OT - A Poll and a place to Chat.
- Thread starter fe3333au
- Start date
Happy Australia Day!
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
I'd thought you Aussies were the spearhead of the Climate Scientists as you were the first to encounter its impact some 20 years ago...
Maybe your government has more urgent problems than the earth's doom, as any other goverment has... 
You nasty brutes didn't sign Kyoto??!!
I would be so ashamed to live in a place where governments beholden to corporate interests put short term pecuniary gain ahead of the health and vitality of the very people that.....
oh,... Right.
I would be so ashamed to live in a place where governments beholden to corporate interests put short term pecuniary gain ahead of the health and vitality of the very people that.....
oh,... Right.
I would be ashamed to live in a place where the people have elected governments that act like that. 
I would be ashamed to live in a place where the people have elected governments that act like that.
I would not even be sure that the current US government is really "elected"...
That Florida match-up looked like they should have played a decisive game 7 there...
But being a German I don't throw a stone...
Sometimes you can't move that stupid majority around you to another place...
Elected, sure.... But just barely!
Let's set aside the voting fraud that was documented in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004). Even still, half of the country voted against the Dear Leader. That's got to count for something, right?
Then there's the whole issue of representation. Do you send someone to the caiptal to speak for you (they are just mouthing your opinions), or do you choose to send someone to the capital to think for you, and protect your interests?
Myself, I usually send someone to think for me. I can't be well informed about all of the issues that my representative must make decisions on, so I vote for people who I think are smart and see the world the way I do. Of course, there's usually no one running that fits all the requirements
Let's set aside the voting fraud that was documented in Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004). Even still, half of the country voted against the Dear Leader. That's got to count for something, right?
Then there's the whole issue of representation. Do you send someone to the caiptal to speak for you (they are just mouthing your opinions), or do you choose to send someone to the capital to think for you, and protect your interests?
Myself, I usually send someone to think for me. I can't be well informed about all of the issues that my representative must make decisions on, so I vote for people who I think are smart and see the world the way I do. Of course, there's usually no one running that fits all the requirements
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
Oh man! 
I do NOT even want into the middle of this.
In the interest of being thought provoking though – I'd merely offer 1 idea for further reading:
Things (in nature particularly) tend to be far more complex than we like to think!
A while ago I came across this article by Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park and many others) – who, while is admittedly a non-scientist, is still clearly a thinking person with some very interesting thoughts.
It's a bit long (but has a lot of nice pictures!) and I HIGHLY recommend the read for those interested in hearing both sides.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
Give it a fair shake – even if you hate it, I think it's worth the read.
I do NOT even want into the middle of this. In the interest of being thought provoking though – I'd merely offer 1 idea for further reading:
Things (in nature particularly) tend to be far more complex than we like to think!
A while ago I came across this article by Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park and many others) – who, while is admittedly a non-scientist, is still clearly a thinking person with some very interesting thoughts.
It's a bit long (but has a lot of nice pictures!) and I HIGHLY recommend the read for those interested in hearing both sides.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
Give it a fair shake – even if you hate it, I think it's worth the read.
I'll read it tonight or tomorrow...
I just read some paragraphs - so far it is one of the most stupid efforts to sugarcoat an accident - yet worth reading to understand "the other side".http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
Give it a fair shake even if you hate it, I think it's worth the read.
To say that people in Chernobyl were contaminated by "being told to do so" rather than by radiation caused by the accident is ignorant and vastly cynical. In fact they were not clarified by their authorities for many years about the danger they are living in.
But in one point I agree: It's tough to tell numbers of affected people and it's even more tough to prove that people were not affected by different sources of radiation, natural or artifical. And that event indeed is a complex one - too complex to analyse completely and too complex to discuss for us here.
In C3C, a group of workers would clean the polution in a few turns, all we would lose is some buildings, production, commerce, units and few population points - who cares?
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
I hope a few other people make it further than the intro that deals with Chernobyl.(And not to get into it, but so that others aren't thrown off… the article certainly doesn't suggest that people were irradiated because the were told to be! Perhaps you're referring to this quote, "In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying but false information. … I am not saying radiation is not a threat. I am not saying Chernobyl was not a genuinely serious event. But thousands of Ukrainians who didn’t die were made invalids out of fear.")
