Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace


Nov 5, 2011 at 1:38 PM | Mike Jackson

I refer you to my response to Dung as to why you, too, do not have a job as a television producer.

Nov 5, 2011 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

You really are incapable of carrying on a civilised discussion without recourse to being offensive and you accuse us of having mental problems. Sheesh.
I thought I made a reasonable comment, namely that the glib response "climate change" without any elaboration or further comment is not helpful and does not go any way towards enlightening the viewer. What it does do, on the other hand, is reinforce the view that a decline in species numbers in general is due to "climate change" without any hard evidence.
You carefully ignored my statement that temperate climate fauna are fairly robust and that any variation in numbers is likely to be due a) to natural causes which may well be weather-related, and b) the activities of human beings unrelated to weather or climate.
But you're right about one thing. This discussion is primarily about Peter Walsh and your persistent stalking of him on this blog. I'd get something done about it if I were you; it only confirms that we are right to be concerned about your mental state.

Nov 5, 2011 at 1:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Hedgehog Gate lives on!

As usual Miss Zed you never answer questions but I will try again. Are the hedgehogs too hot or too cold, too wet or too dry and is man to blame or not? Please do try Zed.

Nov 5, 2011 at 1:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

You only have to spend five minutes on Google to find out that "climate change" does not feature in the decline of the hedgehog population and that, as suspected, the said woman was talking out of her fundamental orifice.

Nov 5, 2011 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Tolson

"Unless she adds a little more detail it is a completely meaningless comment."
Nov 5, 2011 at 1:10 PM | Dung

Absolute nonsense. Everybody understands that she's claiming that a fall in hedgehog numbers is due to a changing climate. It's a simple concept communicated perfectly.

Now there may be some people, who obsess over every tiny detail and mention of climate change, for whom more information around this would have been desired. Presumably so that they can find some trifling way to try and dismiss it. But it's up to the producer and presenters to steer how much this subject is explored. As it was a programme about nature in Autumn, then the judgement was made that it wouldn't have made good TV to look into this further.

It may not have been enough information to satisfy your personal tastes, but there's a reason you don't produce TV programmes for a living. If every reference to climate change had to be backed up by reams of dry technical details, everybody would switch off, and you'd lose your job.

Nov 5, 2011 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Zed and Hedgehog Gate

Zed what did the hedgehog lady mean when she said "climate change"? Did she mean rising or falling temperature, rising or falling rainfall (no pun intended) and did she mean AGW or natural climate variability? Unless she adds a little more detail it is a completely meaningless comment.

Nov 5, 2011 at 1:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

Nov 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM | john Lyon

Actually I think the discussion's primarily about Peter Walsh. Despite knowing nothing whatsoever about the subject, he started chucking his toys out of the pram simply because someone said 'climate change' on the BBC.

If you look at it objectively, that's one major over-reaction.

Nov 5, 2011 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

There has been a large increase in the hedgehog's main predator in the last 20 or 30 years, I think that fact has to have a bearing on any discussion about hedgehog numbers.

Nov 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterjohn Lyon

Not caused by global warming. Wonders never cease.

The crack in western Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier stretches for at least 18 miles (30 km) and runs 165 feet (50m) deep.

The rift is widening at a rate of two metres per day, said Nasa project scientist Michael Studinger.

When the ice breaks apart, it will produce an iceberg more than 340 square miles (880 square kilometers), said Studinger, who is part of the US space agency's IceBridge project.

But the process is not a result of global warming, he said.

"We expect that later this year or early next year year there will be a pretty large iceberg forming as part of a natural cycle," he added.

Nov 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

"We are saying that before making such a claim the lady in question should have some evidence."
Nov 5, 2011 at 12:20 PM | Cumbrian Lad

What on Earth makes you think she didn't? Nothing except your own prejudices.

Nov 5, 2011 at 12:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>