Yet another reason not to pay your BBC TV license and to not pay attention to the Center for American Progress.
Readers may recall the nuclear reaction over the one time I appeared on The PBS Newshour. Seeing an alternate opinion caused Dunning -Kruger conniption fits and screams of “false balance” for daring to let a climate skeptic speak. Apparently, what I said upset the world view of too many “deep thinkers”. Like the climate action standard bearers at the Center for American Progress, Joe Romm and Daniel Weiss (more on them follows), readers might also recall how Gavin Schmidt refused to be on the same set with Dr. Roy Spencer.
Andrew Montford reports:
In his Mail on Sunday article today David Rose reveals that the BBC – at least in Scotland – has a new policy of protecting climatologists from challenge on air.
Josh weighs in below as well.
A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.
Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.
Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.
More here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587072/Eureka-How-magic-doughnut-fakes-sun-save-planet-But-Chinese-thanks-billions-spend-eco-power-gravy-train.html
Josh sums up what future BBC news debates might look like.
Speaking of non-debates, The folks at the Center For American Progress decided they can’t sit in the same set of chairs with a climate skeptic.
Fox Business:
‘A discussion about the science of the stuff with Climate Depot skeptic Marc Morano (once tabbed by Media Matters as the “Climate Change Misinformer of the Year”) and Center for American Progress Director of Climate Strategy Daniel J. Weiss, who refused to debate directly with Morano, and chided us for airing his views.’
What a weasel.
I recall fondly what Weiss had to say about Climategate, he really doesn’t need to worry about Morano or any other skeptic. He’s his own worst enemy.
Gavin runs a close second in ducking weasel antics:
These antics where climate alarmists rig the news program so they don’t have to appear in a one-on-one situation where an uncomfortable question might be asked, is in my opinion, the ultimate act of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
Well….nothing like publicly admitting the science doesn’t stand up
In retreat.
One must avoid the possibility of exposure.
David Suzuki’s massive gaff in Australia has shown many, formerly supportive, people what a phoney Dr Fruitfly really is.
BBC is totally exposed, Frank Zappa; “I am the Slime”, is public broadcasting.
For “THE CAUSE” communication is important.
They tell us so repeatedly.
But only one way communication, from them to us.
Preaching, was the old description of such “communication”.
Each of these own goals, by an increasingly shrill and desperate cult of calamitous climate, tells me only the useful idiots are left in this game.
They are like a soccer team playing an imaginary opponent, while losing horribly.
Ok, how about debate between climate scientists then? Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Michaels, they’re all clmate scientists. Gavin is NOT a climate scientist, he’s a mathematician. So where’s the false balance again?
Unfortunately you are unable, as a British resident, to not pay your TV license. It’s no longer a license fee and has been a ratified tax and is required by law to be paid to H.M. Revenue.
Whilst you may choose not to it’s a huge fine and possible jail time if you intentionally avoid it. There is no loophole.
“It only takes one to prove me wrong.” -Albert Einstein
“No one can prove me wrong.” -Gavin Schmidt.
*ratified tax since 2005
Daniel J Weiss is a weasel?
That is an insult to weasels.
Perhaps Climate Agnotologist
Stuart Varney good job.
Too bad they didn’t have more time. The more Weasel talked the more obvious it became that he had an agenda to make the world a more stupid place.
Check out this news Cast by Brian Lilley of Sun News Media on March 14, 2014, archived here:
He is a part of the MSM but on the reality edge of it.
It is fantastic.
http://bcove.me/g2wisg3t
The only type of balance those in the top heavy BBC administration care about is their bank balances.
£277 million ($450 million) in playoffs for executives surplus to requirements over the past 7 years tells you a lot about those who guide the supposedly unbiased BBC.
When it comes to climate, the BBC has its own form of ‘Newspeak’, no opportunity is ever missed to disseminate their climate propaganda and brainwash the ill informed.
‘false balance’ – you can say that again!
“and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.”
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
(George Orwell)
So the climate (alarmist) Ssientists have gone full blown kindergarten because they have gotten their feelings hurt. They shouldn’t be mad at the skeptics, they need to be mad Mother Nature isn’t cooperating. It’s bad enough that drama created by 4-6 year olds happen every day over things as silly as peanut butter and crackers, and that it seems to have crossed over to the climate (alarmist) scientists responses. I am guessing they are tired of debating and losing the argument because their message hasn’t exactly panned out.
Anthony, FYI, positive discrimination against skeptics has not only been in force at the BBC for a number of years but is actually POLICY.
In Newswatch (a BBC television programme) on November 29th, 2010, David Jordan, the lead author of the BBC editorial guidelines, admitted that when it comes to climate change, the word ‘impartiality’ has a different meaning to the dictionary definition. In the programme, David Jordan actually says: “If both sides of the debate were to be reflected it would give the impression that both sets of views were equal and we don’t have to approach impartiality in climate change in that way”.
At one time you could view this interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vjxv3/Newswatch_29_10_2010
…but it seems to have disappeared now.
H/T to Paul Westhaver for providing the link to Brian lilley of Sun news. I recommend everbody watch it. Warms the cockles of your heart
Good. At least this “emperor” knows he has no clothes.
I don’t hold myself in the same category as the skeptic giants, Lindzen, Spencer, Christie, Singer, and others, but I do my small part to carry the skeptic message to my fellow chemical engineers, via speeches and blogging. I did have a brush with a famous warmist, though, Dr. Michael E. Mann, where he also ducked a TV interview. That episode from May, 2012, was written up here at WUWT; an excerpt follows:
“Just a few words about the television interviews, that Dr. Mann declined and I accepted. I was asked by a very nice young lady to step out of the convention hall into the hallway, where she confirmed that I had asked the question of Dr. Mann. She then said that was an excellent question, and a news reporter from PBS would like to interview me, would I consent to the interview? I said I would be happy to do so. I met the reporter, David, and I apologize to him that I didn’t catch the last name. He’s a very interesting and quite nice fellow. We went through the preliminaries, my name, occupation, and he asked my affiliation. I told him I’m in solo practice and was here on my own, not representing any organization. That seemed to perplex him, and I stated that I am just one of many thousands of climate skeptics. Some others wanted to attend today but could not for various reasons, so I came alone. He seemed more relieved when he asked what kind of law I practice and I told him Climate Change law.
