Hmm – so her second transplant it seems is being offered by her father, and what father wouldn’t want to save a child? The question raised is whether Australian authorities, who would not sanction a live donation, should pay for her trip to another country where they can assess her. Tough call, but I think they shouldn’t. If she can’t be assessed at home then her family should be required to raise the money themselves. The determination to do that might demonstrate their commitment to make it work this time – and give her the slap Stangman proposes.

But the other, hidden question, that Steve raises is that she failed to make the best of her first transplant. Something has gone wrong there, either with her assessment as being suitable or post op support to make sure she didn’t go back to her old ways.

With a shortage of organs for innocent victims of disease etc, it is heartbreaking to see them not being used to fullest advantage.

http://www.uktransplant.org.uk

I only meant it as a bit of humour about statistics – and a dig at Fox News. 😉 Apparently the 59% represented the”Somewhat Likely” or greater camp, which included the 35% “very likely” group.

Oh, you’ve found another one. Excellent.

I’ve not got much information on PP118 or the attempted salvage. Chaz Bowyer’s book “The Short Sunderland” simply records “Salvaged, but caught fire/burnt out23 Feb 1950”.

I notice the lifeboat is almost directly above the wreck – I wonder if they’ve picked up the old flying boat mooring for the lifeboat.

Have you had any contact with the Sunderland Trust at Pembroke Dock yet?(http://www.pdst.co.uk/) They are working to recover an earlier (MkI) Sunderland wreck from Pembroke Dock. You might be able to help each other.

AllanK

Fox News putting in 120% effort. – see here

I’m going to leave this now because there’s not enough facts coming back – such as the evidence or motive for why somebody deliberately manipulates data.

But glad we agree that the planet is warming – saves discussing the “hockey stick”.

Whether it has levelled off or not – I presume you mean this graph

You’re right, we don’t know which way it will go next year and to base an assumption that it has levelled off on three or fours years of data is fundamentally flawed. There is simply too much variation in the data to draw such a conclusion. Draw the graph as far as 1995 and you would have a much lower mean than shown.

EDIT to add – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

The now infamous and totally discredited “hockey stick” was “peer reviewed”. The problem was that the review was not undertaken by disinterested scientists.

No – the problem was that it was done way back in 1998 and the science has advanced. If you are saying it is totally discredited then you are saying that there is no global warming – man-made or otherwise.

Much more data has been added to the debate, the way it is analysed is more sophisticated and now even governments accept that the planet is warming.

Even if you ignore Mann et all (1998) “The Hockey Stick” there is plenty of other evidence – see here

T How do you . . . account for all the previous warmings over the past 500,000 years and as recently as the Medieval Warming, all of which occurred when no CO2 was being produced by man?

The Medieval Warming happened in Europe but not elsewhere – European warming but not global warming.

See Science magazine which says “The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.”

The emphasis is mine.

Classic conspiracy theorist tactic – big emphasis on something that sounds credible but which collapses once subjected to any investigation.

There’s precious little evidence of any sort in this debate so far here – certainly not of the peer-reviewed type that the scientific community demands.

It is fascinating that the sceptics’ arguments have an almost religious fervour, talking of belief more than quoting evidence and sources. I’ve kept an open mind on the subject but it is clear that the arguments put about by sceptics are so superficial. Conversely the Climatologists views have taken many, many years to investigate and prove, backed up with rafts of data.

So why is it that the UK has lost respect for the scientific community who have spent many years learning their trade?

I have a lot of time for Burt Rutan as an aircraft designer but as a hobby climatologist I found his arguments sounded like little more than those of a conspiracy theorist. Imagine discussing the future of a planet based on the type of arguments used to discus whether Prince Philip killed his daughter-in-law!