Anyway – that's just the intro to his real topic.
Talk about being cynical!!Paul #42 said:
you don't care about all those poor digital citizens whose lives may be lost?
I read the whole article, and I liked it, as articles go. I don't agree with him completely though.
Yes, the environment is a highly complex system. No, we cannot predict the effects of direct stimuli into complex systems. But what we can do is to measure effects. In particular if those are effects of continuously applied stimuli, since as he says momentaneous stimuli applied at different times may yield different results.
In the case of the environment, we know that the average world temperature has been rapidly increasing over the past decades, at a much steeper rise than ever previously observed throughout the entire history of the world. We also know that the levels of CO2 and other gases, in particular methane, are steadily increasing in the atmosphere. We also know that this is caused by us. What we can only conjecture is that the increased levels of these gases are what causes the temperature increase. In vitro experiments show that this is the expected effect of the increased gas levels though, and no scientist worth his title would seriously disagree with any of this.
What we have no idea about is whether, if we were to emit less of these gases into the atmosphere starting now, the temperature increase would halt. Many predicted scenarios indeed show that this is not the case. But here again the complex system rears its ugly head. If we see the new stimuli as the removal of the continuous stimuli, we cannot know what the effects would be, and predictions are not likely to be correct. We thus know that we have set something in motion, but we cannot know if or how we can stop it. But we can be (rather) sure that if we don't stop emitting gases, the temperature will continue to increase.
In other words, no scientists would dispute any of the following:
The fact that newspapers and interest groups use fearful propaganda to sell their stories is well known, and also that it has an adverse effect on real attempts at solving any problem. Unfortunately they do sell stories by it.
Yes, the environment is a highly complex system. No, we cannot predict the effects of direct stimuli into complex systems. But what we can do is to measure effects. In particular if those are effects of continuously applied stimuli, since as he says momentaneous stimuli applied at different times may yield different results.
In the case of the environment, we know that the average world temperature has been rapidly increasing over the past decades, at a much steeper rise than ever previously observed throughout the entire history of the world. We also know that the levels of CO2 and other gases, in particular methane, are steadily increasing in the atmosphere. We also know that this is caused by us. What we can only conjecture is that the increased levels of these gases are what causes the temperature increase. In vitro experiments show that this is the expected effect of the increased gas levels though, and no scientist worth his title would seriously disagree with any of this.
What we have no idea about is whether, if we were to emit less of these gases into the atmosphere starting now, the temperature increase would halt. Many predicted scenarios indeed show that this is not the case. But here again the complex system rears its ugly head. If we see the new stimuli as the removal of the continuous stimuli, we cannot know what the effects would be, and predictions are not likely to be correct. We thus know that we have set something in motion, but we cannot know if or how we can stop it. But we can be (rather) sure that if we don't stop emitting gases, the temperature will continue to increase.
In other words, no scientists would dispute any of the following:
- The greenhouse effect exists.
- We're causing it.
- There are and will be lots of adverse effects of global warming.
- If we don't stop emissions, things will not get better.
- If we stop emissions, will things get better?
- If we don't stop emissions, what will happen?
- Could there be any positive effects of global warming?
- What is the best way to stop emissions?
The fact that newspapers and interest groups use fearful propaganda to sell their stories is well known, and also that it has an adverse effect on real attempts at solving any problem. Unfortunately they do sell stories by it.
Very well put, Niklas. I haven't finished the enitre article yet, but so far the general thrust seems to be:
"Things are complex and integrated to a level we don't understand, therefore, we shouldn't try and do anything at all, because we can't be certain of the outcome at all."
But as I said, I haven't finished it yet, so I'm not done forming a response.
BTW - Has anyone checked his sources?
"Things are complex and integrated to a level we don't understand, therefore, we shouldn't try and do anything at all, because we can't be certain of the outcome at all."
But as I said, I haven't finished it yet, so I'm not done forming a response.
BTW - Has anyone checked his sources?
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
Thanks for taking the time to read the whole thing and offer a very well thought-out response Niklas!
I have great respect for your position.
Personally, however, I remain unconvinced.
