tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post8297153977060285794..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: [jules' pics] 10/03/2009 08:22:00 PMJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-89695913468570491922009-10-06T05:17:53.825+01:002009-10-06T05:17:53.825+01:00William,
Thanks, I got the R4 thing on listen aga...William,<br /><br />Thanks, I got the R4 thing on listen again (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n011g" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br />Steve,<br /><br />What David said. Also the (pictured) N American elk is virtually the same thing as the European red deer - wikipedia says they were only genetically distinguished in 2004. Of course I'm sure they all taste much the same :-)<br /><br />I haven't yet got round to the Rockstrom thing, it's on my list...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-67006658620939644672009-10-05T22:36:11.500+01:002009-10-05T22:36:11.500+01:00OT: on one of your other hobbyhorses: R4 news (22:...OT: on one of your other hobbyhorses: R4 news (22:34) has an extensive piece about Japans "justice" system, the 99% conviction rate, forced confessions, etc.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-91694167703757468272009-10-04T23:15:57.690+01:002009-10-04T23:15:57.690+01:00The deer family incluses moose but not in genus Ce...The deer family incluses moose but not in genus Cervus, the true deer.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElkDavid B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-49985786934764877812009-10-04T07:39:15.748+01:002009-10-04T07:39:15.748+01:00But isn't a moose just a yet larger deer?
OT:...But isn't a moose just a yet larger deer?<br /><br />OT: Did either of you notice Myles Allen's recent non-peer-reviewed antics over at Nature? It wasn't all that surprising that he <a href="http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/full/climate.2009.95.html" rel="nofollow">took the chance</a> to trash Hansen et al's "Target CO2" and promote his own approach, but I thought it was a little weird for him to then correspond with Rockstrom rather than Hansen in an effort to get the former to agree (to hear Allen <a href="http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/09/post_4.html" rel="nofollow">tell it</a>) that the Rockstrom et al authors really hadn't meant it when they featured the "Target CO2" conclusions up front. Whether or not Rockstrom is being quoted accurately, it makes Allen sound a little slippery and maybe even a bit cowardly.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.com