David (Nazar) then decided he wanted to interview Dr. Mann first, then me second to get the skeptic view. He asked me to step away and return in 10 minutes. I went back to the presentation and took my seat. I could see Dr. Mann across the room, and he went out for a few minutes then returned. So, I went back out to find David and his camera-man. At that point, David told me that he did not interview Dr. Mann after all. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Dr. Mann refused the interview and got angry. I believe David told him that he was to be interviewed first, then me, although I was not identified by name but by the question I asked. It could be that Dr. Mann did not want to be interviewed then have a skeptic follow him, with no opportunity to rebut. This is just speculation on my part, though.”
Links to the posts for those who may have missed it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/a-first-hand-report-on-dr-michael-manns-embarrasing-disneyland-episode/
also http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/the-question-put-to-dr-mann-at-disneyland-today/
and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/18/dr-mann-goes-to-disneyland/
jolan says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:00 am
H/T to Paul Westhaver for providing the link to Brian lilley of Sun news. I recommend everbody watch it. Warms the cockles of your heart
Paul Westhaver says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:30 am
Check out this news Cast by Brian Lilley of Sun News Media on March 14, 2014, archived here:
He is a part of the MSM but on the reality edge of it.
It is fantastic.
http://bcove.me/g2wisg3t
Perhaps this great video could be a separate post?
I know failure to debate is “alarmist” policy 101. However, to actually watch an adult like Schmidt publicly behave in such an manner is stunning. Refusing to talk until Spencer left the TV stage was childish and should have been both personally and professionally humiliating (to Schmidt). Stossel did a great service by highlighting this silly little man.
I’m just a working slob (ex-CFO, etc) so I really don’t understand “academic culture”, but I assumed guys like me got taxed to support tenured ivory tower academics (like Schmidt) so they could (among other things) research, argue and test tough and/or important issues.
At least in Schmidt’s case, I guess not (yea, I know he works for tax-payer funded NASA, but it’s still research).
One reason modern civilization crawled out of the Middle Ages was acceptance of a theory & data-based scientific method. All Schmidt needed to do was discuss how real data supports his theory better than it supports Spencer’s. Instead, he babbles on about “sky is falling” hypotheticals based on derived data from computer models that obviously can’t predict Mother Nature. This is not debate – it’s making it up as you go along.
Climastroligists never have, and never will win any debate. They are too encumbered by misrepresentations, pseudoscience, and lies. They know they can’t win, so have to make up bogus excuses. It’s pathetic.
It’s all a further demonstration of the real motive behind AGW, which isn’t climate or the environment at all – it’s leftist autocracy and elitist kleptocracy. Of course dissent can’t be allowed in the dictatorship which the AGW crowd seeks to establish and maintain.
At some point, AGW and its exponents need to be attacked on civil rights grounds. Here in the USA we have the First Amendment, but not sure what basis there is in the UK, Canada, Australia, or the European Union countries.
Wow! Wouldn’t this be considered a human rights violation in some countries? I believe it would be under the Canadian Human Rights Act in Canada. It is a clear statement of discrimination under both “groups” and individuals but who knows how it would be applied here, never mind what the law is in Britain for a government Crown Corporation.
To John V. Wright:
I’m not an expert at it, but I have heard that the WayBac Machine captures most or all “disappeared” stuff on the ‘net.
See if you can give it a whirl, and get a link to an archive copy.
Mark H.
“zootcadillac says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:21 am
Unfortunately you are unable, as a British resident, to not pay your TV license. ”
—-
To clarify, you of course can… so long as you do not watch live TV as it is broadcast.
DVD’s etc via the set & catch-up online… fine.
However, granted, BBC/TVL/Capita don’t like that, and can make life tiresome trying to promote misinformation on the actual obligations via credulous media, and indeed can go further by trying to gain access to your home to try and get you to prove your innocence. On occasion with police support that can seem ill-informed.
This may be set to change, thanks to the new bill introduced, that will take a year to rattle about, making all these shenanigans civil rather than criminal.
BBC/TVL/Capita don’t like this either.
Because it sets a (devil always in detail) precedent that things can change, and the BBC has resisted that for decades, perhaps explaining all the fixes it gets itself into, but seem unaccountably, and uniquely, to survive.
As it likely will this one, where senior management imposes on editorial, flat out contradicting the army of anonymous ‘BBC spokespersons’ claiming this would never happen each day it clearly does.
However, one day what the BBC says will not tally enough with what it always actually does so often and so far, the dam will burst and the entire public of the UK will cease accepting a very compromised version of objective information and education, in clear breach of the Charter obligations.
It possible even a few of the PPE grads in Parliament, and especially on ‘The Future of the BBC’ committee currently convening, may twig too.
It’s not just about finding a new way to uniquely fund the BBC. It is about spotlighting what this money gets used for and how.
Currently, little of value or integrity.
Hansen’s not a climate “scientist” either, he’s an astrophysicist.
And so it goes. This all for show. The end has been predetermined. The debate is truly long since over, not because there are no counter arguments, rather because debate will not be allowed. Our only hope is the internet. What do we have that might go viral?
these days i only go to the bbc to find out what i’m supposed to think.
i did see recently on the eco sites people asking others to campaign and contact the bbc to complain that ‘deniers’ were being given credibility by giving them a platform to speak.
the biased bbc site has examples of climate change bias.
“Severian says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:31 am
Hansen’s not a climate “scientist” either, he’s an astrophysicist.”
… And Christopher Moncton is neither a climatologist nor a scientist … so what is your point?
I could not agree more with Gavin’s stance in the Stossel interview. A short debate-format interview guided by an ideological host on an ideological channel adds up to nonsense. The climate issue is immensely complex and not suited to soundbite interaction infotainment.