First of all, it’s not accurate to say that “no scientist would dispute any of the following:” – because those things on your list are, in fact, disputed. It’s obvious that the overwhelming majority of scientists do agree with that list – but I won’t bore you with a list of things to which the overwhelming majority of scientists have been wrong about while condemning the few who seek to prove them wrong. Most often the few probably are wrong – but some of our most dramatic advances in knowledge have come from the few who were right. (One of my favorite examples is possibly the longest lasting medical treatment in human history… blood letting. Practiced from antiquity till the late 19th Century – a misapplication of a simple formula [ - Bad blood = -Bad heath ] to a fabulously complex system [the Human body] which wasn’t very well understood. Even the first President of the US was killed in large part due to blood letting!)
Anyway – even in the related fields, several prominent scientists dispute the majority opinion: Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, astrophysicists (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), William M. Gray, tropical meteorologist (Colorado State University),
Richard Lindzen, atmospheric dynamicist (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and
Frederick Seitz, solid-state physicist (former president of the National Academy of Sciences)... (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus )
Now – I do think the earth is warming, but my main point in linking that article was not to debate the science in detail – which I am unqualified to do, and frankly Mr. Crichton isn’t qualified either!
My main point is only that there is (I think) legitimate scientific uncertainty - even if it’s in the minority – and I think a little healthy skepticism is in order when were told that a relatively simple equation (+Greenhouse Gasses = +Global Warming) is causing massive trauma to a almost unimaginably complex system like the environment that we don’t understand very well. Which I think was Crichton’s point as well.
Anyway – end of my stirring up trouble! Thanks again for your very reasoned response.
I have great respect for your position.
Personally, however, I remain unconvinced.
First of all, it’s not accurate to say that “no scientist would dispute any of the following:” – because those things on your list are, in fact, disputed. It’s obvious that the overwhelming majority of scientists do agree with that list – but I won’t bore you with a list of things to which the overwhelming majority of scientists have been wrong about while condemning the few who seek to prove them wrong. Most often the few probably are wrong – but some of our most dramatic advances in knowledge have come from the few who were right. (One of my favorite examples is possibly the longest lasting medical treatment in human history… blood letting. Practiced from antiquity till the late 19th Century – a misapplication of a simple formula [ - Bad blood = -Bad heath ] to a fabulously complex system [the Human body] which wasn’t very well understood. Even the first President of the US was killed in large part due to blood letting!)
Anyway – even in the related fields, several prominent scientists dispute the majority opinion: Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, astrophysicists (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), William M. Gray, tropical meteorologist (Colorado State University),
Richard Lindzen, atmospheric dynamicist (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and
Frederick Seitz, solid-state physicist (former president of the National Academy of Sciences)... (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus )
Now – I do think the earth is warming, but my main point in linking that article was not to debate the science in detail – which I am unqualified to do, and frankly Mr. Crichton isn’t qualified either!
My main point is only that there is (I think) legitimate scientific uncertainty - even if it’s in the minority – and I think a little healthy skepticism is in order when were told that a relatively simple equation (+Greenhouse Gasses = +Global Warming) is causing massive trauma to a almost unimaginably complex system like the environment that we don’t understand very well. Which I think was Crichton’s point as well.
Anyway – end of my stirring up trouble! Thanks again for your very reasoned response.
Ah, how I love the smell of scientific debate in the evening! And I would very much welcome replies to this, I don't see it as stirring up trouble. It's plain fun. 
Let me first assure you that I too have a strong respect for your position and opinion. And I certainly agree with what you state as your main point - that some healthy skepticism should always be applied to all scientific areas, and in this case in particular the simple equation you state. But I cannot agree that a reasonable outcome of said skepticism is to doubt the statements by the IPCC. Also let me note, just like you do, that I'm not in any position to argue about the scientific results in detail. What I'm arguing about here is the same as you do - who should we listen to and what should we believe in?
First of all, I never said "no scientist would dispute any of the following", I was very careful to qualify that statement with (the rather tongue-in-cheek) "worth his title". But since we're now taking it to a more serious level, let me rephrase that by instead saying that very few scientists would dispute any of the above. Overwhelmingly few as you point out. The problem is always that those who oppose overwhelming odds must shout so much more to be heard, and thus take up more room than they really have any right to.
