The Beeb winds me up again

Why do you say "yet again" given that your second link isn't to a BBC page? I agree the graphic should be clearer that it's talking about deaths from the earthquake/tsunami as a whole - note that it's being used on several recent stories from the region, not just those talking about the reactor melt-throughs. Example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13388370

[My second link is to me being wound up the first time. Ah, you don't like the "yet". Well, maybe -W]

"lying scum" (picture name) is way over the top. Anyone with a moments thought would clearly identify those numbers are for the earthquake disaster.
A lack of clarity yes, a poor job by the editor yes, but most definitely not a lie and not deserving of being called "lying scum".

[That is why I toned down my headline. But I'll quite happily support the appellation. They are lying, they do it so often and so casually that you almost stop noticing it -W]

Lying scum is righteous. If they were just simple scum there might have been a statement that to date X people were killed or seriously injured by the reactor accident

I'm with you. This falls under the category of they knew or should have known that this was misleading and false.

William,

this is OT.

Who said that Hansen is "alarmist"???

check this:

"World's oceans in 'shocking' decline"

"We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479

and also check the latest global CO2 concentration from NOAA:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

running out of control?

[Out of control? Whose control is it supposed to be under ;-? I was meaning to post on the CO2 numbers, though -W]

Alex

Sorry William,

I was not clear enough - by "out of (nature) control" I meant that the last point of global CO2 measurement was a bit higher than I would suggest - but NOAA will maybe correct that later - if not, if deserves explanation - drought, maybe wildfires?

[Ah, that makes more sense. Yes, I noticed that too. I looks a bit of an outlier; I'd wait for another few months of data before worrying -W]

cheers,

Alex

Don't attribute to malice what is well explained by incompetence, which, like stupidity, is unbounded from below ;-)

I don't know anything about the quality of the research here, but:

"...In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant..."

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/20116166482830263…

[That's pap. They really do mean *US* cities. Its obvious twaddle, along with (I suspect) much of the rest of that article -W]

I'm appalled... ;-)

It is very important to always draw a clear distinction between the disasters. Even in Japan many people are confused, and all over the world people think the nuclear thing is the problem. Fixing up the places devastated by the tsunami is one problem. The other is the potential electricity shortage that may compound the economic hit by slowing down industry (unlike the UK, which exports only TV programmes, Japan still makes lots of actual stuff you can hold which needs electricity to produce).

Well, no deaths, but hundreds of thousands of evacuated people have lost their houses, some also their industries, workers are struggling under hazardous conditions to contain the radiation, food has to be monitored in the whole country, it will take decades to clean that up... Surely nuclear power in Japan has not resulted as economic as expected. Ok, nuclear energy is a good choice, but I'd try to be less frivolous when talking about the accident and its consecuences ;-)

On the other hand, it's worrying how disinformation from the anti-nuclear front is spreading out now that the media isn't paying so much attention. Eg. http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/children-sickness-link…

Does the Graun also wind you up?

[Not as often as I'd like -W]

"nuclear, an industry far more inherently dangerous than its rivals"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jun/2…

[Just a blog, so no-one takes it too seriously. But it helpfully leads to http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/apr/2…, wherein I get:

1. irrelevant
2. probably
3. yes
4. probably
5. no more or less than anything else

-W]

But looking on the bright side, you certainly seem to wind JC up these days, first

"Well, I donât pay all that much attention to what the mainstream climate establishment says about me."

followed without even a hint of irony by

"sliming of me done at RC, Annan, Stoat, Rabett, Tobis, Romm, Greenfyre"

(!)

Perhaps you'd like to rise to the challenge of providing a "serious critique of my[JC's] scientific papers or my statements in the blogosphere"

Could be interesting...

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/15/an-opening-mind/

[Ha, that is jolly. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. I must remember to annoy Curry by ignoring her :-) -W]

Indeed. The headline deliberately refers to the nuclear event alone and a cursory reading would give the impression that the 24,000 dead and missing were victims of a nuclear disaster. This is clearly their intent.

In fact they must know that direct nuclear deaths are zero and almost certainly that is the final total.

[Well, you nearly got to the end without trolling. But not quite. So I snipped the last. Please try harder, I can't be bothered to keep doing this -W]

> direct nuclear deaths are zero and almost certainly that is the final total

No individual has ever provably died from tobacco smoking either... or ever will

(William, was there still worse trolling below that? Wow.)