The Independents reruns on Fox Business at 16:00 EDT today. From Reason.com:
Anyway, “Environmentally Challenged” starts off with a contentious interview about global warming impacts and policies with serial debater Bill Nye the Science Guy. Next comes a discussion about the science of the stuff with Climate Depot skeptic Marc Morano (once tabbed by Media Matters as the “Climate Change Misinformer of the Year”) and Center for American Progress Director of Climate Strategy Daniel J. Weiss, who refused to debate directly with Moreno, and chided us for airing his views.
New York Times science writer and friend o’ Reason John Tierney is next with an update on his classic and controversial 1996 piece, “Recycling is garbage.” Followed by “skeptical environmentalist” and cost/benefit addict Bjorn Lomborg, who talks about comparatively inexpensive solutions to pressing environmental problems, and vice-versa. Energy economist Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute discusses fracking and future energy sources, and beloved Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey talks on one of his favorite themes: how things are actually getting better all the time.
What a great WUWT lead post. Thank you.
Here is a case study I suggest is relevant to the situation.
Case Study #1 on Intellectual Dynamics
Note: ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ could be interpreted either as an individual or groups
‘A’ says a specific horrific man caused crisis exists that threatens all life on planet Earth, do something (call it ‘X’) quickly.
‘B’ says lets discuss point-by-point in great detail, in an open and transparent way with all interested individuals, the basis of the claims and recommended action of both ‘A’ and ‘C’.
‘C’ says it does not matter what ‘A’ and ‘B’ say, mankind should just quickly do ‘X’ (or something else like it) because it is a good thing to do (the way we are living is bad).
– – – – – – – – – –
Discussion
‘A’ will not discuss anything with ‘B’, but will discuss with ‘C’.
‘A’ advocates that ‘B’ should be silenced.
Recommendation
‘B’ should persist without compromise and without fear or prejudice.
John
I have never [b]ever[/b] bought a TV license. And I never will. Why is that?
[i]I’m skint?[/i] No, I do all right, thanks very much.
[i]The BBC’s programs are crap?[/i] No. Sure, many are, but some are okay. Sherlock wasn’t bad. Either way, it’s not the reason.
[i]The BBC hates and insults AGW sceptics?[/i] It’s sickening, but no, that’s not the reason either.
The reason: I cannot bring myself to pay my government a fee in return for its permission for me to watch TV; it’s just too morally repugnant to me. It’s as simple as that.
“Mr MacLeod wrote that the reason the Trust decided that there should be no attempt by the BBC to give equal weight to opposing sides on climate change was that sceptics’ views were ‘based on opinion rather than demonstrablescientific validity’.
???????????? what demonstrablescientific validity?
part of the trick in the bbc statement is to imply only ‘non scientists’ oppose co2 warming. There are scientists who not accept that premise but they never invite them on because they buy hook line and sinker the ‘science is settled’ ‘there is consensus’ ‘95% certainty of co2 being the cause’ mantras from the co2 cult.
they do not even let their science journalists investigate although this one got through
Climategate: Operation Cabin files released by police
Martin Rosenbaum Freedom of information specialist
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20159417
“Another document shows that the police decided not to make a media appeal for information to assist the investigation during the Copenhagen climate summit (known as COP15), because “with COP15 still underway in Copenhagen raising awareness still further may have an negative impact on the conference”.
“Some may be surprised that the police would allow these apparently political considerations to affect their conduct of an investigation.”
“The disclosures also reveal how the police worked their way through certain websites on which Climategate had been discussed, printing off and filing away, for example, a list of staff at the Taxpayers’ Alliance.”
If uk police is interested in anyone exposing the co2 narrative then….hi guys..
from other news reports the usual way the uk police undercover operators work is that it is usually the person with the most extreme views and best funded who is the spy.
John@EF says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm
“The climate issue is immensely complex and not suited to soundbite interaction infotainment.”
Ho humm. Earth’s not been warming for 17.5 years. The computer models all predicted warming.
The warmist scientists are now debunked; their theory falsified.
See how easy that was? They can throw up all sorts of complex protective hypotheses; we don’t have to listen; the PREDICTION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED. Game over.
This is what people notice. This is good. The more they run, the more they hide, the louder they rant and scream – they’re putting the spotlight on themselves – and triggering regular, ordinary people to ask even more questions. They are making this lack of debate an issue in its own right.
Oh bollocks, re-posted with corrected thingies.
I have never ever bought a TV license. And I never will. Why is that?
I’m skint? No, I do all right, thanks very much.
The BBC’s programs are crap? No. Sure, many are, but some are okay. Sherlock wasn’t bad. Either way, it’s not the reason.
The BBC hates and insults AGW sceptics? It’s sickening, but no, that’s not the reason either.
The reason: I cannot bring myself to pay my government a fee in return for its permission for me to watch TV; it’s just too morally repugnant to me. It’s as simple as that.
You can always tell a scientist is present because he can’t stop explaining the various puzzles still facing his field of inquiry. Ask him a tough question and he’ll be happy to discuss it with you forever. Give him a new perspective and he’ll be overjoyed. Set before him a new problem and he’ll be estactic. When you meet someone who refuses to answer your questions, refuses to show how he got his results, refuses to examine a new problem and insists there is only one right answer and there will always be only one right answer in his field of study you know that whatever else is involved you are not talking to a scientist, no matter what he claims or how many letters he lists after his name.
Speaking of Gavin Schmidt, he was in Vancouver for the TED conference this past week and had this to say on the local news:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZN7E3EWt7o&w=420&h=315]
(As a buns you get a great view of Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZN7E3EWt7o
Correction for The Independents: Fox Business at 16:00 PDT / 19:00 EDT today.
…meant to say “As a bonus you get a great view of Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet”. Stupid autocorrect…
Paul Westhaver says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:30 am
Check out this news Cast by Brian Lilley of Sun News Media on March 14, 2014, archived here:
He is a part of the MSM but on the reality edge of it.