But you're not really disputing the fact that the opponents of the IPCC stance are a minority. What you are saying is that there exist some researchers who have legitimate, well-founded concerns regarding these statements, and because of this we should be a bit skeptic. I agree to this. I will agree that skepticism is always a good starting point, never take anything at face value without checking the sources. But (IMO) in this particular case those sources are so overwhelmingly in favor of actually believing that the statements are true. A good and simple read would for instance be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy and then in particular under the "Existance of a consensus" header.
As you point out though, many times during history has the majority been wrong. But many more times has the majority actually been correct. Certainly you agree that this is a thin argument if taken on its own. To support the claim that skepticism is healthy, it serves as a perfect basis, and I would never refute that. But to read anything more into it is dangerous (which I don't claim or even think that you do). You cannot claim to believe the minority just because it's the minority, or indeed the majority just because it's the majority.
My bottom line - do employ some healthy skepticism to everything you hear, but not in absurdum.
To specifically refute your main point: We are not being told that the environment is simple and predictable by the scientists in this field. Newspapers, lobbyists, politicians and many more try to tell us this since they think (not unrightly!) that most people would not be able to appreciate the complexity anyways. Of this we should be very skeptical. This was at least partly Crichton's point, and with that I most heartily agree. But what he fails to point out is that the scientists who do research on climate change do not (at least not in general) believe the environment to be that simple. They are well aware of the complexity of the domain they are working in - and still the overwhelming majority of them do support the three main points that temperature is increasing, we are the cause, and that it will continue if we don't stop emissions. Those are rather non-committing really, and do not in any way go against what Crichton says about cause and effect in complex systems.
To be skeptical is good - but again not in absurdum.
Gee, that took longer than I expected, I really should get to bed. It was fun though, thanks for an inspiring reply. I hope you enjoy mine this time as well.
Let me first assure you that I too have a strong respect for your position and opinion. And I certainly agree with what you state as your main point - that some healthy skepticism should always be applied to all scientific areas, and in this case in particular the simple equation you state. But I cannot agree that a reasonable outcome of said skepticism is to doubt the statements by the IPCC. Also let me note, just like you do, that I'm not in any position to argue about the scientific results in detail. What I'm arguing about here is the same as you do - who should we listen to and what should we believe in?
First of all, I never said "no scientist would dispute any of the following", I was very careful to qualify that statement with (the rather tongue-in-cheek) "worth his title". But since we're now taking it to a more serious level, let me rephrase that by instead saying that very few scientists would dispute any of the above. Overwhelmingly few as you point out. The problem is always that those who oppose overwhelming odds must shout so much more to be heard, and thus take up more room than they really have any right to.
But you're not really disputing the fact that the opponents of the IPCC stance are a minority. What you are saying is that there exist some researchers who have legitimate, well-founded concerns regarding these statements, and because of this we should be a bit skeptic. I agree to this. I will agree that skepticism is always a good starting point, never take anything at face value without checking the sources. But (IMO) in this particular case those sources are so overwhelmingly in favor of actually believing that the statements are true. A good and simple read would for instance be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy and then in particular under the "Existance of a consensus" header.
As you point out though, many times during history has the majority been wrong. But many more times has the majority actually been correct. Certainly you agree that this is a thin argument if taken on its own. To support the claim that skepticism is healthy, it serves as a perfect basis, and I would never refute that. But to read anything more into it is dangerous (which I don't claim or even think that you do). You cannot claim to believe the minority just because it's the minority, or indeed the majority just because it's the majority.
My bottom line - do employ some healthy skepticism to everything you hear, but not in absurdum.
To specifically refute your main point: We are not being told that the environment is simple and predictable by the scientists in this field. Newspapers, lobbyists, politicians and many more try to tell us this since they think (not unrightly!) that most people would not be able to appreciate the complexity anyways. Of this we should be very skeptical. This was at least partly Crichton's point, and with that I most heartily agree. But what he fails to point out is that the scientists who do research on climate change do not (at least not in general) believe the environment to be that simple. They are well aware of the complexity of the domain they are working in - and still the overwhelming majority of them do support the three main points that temperature is increasing, we are the cause, and that it will continue if we don't stop emissions. Those are rather non-committing really, and do not in any way go against what Crichton says about cause and effect in complex systems.
