a
steady stream of defensive news releases.

The NFU in particular is an effective lobbying organisation, one that
the government (of any persuasion) tends to listen to over and above
public opinion.
--
rbel