It is fantastic.
http://bcove.me/g2wisg3t
*
Thank you for this, Paul. Seriously excellent viewing. It was good to see the petition signed by scientists (31,000+) get a mention. Wonderful stuff. 🙂
Hahah you must be kidding John@EF.
Do you know of any non ideological host and a non ideological channel?
You do not understand that journalism exists only for political proposes?
Useful Idiot says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Speaking of Gavin Schmidt, he was in Vancouver for the TED conference this past week and had this to say on the local news:
=====
Nice clip. Echos my point, above, re: his reasoning for not appearing with Spencer. The subject requires significant understanding, not guided soundbite spin. This aside from lending any inkling of cred’ to Spencer’s impactful editor-resigning research.
Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/should-scientists-debate-creationists-140105.htm
The BBC are Past Masters at giving disinformation, and then covering up for their dissemination of misinformation.
I made a complaint recently about their blaming the Philippine typhoon on Climate Change. This was their reply:
British Broadcasting Corporation
Editorial Complaints Unit
Wood Lane, London, W12 7TQ
Tel: 020 8743 8000
Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk
Ref: CT/1400057
5 March 2014
Dear Mr …..
Re: Today, Radio 4, 13 November 2013
I am writing as promised to let you know the provisional findings of the Editorial Complaints Unit’s investigation into the concerns you have raised about the interview on Today with the President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim. I have understood you to say that the interview about Typhoon Haiyan gave the inaccurate and misleading impression that the number of tropical cyclones is increasing because of climate change. I have also understood you to say that this was in breach of the BBC’s commitment to due impartiality.
I have listened to the interview a number of times and I do not believe there are grounds to uphold your complaint. However, I hope I can explain the reasons why I have reached this decision.
You have said that a specific link was made between climate change and increased cyclone activity but I am afraid that was not the impression I took from the interview. I think it was clear that both the presenter, Evan Davis, and Mr Kim acknowledged at the start of the relevant part of the interview that climate scientists generally agree that it is not possible to attribute a single storm or extreme weather event to any change in the global climate:
Evan Davis: I know you’ve suggested that it is time to stop arguing about climate change. I wonder whether you weren’t in danger of creating another argument about climate change by even mentioning it here. Because, of course, scientists do say you can’t attribute any one storm to changes in the long term climate.
Jim Yong Kim: There’s no question that it is not possible to relate Typhoon Haiyan or any other specific event to climate change as a whole. This is not possible. And in all the interviews I have done I have always started with that idea.
I think this would have prevented audiences being given the impression that either Mr Kim or Mr Davis were suggesting the specific typhoon which hit the Philippines was the result of climate change.
In the subsequent discussion, Mr Kim certainly said that the number of extreme weather events appeared to be increasing; he referred to a recent increase in typhoons in the South Pacific1 and more severe droughts in parts of Africa. However, my research appears to indicate that most reputable and eminent organisations working in this area believe there is evidence that a) the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is increasing and b) man-made climate change is having an effect on the number of severe weather events.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a paper called “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation”2 which considered the frequency of extreme weather events. The study acknowledged that any conclusions depended on “the quality and quantity of data and the availability of studies analyzing these data” but said there was evidence to support the view that there had been an increase in some extreme weather events, such as heat waves, heavy rainfall and drought. For example, it said:
It is very likely that there has been… an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data.
There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions…
It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. This is particularly the case in the high latitudes and tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes.
There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts…
I appreciate that the IPCC says “There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities”. However, I don’t think that means the interview was likely to prove materially inaccurate or misleading. I say this because both Mr Davis and Mr Kim said at the beginning that it was not possible to link Typhoon Haiyan or any other specific event to climate change as a whole and in their subsequent discussion both men only spoke about the possible effects of climate change on areas like the Philippines, not the specific effects of storms.
You may recall that Evan Davis asked what might happen “…if a low lying area [like the Philippines] becomes uninhabitable or becomes so subject to severe storms like this that populations just can’t rebuild or get on with their lives…” I don’t think it is reasonable to infer from this that he was saying there will be a greater number of cyclones; he was clearly exploring one possible scenario and leaving open the option that areas could become uninhabitable because of other extreme weather events (such as flooding, heavy rainfall etc). In the same way, Mr Kim responded by talking of the threat that flooding might pose to archipelagos such as the Philippines and major cities such as Bangkok; he did not say this would be caused by a greater number of cyclones. He said “there are places which will certainly be underwater in the next ten, fifteen, twenty years” but, as before, I don’t think it is reasonable to infer that he was claiming this would be the direct result of an increase in the frequency of cyclones rather than other causes.
So in conclusion, I cannot agree that the interview was misleading in the way you suggest and so I think it follows that there was no breach of the BBC’s guidelines on due impartiality. However, I do think it would have been better if it had been made clearer that scientists believe the link between extreme weather events and climate change is stronger in relation to temperatures, heavy precipitation and drought rather than tropical cyclones.
This is a provisional finding and so I would be happy to consider any comments you may have. I would be grateful if you could send any such comments within ten working days of the date of this letter.
Yours sincerely
Colin Tregear
Complaints Director
The believers and University researchers write papers to apply for GRANT AIDS, if the paper seeks the AGW holy grail then it is accepted funded and then sent out other GRANT researchers for peer review [as they call it even non related folks do peer review on subject they are not trained in] They have gone so far as to violate the Scientific method which if used the original paper would have been rejected for application and never even advance to a theory of hypothesis.
They refuse to release base data and data set math calcs. Without these the paper can not even be reviewed for accuracy as there is nothing to allow a test or even attempt to duplicate the conclusion.
The answer becomes simple take away the Grant money – the EPA and NOAA, NASA and the IRS.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-28th-amendment.html
Has anyone else noticed the other great lie of the BBC??
Take a look at their daytime programming, and tell me if any of this output bears any relationship to modern Britain. It is all picture-postcard scenes of 1950s English people: moving house; at the auctions; on the farm; touring Britain; on a train; cooking something; looking at antiques; looking at museums; sailing around the coast… etc: etc: etc:
And in not one of these programs will there be a – errrr – a recent addition to these lands. Not one. Who are the BBC trying to kid eh? That nothing has changed….