To be skeptical is good - but again not in absurdum.
Gee, that took longer than I expected, I really should get to bed. It was fun though, thanks for an inspiring reply. I hope you enjoy mine this time as well.
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
[Long delayed response]
I did enjoy your reply! These kinds of discussions are so much more fun with a certain level of respect and decorum
I agree almost entirely with what you've said… and I certainly have no desire to be absurd! (which I recognize you were NOT accusing me of).
I also agree that the primary place for political discussion should be how to deal with harmful emissions – I just react negatively to what I perceive as ridiculous hype. And while the majority of the blame for this fearmongering rests, as you suggested, with politicians and the news media, we shouldn't forget that (while I have no doubt that a great many scientists are doing their level best) we can't discount the fact that a lot of funding and prestige are on the line in this environmental research, and we shouldn't hold up scientists as non-human super people unaffected by external pressures or their own personal biases.
As a non-scientist (but someone who reads voraciously and considers himself a thinking person) I just have a hard time conceiving of the idea that a world that has survived this long, shrugged off countless volcanic eruptions (a relatively recent one of which single handedly reduced global temperature by 1.2 degrees Celsius), meteor strikes, massive unchecked wildfires, etc is now suddenly on the brink of doom because of the internal combustion engine.
I believe we can and should transition to less polluting forms of energy… but just a trip to LA and trying to breathe that "air" convinced me of that.
And wow… that was a much longer response than I expected when I started typing also!
I did enjoy your reply! These kinds of discussions are so much more fun with a certain level of respect and decorum
I agree almost entirely with what you've said… and I certainly have no desire to be absurd! (which I recognize you were NOT accusing me of).
I also agree that the primary place for political discussion should be how to deal with harmful emissions – I just react negatively to what I perceive as ridiculous hype. And while the majority of the blame for this fearmongering rests, as you suggested, with politicians and the news media, we shouldn't forget that (while I have no doubt that a great many scientists are doing their level best) we can't discount the fact that a lot of funding and prestige are on the line in this environmental research, and we shouldn't hold up scientists as non-human super people unaffected by external pressures or their own personal biases.
As a non-scientist (but someone who reads voraciously and considers himself a thinking person) I just have a hard time conceiving of the idea that a world that has survived this long, shrugged off countless volcanic eruptions (a relatively recent one of which single handedly reduced global temperature by 1.2 degrees Celsius), meteor strikes, massive unchecked wildfires, etc is now suddenly on the brink of doom because of the internal combustion engine.
I believe we can and should transition to less polluting forms of energy… but just a trip to LA and trying to breathe that "air" convinced me of that.
And wow… that was a much longer response than I expected when I started typing also!
I regret that I was a little harsh in my first reply on this, I tend to react in an allergic way if I sense belittlement in environmental subjects.
Too many crimes have been committed against nature for small commercial personal benefits at the cost of our all's health...
Of course you are right stating that a single volcanic eruption (or one of those many forest fires eg.) will easily make up for all those human interferences in either way. Those are the moments I always doubt if I can do my part to save the world...
Of the two alternatives to make profit at the cost of the majority - by treating your environment ruthlessly or with "green" products and services - the latter I do like slightly more...
No one is saying that the earth is on the brink of doom. What is at peril is the environment that humans live in.
This is a mistake of scale:
In human terms, a rise of 10 C is indeed perilous. The ice cap over Greenland and Antarctica could melt into the sea, possibly altering oceanic currents drastically; certainly inundating hundreds of thousands of square miles of land that humans are currently dependent on - both for living and for growing food. Human life will go on, no doubt! But why risk the pain and aggravation that will come about having to evacuate Bangladesh and Florida and
However, a rise of 10C will have no net effect on the 'health' of the planet. Flora that are currently confined to temperate regions will find their seeds taking root in soils further north year by year. Tropical flora will encroach up the sides of mountains, till they reach altitudes that haven't yet warmed to their tolerances. With these slow inexorable advances, the fauna that inhabit those niches will likewise migrate. Not concsiously, just by the fact that there is an environment in which they exist, that is spreading as the temperature slowly rises.
