Realisation and a couple of links

I hadn't thought that I'd been up here all that long until a few months back I was down in Exeter doing a course in satellite interpretation (good course) and I was in the pub next to the hotel, looking at the whisky selection. I was surprised that there were only 6 malts, and that they were those specific ones (can't remember exactly which ones but basically a basic selection of the regions) and I mentioned to the guy behind the bar that I was surprised he only had one Speyside.
Turns out he was the manager.
He seemed surprised by what I said and asked me what the difference was between the different types, which I found I didn't have any problem answering, explaining the different tastes and characters.

Looks like I've been living in the Spey catchment long enough to pick up a few things.


OK, so this is a pretty pointless post but aside from that, have a look at this site of customer idiocies. There's also Text From Last Night which is just a bit too disturbing, all told.

Some extra reading.

A few follow up links from yesterdays rant:
The Daily Mash take on the matter.
A little something from the wonderful Cocktail Party Physics.
Astropixie's take, which actually prompted the post.
The Met Office VAAC charts page - that's Volcanic Ash Advisory Centre - (don't look too hard at the title, it stands for Volcanic Ash Graphic, ok? Nothing dirty with that at all...) and another Met Office one that gives some of the reasons behind the model.
One last (for now) Met Office one giving some gen on the particulates found in the dust layer.
A Norweigan model animation of the ash, but I'm not sure of what it specifically shows, I've mainly included it cause it looks cool.

And for a bit of a change, Kate's sister's post that was referenced by Ben Goldacre in his miniblog links.

Broadband, or how I learned to stop worrying and love t'interweb

Either today or tomorrow my parents should be getting connected to broadband. We've been working at getting them to do this for a while and they've finally decided it might be worth while. Principally for mum's studies, but I think they're going to find some of the wondrous things online. Thing is, I'm pretty sure that my long list of webcomics and blogs won't be exactly what my parents are looking for, so I'm going to list a few sites I visit lots or find useful and if anyone else can think of some sites that might interest people a of a slightly older persuasion that are interested in theology, search and rescue (dad's getting more and more involved with the Severn Area Rescue Association), or things like that; please stick the tube addresses in the comments.
So here are a few I think my parents will like/use:
The BBC news site.
The Met Office site (OK, obvious, but should be improved soon).
My Flickr photo page.
Bad Science - Ben Goldacre's excellent blog.
The ever marvellous Snopes.
The AA (useful for route planning).
Google - obvious but still good, and I think mum may find this search useful.
For dad, a Facebook link for SARA.
Some lovely Satellite images from NOAA.
Some bits about the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I couldn't find an address for the theological college but I think mum already has the link for that one.

Of course there's more and I think they should have a list of their own bookmards, but using dial up I don't think they will have found the wonders of the net just yet. So if any of you can think of other sites like these that might be of interest, please drop the links! Cheers all.

**edited to add**
By the way, one week in and I've kept off all booze and got in some exercise each day. This weekend will be the first big test though...

Talking points

There's been a bit of discussion recently about global warming - and more specifically Man Made Global Warming (MMGW). Mainly as a result of the program on channel 4 - The Great Global Warming Swindle. This was a privately produced program that was aired on channel 4. Not, as has been stated in some of the American press, made by or broadcast on the BBC.
The show (note I'm not calling it a documentary) aimed to refute all the claims of mankind's involvement in global warming. It was wrong. Now, by that I don't mean that MMGW is absolutely certain, but that's because I was trained as a scientist, and more specifically, a physicist; so I have to acknowledge that there is room for doubt, although if I was as certain of the Lotto numbers as I am about MMGW, I'd put every penny I had on it, and win.
No, what I mean is that the program used inaccurate data, presented it badly, misquoted many of the scientists and generally did a bad job of presenting both sides of the debate. It would take too long to put all the problems here so I'll link to some brilliant pages that handle most of them.
First off, the Met Office's own FAQ page on Climate change. Read this first, and any further questions can be dealt with much easier.
Next, a section from the weather and climate group RealClimate.org, where climate scientists go to relax.
Next, an article from the Independent (which is not my favourite paper, but it's the one they chose to use) about the program.
And finally a short critique on the issue by Sir John Houghton FRS CBE.

Now, if you're involved in a pub based discussion on how global warming is all a ploy by the Met Office to get more funds, you have the knowledge to put down your opponent and make them feel silly.

I've also been made aware of an article on Gillian McKeith, which I think is rather marvelous.

That should do it for now. When I can be objective I'll put something up about intelligent design, but it'll just fire up the blood if I do.