R
“Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:”
so anyone including other scientists who challenges the co2 assertion is a ‘creationist? its just another name call to create a curfew on the truth.by people who cannot read charts and have designed experiments that can never fail.
John@EF says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm
I could not agree more with Gavin’s stance in the Stossel interview. A short debate-format interview guided by an ideological host on an ideological channel adds up to nonsense. The climate issue is immensely complex and not suited to soundbite interaction infotainment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then why did good ‘ole Gavin bother showing up for the interview? Noblesse oblige?
I’m really tired of self-selected idiots who arrogantly consider themselves above the obligations of faithfully using the scientific method and accurately explaining their results. Of course, this failure to use actual data to validate his theory probably has nothing to do with his inability to communicate or debate.
I know he considers himself to be a member of a group that’s deserving of my intellectual deference and tax dollars as well as being purer of motive than anything I could ever aspire to, but if you’re going to blatantly pull something out of your patootie, you better be prepared to get called on it.
Bottom line: his philosophical preachings simply aren’t intellectually honest or supported by the scientific method; if it’s not good enough for Einstein or Feynman, it’s not good enough for me.
Here we have the “honour” to have J.P. Van Ypersele, Vice-President of the IPCC (and wouldbe President) in our country. After loosing a debate for the UCL (Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium – French part) with Istvan Marko, head of the chemistry department, he now refuses any direct debate. Last time there was one for the French/Belgian TV, where he did give an interview before the real debate started. But in the background he acts to forbid any open debate at universities where skeptics are present. Last year that was for a debate with Fred Singer and Klaas Johnson. Last month for the presentation of the renewed book of Istvan Marko about “Dix Vérités qui Dérangent” (“Ten Truths which Disturb”) which shows where the CAGW people are wrong… It seems to be a worldwide experience: climate “scientists” avoiding any direct confrontation with skeptics…
The BBC got a lot of complaints when Lord Lawson trounced a warmist (forget who it was) in a debate on Radio 4 a few weeks ago. I think the warmists are now running scared and want to deny the opportunity for dissent, but there is a distinct shortage of scientists willing to act as sceptics in public in the UK. The House of Commons had to get Lindzen to fly over to give evidence to them.
C’mon UK scientists, anyone up for it?
Here is the BBC Today program I was complaining about:
http://tinypic.com/r/if7doh/8
The interviewee says that (paraphrased):
“The (IPCC) predictions indicate that the severity and frequency of these extreme events will go up”.
But this statement was never challenged by the BBC interviewer – Mr Tinsel Tits himself.
R
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/should-scientists-debate-creationists-140105.htm
Debate is a sport, not the way we decide scientifically how the world works…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Plainly you are not a trained scientist. You’ve plainly missed that “alarmists” use inaccurate computer data, and “deniers” use Mother Nature (FYI: Creationists have philosophy, not scientific data).
I’m also guessing you forgot (or never knew) about the long-lasting debate between Einstein and Hoyle regarding the Big Bang, or between Hawking and Susskind regarding information in black holes.
Debate is a necessary and critical part of science.
1) Why are you here?
2) If “Debate is a sport, not the way we decide scientifically how the world works” then can I say the same about consensus?
3) Should sceptics avoid SkS John Cook because he believes in creationism? Or doesn’t he which would make me scratch my head.
Creationism and being sceptical that man’s greenhouse gases drove were the major drivers of the warming since 1950 are two very different things. We know creationists are wrong and we know the IPCC is wrong too. 😉 Just take a look at their continued failed projection.
@5:27 Stossel: “If you make fuel cost more that hurts poor people.”
Schmidt exposes himself as the socialist he is: “Then you give ‘it’ back as a rebate.”
What is ‘it’ and WHO gives it ‘back’? Me? Did the ones who are to do the ‘giving back’ take ‘it’ from the poor to begin with? How do you give BACK something you never had in the first place Schmidt?
This is exactly the point where these socialists get AWFULLY confused. If you are going to LOWER my productivity by increasing the cost of energy then, whether backwards or forwards, I will have LESS profit to ‘give’ to anyone.
But then again maybe Gavin will step in to make up the difference in lost government revenue and take a PAY CUT to “give back” some of his cushy salary to the poor people he cares sooo much about….?
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:
Yeah, no. Wrong analogy there, Leo. If anything, it is skeptics who should refuse to debate the climate scientologists, but, out of fairness, and the wish for people to hear the actual truth about climate they politely offer to debate them. But, every time a climate scientologist has debated, he’s gotten his fanny kicked, and now they are just plain CHICKEN.
John V. Wright says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:42 am
Anthony, FYI, positive discrimination against skeptics
That is not positive discrimination John, that is pure and simple discrimination.
@Chip Javert –
Being a former CFO myself at two companies, but also a former academic, I can perhaps elaborate on your thought. Yes, we are paying taxes to support no end of foolishness in academia (which foolishness prompted me to leave teaching and go get an MBA. And it is telling how isolated academia, and the elites that support it, are from reality. I don’t have to tell you that in business, if you are as wrong as these people are, you’re toast in no time. Been there done that myself, when I rescued my company from certain bankruptcy and liquidation dealing with bosses who were living in a dream world and who, by their actions, presented me with at least half a dozen moments in situations where, if I didn’t get it right, 1,200 people would have been out of work within two weeks and hadn’t the least idea that that sword of Damocles was hanging over their heads. And of course I’d have been toast along with them if I didn’t get it right.
It’s really too bad that this sort of career-killing potential doesn’t apply to these mollusks who sit there under the benevolent umbrella of academic tenure while they crank out this AGW shit and get it dead wrong every bleeping time.
In an odd way, I believe these antics actually help skeptics in the longrun. Anyone watching Schmidt can clearly see the childish unwillingness to engage in debate, like a little baby who doesn’t want to be told ‘no’. He’s turning off the very people he’s trying to save.