For a much better explanation of the point I'm trying to make, see Stephen Gould's essay "The Golden Rule: A proper scale for our environmental crisis" It can be found in the collection Eight Little Piggies. I'd love to transcribe the salient parts, but you really can't leave things out of essays like that. And I have to go to work
General_W
Councilor & Merlot Noble
Very good point. Please forgive my hyperbole with "doom" – but I would still maintain my point, just worded more like:
"I just have a hard time conceiving of the idea that a world that has survived this long, shrugged off countless volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, massive unchecked wildfires, etc is now suddenly on the brink of catastrophe for humans because of the internal combustion engine and the like."
Perhaps it's a product of my over-active imagination… or just seeing too many sci-fi movies… but I like to imagine what it would have been like if our civilization had developed to current levels before the last ice age.
Can't you just picture the emotional and hand-wringing debates going on in the UN and in congress and parliaments around the world – passing resolutions demanding that we double our greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years, mandating that vehicles get rid of their catalytic converters and decrease their gas mileage to 'improve' the output of the greenhouse gasses so necessary to preserving our way of life.
… I particularly like to imagine these pre-Ice Age people sneering at anyone who selfishly drives one of those tiny high fuel efficiency cars for not caring about the planet!!
Anyway – I realize that's sheer fancy, but the part that isn't is the fact that in the last ice age, the city where I currently live (Spokane, WA) was hundreds of feet under glacial ice.
Even if we'd been around at the start of the Wisconsin Glaciation (Which spread ice down to 45 degrees North Latitude, and lowered sea levels by 120 miles) it's almost certain that all of our best effort to pump Co2 into the atmosphere would have made minimal-to-no difference, because the Ice Age was put into motion and sustained by global, solar, and maybe even universal forces so powerful and broad in scope that it's difficult to imagine.
Jump forward how ever many thousands of years to the end of that ice age, and it's again difficult for to imagine how we humans could have stopped the retreat of those same glaciers.
My home town went from buried under the depths of the ice to now regularly getting up to 100 degrees in the summer. Global warming indeed! And happily so! For everyone who lives and farms here… and everyone that enjoys the best Apples in the world, grown right here in formerly ice covered Washington State.
Again – this is getting far longer than I intended… I guess I'm just saying that given the history of our planet and its cycles and the awesome forces that regularly alter its climate, I just don't think very highly of mankind's ability to alter these systems.
As you suggested Peter, if the current warming trend continues, plants and animals may indeed migrate to entirely new areas, new diseases will arise, and the coastline of our planet will change dramatically.
But how is that different than any other time in our world's history?
But let me close again by saying, I DO believe the vast majority of scientists when they say the Earth is warming – I believe we must continue to work on human pollution – I'm just a bit more humble about how much of a difference mighty humanity can make on world as vast and dynamic as ours.
Clean air, Clean water, preserve the rainforests… sign me up! Save the planet? After it's tried to kill us with all the hurricanes, earthquakes, wild fires, tsunamis, volcanoes, lightening strikes, hail, ice ages, diseases, and floods?!? This planet is on it's own, buddy!
zyxy
Warmongering Fool
… but just a trip to LA and trying to breathe that "air" convinced me of that.
Go to the city
See the crazy people there
Like lambs to the slaughter
They're drinking the water
and breathing the air!
(c) Tom Lehrer
Hmmm.... So the IPCC officially released it's report this morning, and one of the radio shows I listen to is talking about it in depth. They will likely podcast it.
http://feeds.wnyc.org/wnyc_bl
The segment is titled "Very Warm".
And I must say, The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC (public radio in New York City) is one of my favorite parts of my day -the discussion is always smart and informative. The great thing about the Internets these days is that anyone anywhere in the world can listen to it.
Anyone else have great radio shows that they can recommend?
http://feeds.wnyc.org/wnyc_bl
The segment is titled "Very Warm".
And I must say, The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC (public radio in New York City) is one of my favorite parts of my day -the discussion is always smart and informative. The great thing about the Internets these days is that anyone anywhere in the world can listen to it.
Anyone else have great radio shows that they can recommend?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