The more he push his agenda and force people to agree with him and pretend that only he holds the answers that will save the world (but it takes money of course), the more that people will naturally resist him.
On ‘false balance’ : Years ago, long before the “97% of scientists” propaganda, I arranged a meeting with a journalist (not ABC) in Canberra to explain to him how the climate ‘scientists’ had got it wrong. He listened OK, but explained that nothing like that would get published by his organisation because their policy was to balance published scientific information according to the perceived balance among scientists. In the case of climate science, the perception was that scientists overwhelmingly supported the mainstream view, and therefore his organisation would publish only articles and opinions that supported the mainstream position.
The way to get on air is to go into “breath-taking crisis” mode yourself. Ignore global warming, talk about the devastation of the coming Ice Age. The other option is to ignore the media, which I do, go straight to the internet and dominate the discussion.
“Mr MacLeod wrote that the reason the Trust decided that there should be no attempt by the BBC to give equal weight to opposing sides on climate change was that sceptics’ views were ‘based on opinion rather than demonstrablescientific validity’.”
As opposed to the “demonstrablescientific validity” of climate modeling.
Anthony, theirs a red rag to a bull here if ever I’ve seen one.
There’s a word in there almost as big as the famous Mary Poppins word and l love it.
And then the say,
“All viewpoints continue to be given due weight in our output” – A BBC spokesman
Normally I’d be confused with so many demonstrablescientific clap trap statements issued by the BBC ….but not this time.
I saw that Stossel interview when it was live. The alarmists are very immature.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m not a “birther” of a “9/11 Truther,” I don’t believe aliens are probing people with the government’s approval, I don’t think climate scientists are in some big conspiracy to disinformation the public. But, I got a little uneasy after I read the article here about the 2012 solar blast that narrowly missed earth. That article said if the US grid went down it could be 4-10 years before it was back up. Bear with me here.
We have a very large environmental movement backed almost globally by governments. Within this movement are environmentalists with different agendas:
Less or no burning of fossil fuels.
Less global population.
Alternative energy use.
A return to a more natural environment.
The silencing of skeptics, or jail, or death.
Less global population. (That should be mentioned again)
Some groups overlap in ideals, but many hold an ends justify the means attitude.
Toss in the US government pushing the CAGW meme and their rise in weapon and ammo purchases as well as their militarization of local police forces. I don’t know about those things in other countries, people from outside the US could look into those things where they live. But it got me thinking, what could take care of all the goals of the various environmentalists in one fell swoop? The grid going down would be a good one. It’s a shame I don’t trust my own government, but it is what it is.
I know it sounds like the tv show Revolution, but many people fell like we’re already living out 1984. I read a Forbes magazine article from 12/16/13 in my doctor’s office. There was an article about rich people building bunkers, titled Billionaires’ Bunkers. Insane, high tech bunkers with family treasures tucked away, food and water for many years, with projects on 4 continents, it mentioned the bunker for the US Congress.
Do I start to make my tin foil hat now or should I become a prepper? Scary times. Anyone else ever have concerns like this?
The BBC were willing to put the BNP on a programme. There was a lot of pressure for them to do so, but they finally relented, though there was no policy on not having the BNP on a show. It was the death knell for the BNP as the publicity showed the public what they really were. But until then the progressive left believed that it was wrong to give a platform to extremists.
So “climate deniers” are worse than the BNP in the eyes of the BBC?
A.D. Everard says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Paul Westhaver says:
……..
Thank you for this, Paul. Seriously excellent viewing. It was good to see the petition signed by scientists (31,000+) get a mention. Wonderful stuff. 🙂
_____________________________________________________
Oh you are very welcome. This National News in primetime in Canada broadcast was stunning in it’s unique inversion of what the MSM is usually doing. I was uproariously enjoying every minute. WRT to the petition project, Yes indeed! That NEVER gets a mention. At least now there is a National News Source in Canada that has some reach getting the “skeptic” word out to the general public.
Sun News is growing as well, unlike the other news services, which are imploding.
I tried to post this comment today on the Guardian – it was not allowed!
“Isn’t there a law against spreading alarm and despondency?”
I now very rarely see or hear any BBC output. When I do, it immediately (within seconds) reveals it’s agenda & I turn it off as not worthy of my time. When I meet friends with family or acquaintances working with the BBC & I gently point out the collapse of the BBC’s integrity I am viewed with utter disbelief. Still, the end cannot be too far away, what with the arrival of narrowcasting quickly destroying broadcasting as an economic activity on the one hand and the cost of their final (vastly inflated) salary pensions eating up a more & more significant proportion of their License Fee income on the other. They are not long for this world. No, I will not pay any more in the form of an increased License Fee.
I find the anti-AGW political programme equally absurd. Germany the US & the UK have committed themselves to such outrageous expense in implementing these policies (Hundreds of BILLIONS of Dollars) and have set such great store by it as to make it the foundation of their foreign policy. Assad, Putin & the rulers of Iran have had a field day with their real-politique. What are the US, UK & Germany going to do when China flexes it’s muscles, Russia takes back even more of its previous vassal states & Israel & Iran start a fight to the death? Hope that the wind keeps blowing & the sun keeps shining?
I expect more, much more, from Statesmen than Obama, Cameron & Merkel are currently delivering. They must face reality.
By being unwilling to debate/ discuss the various issues of Global Warming, it only serves to reinforce my scepticism. Surely, if they were so convinced of their beliefs, they would be only too happy to show how solid their Science is. I can’t imagine a proper scientist running scared from a debate with someone who, for example, claimed that Newton’s law of universal gravitation was wrong. So I’m thinking, if someone was to warn us to get out of the way of a big boulder falling on our heads, and we don’t have time to discuss the merits of the gravity science That might be considered a reasonable piece of advice. But if we look up and see NO Boulder, then there’s no need for alarming evasive action. The alarmist however is adamant that there could be a boulder one day, so let’s leap off the edge of a cliff to save ourselves. Then there is every need to have full open discussion.
By not discussing the issues might not prove or disprove Global Warming, but it certainly proves the lack of confidence in the alarmist world.
Gavin Schimdt behaved like a child. I was even embarrassed for him. Pathetic really.
The point apparently sailed right over your head.
The BBC is making a distinction between “climate scientists” and “sceptics”, as if all “climate scientists” have the same message. The point is that Schmidt, Hansen, and others who are called “climate scientists, aren’t, but many labeled as “sceptics” ARE “climate scientists”.
So, they’re saying only the “right sort” of academics/researchers will be allowed to spout their message regarding climate change, and not the unapproved academics/researchers, regardless of whether either are “climate scientists”. In other words, their statement is an outright lie.
Chip Javert says:
I’m versed well enough to know the kinds of “debates” you get on a TV show bear absolutely no resemblance to actual scientific debate. I would recommend a historical examination such as Crelinsten’s “Einstein’s Jury” as a good illustration of the latter, to highlight the stark differences with the former.
Anyone who thinks main stream scientists in any field are “afraid” of debate, don’t like hearing other opinions, or fear they might be proven wrong is off the mark. The problem they usually have is just the opposite. They are well versed in contrarian opinions and feel the evidence so overwhelming and convincingly supports their position that they tend to walk into these things ill prepared for the reality of what it actually is, without appreciating a TV “debate” has little to do with evidence and much more to do with optics, personality, and rhetorical technique.
Most scientists might be good at science but tend to be lousy at public relations, which is what these things really are. Just showing up can lend their credibility to whomever they are sitting across from and can help perpetuate false balance. The facts are largely irrelevant.
I am familiar with an astronomical organization that banned creationists from speaking at their meetings. It wasn’t because the astronomers were “cowards” or “intellectually dishonest” that they didn’t want to open up the floor to this kind of ‘debate’.
And are people seriously criticizing scientists for being reluctant when asked to appear on Fox’s “Green Tyranny”….to represent the “tyranny” side???
Leo Geiger, anybody with eyes to see knows that evolitionists regularly debate creationists in the media. Here in the U.S. hardly a week goes by but that a prominent and broadly heard show broadcasts such a debate. Similarly with atheists and religionists. The fact is that the climate “scientists” will never debate a “skeptic” in the light of day. Your claims that they refuse due to their superior argument is fatuous.
Jimbo says: “1) Why are you here?”
Is that a metaphysical question?
I sometimes ask that myself when I post a comment here, since from time to time it results in a bit of name calling and insults being directed my way. I suppose mostly I am doing my small part in helping WUWT maintain a high page view and low ‘bounce’ rate.
please keep trying to debate to let others know that skeptics are intelligent, real, and decent people.
johnofenfield put “it’s”, and a bowl of popcorn went flying like some circus act.
Political science sucks. The not-seeing,;-) not-debating political BS has got to end.
And as far as religious texts go, 6,500 years ago, the old testament said, (it is a good history archive) ” garden of eden “. Temps were higher then. But, they won’t admit to that.
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 6:38 pm
You could not possibly be more wrong.
CACA advocates refuse to debate skeptics because they know that they lack even a single leg upon which to stand. There is not a single shred of actual physical evidence in support of CACA.
Back in the day (the 1990s) when a few global warming supporters would actually engage a skeptic in a discussion they invariably ended up retreating to a single defense: “But what if you are wrong and I am right?” In essence, the invoked the Precautionary Principle as the only real reason they should be listened to.
Unfortunately for them, the Precautionary Principle is not precautionary, Its implementation has usually produced great harm through inaction, making it self contradictory. This also means that it is not a principle. In truth, it is simply a load of crap that sounds altruistic to those who have lost the ability for rational thought.
There is no verifiable scientific argument for a man-made global warming crisis. There never has been. The entire meme of a global warming crisis is built upon an irrational bit of self-contradictory tripe known as the Precautionary Principle.
Warmists simply cannot debate from such a weak position. They learned that early on. The science does not support their belief system, but their belief system supports their income. They are simply choosing an income (or power, or fame or acceptance) over science. In this regard, they are not that unusual. It’s the same reason we generate electricity with light water reactors instead of the far superior thorium or breeder reactors. The people who made the decisions were just protecting their incomes.
JBJ says:
March 23, 2014 at 12:32 pm
“Severian says:
March 23, 2014 at 11:31 am
Hansen’s not a climate “scientist” either, he’s an astrophysicist.”
… And Christopher Moncton [sic] is neither a climatologist nor a scientist … so what is your point?
————————————————————————————————————-
Yes he’s a skeptic. But the point is that the BBC will effectively only allow “scientists” that do not oppose the AGW hypothesis. In effect the BBC are implying that any other “scientists” climate or otherwise who do oppose it are just skeptics. That is they are no different to the skeptic Monckton whether he is a scientist or not. So their policy allows a non-scientist like Al Gore, or an astrophysicist Hansen and their ilk a voice – its actually not a policy based on ‘scientists versus skeptics’ they are promoting but ‘AGW proponents versus non-believers’.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-23/anti-science-those-who-wish-debate-climate-threatened-death-or-jail
Documents the threats used to try to shut contrarians up.
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Climate scientists avoid these types of ‘debates’ for the same reason other main stream scientists avoid ‘debating’ creationists:…
Do they? If anything, I think it’s the other way round.
“ralfellis :
March 23, 2014 at 1:23 pm
The BBC are Past Masters at giving disinformation, and then covering up for their dissemination of misinformation.”
—
Mr. T is a lovely chap, but his record is not impressive, and still seems trapped in a singular groove…
“…I do not believe there are grounds to uphold your complaint.
…that was not the impression I took…
.. I think it was clear…
I think this would have …
…my research appears to indicate…
…believe there is evidence…
It is very likely …
It is likely …
There is medium confidence …
However, I don’t think that means the interview was likely…
I don’t think it is reasonable…
…but, as before, I don’t think it is reasonable..”
Doesn’t really ‘do; definitive, does he?
So, as you have found, dealing with the BBC complaints system, even to directorial level, gets you from the get-go into matters of ‘belief’, even more noticeably when dealing with scientific method.
Oddly, the ‘belief’ that prevails is decided upon by a BBC employee whose abilities in assessing such things seems on par with the rest of the organisation and agenda-driven top down imposition on editorial. Hence a complaints system designed to default reject every single attempt to nail them down or seek a sensible answer as long as possible. Bizarrely, this attrition technique can then get used by them to accuse the complainant of wasting their time, and close the thing down. It would be funny if not so serious.
When it comes to matters of information and education on the BBC, its value at best may be best summarised here:
“However, I do think it would have been better if it had been made clearer” .
Ya think? Awesome.
Peter Martin (@junkkmale) says: March 24, 2014 at 2:20 am
Hence a complaints system designed to default reject every single attempt to nail them down or seek a sensible answer as long as possible. Bizarrely, this attrition technique can then get used by them to accuse the complainant of wasting their time, and close the thing down. It would be funny if not so serious.
___________________________________
Yeah, I know it is fairly worthless complaining, but I do it just to demonstrate that we do not all agree with the BBC consensus. If they had 1,000 complaints a day, it might make them think again.
I have another ongoing complaint that has gone to the D.G. They said they had told the truth (Antarctica is warming). I said they had deliberately told only a small part of the truth, which can be akin to telling a lie (only a small part of Antarctica is warming). They said ‘a truth is a truth’ (Antarctica is warming).
Again, the guy could not see the folly of his argument, which is why it has gone to the D.G.
Ralph
I watched the movie 1984 this weekend. It’s a good movie. But I was thinking about the climate change debate during the entire move seeing all sorts of similarities. What does BBC have to fear about being completely open about things?
When you consider that the BBC’s arch alarmist, Roger Harrabin, has no expertise or qualifications in his subject you can understand why the BBC goes down this road. According to Wikipedia Harrabin attended Cambridge but no mention of any degree. I think he dropped out.
Leo Geiger says:
March 23, 2014 at 6:38 pm
I’m versed well enough to know the kinds of “debates” you get on a TV show bear absolutely no resemblance to actual scientific debate.
So you object to tv show debates. Fine. The problem is, no matter what the format, your climate scientologists always lose. Always have, always will. Your attempt at shielding them behind the excuse that it’s because they aren’t well-versed in debating technique, or some such nonsense is laughable. It is because they don’t have actual science, only the appearance of it, which quickly gets uncovered, making them easy targets for the actual facts. Reality always trumps ideology. Funny that.
***
NRG22 says:
March 23, 2014 at 3:32 pm
I know it sounds like the tv show Revolution, but many people fell like we’re already living out 1984. I read a Forbes magazine article from 12/16/13 in my doctor’s office. There was an article about rich people building bunkers, titled Billionaires’ Bunkers. Insane, high tech bunkers with family treasures tucked away, food and water for many years, with projects on 4 continents, it mentioned the bunker for the US Congress.
Do I start to make my tin foil hat now or should I become a prepper? Scary times. Anyone else ever have concerns like this?
***
Something on TV recently about the single-family underground “bunkers”, which are very expensive. By far the most customers were politicians/bureaucrats/gov employees in the Wash DC area.
I stopped watching the NewsHour once Gwen Ifill’s role as Obama promoter became crystal clear (with her book on the ‘era of Obama’ whose publication date was inauguration day) so I missed your 2012 interview and have only read the edited transcript now. I was particularly struck by the remark, “He doesn’t claim to be a scientist; he attended Purdue,” which reminded me of the famous line from “Faulty Towers,” “that’s Manuel, he’s from Barcelona,” used by Basil Faulty as a wink-wink comprehensive explanation.
As is so typical with left-wing reporting, they took heed to warn their target audience of your suspect credentials (avert your eyes, children!) i.e. that you are known to harbor banned ideas and that you have nefarious supporters who are “right wing,” including the worst of the worst, those awful Heartland Institute people, “a conservative … non-profit that is one of the leading groups that doubt….” Goodness, what could be more damning? You’re probably a second cousin once removed of the evil Koch brothers too, but PBS’s geneological scouting couldn’t be completed by air time, I guess.
Anyway, it was a very amusing and still relevant blast from the past!
The “sink” error was particularly amusing. Did anyone at PBS actually understand that you were using a scientific term, that you were not referencing New Age psychometrics …?
Now if we could only get Mother Nature in “sync”! The Washington DC forecast for tomorrow is snow! Again SNOW!
This was great —
Fred W. Manzo says: March 23, 2014 at 12:54 pm
“You can always tell a scientist is present because he can’t stop explaining the various puzzles still facing his field of inquiry. Ask him a tough question and he’ll be happy to discuss it with you forever. Give him a new perspective and he’ll be overjoyed. Set before him a new problem and he’ll be estactic. When you meet someone who refuses to answer your questions, refuses to show how he got his results, refuses to examine a new problem and insists there is only one right answer and there will always be only one right answer in his field of study you know that whatever else is involved you are not talking to a scientist, no matter what he claims or how many letters he lists after his name.”
zootcadillac says:
March 23, 2014 at 10:21 am
“Unfortunately you are unable, as a British resident, to not pay your TV license”
…
Not only that; if you live in an area of the UK where one cannot receive BBC Television programmes (e.g. the hills of Mid Wales) unless paying a third party (like BSkyB) one is still threatened by jail if one refuses to pay for a “service” one cannot receive.
Unfortunately our left leaning so-called conservative Prime Minister supports the ongoing taxation levied by the BBC.
Let’s recap….
They got the schools.
They got the media.
They got the government bureaucracies.
They got the NGOs.
They got the unions, including the UCS. (save yourself Kenji)
It does make one curious as to what’s holding them back?
Mostly, I wonder what happens next?
cn
zootcadillac says:
“Unfortunately you are unable, as a British resident, to not pay your TV license. “
Wanna bet?
No debates between “…scientists and sceptics (sic).” Carefully chosen words. They skeptics are mainly scientists, often with better credentials than those of the Chicken Little brigade.
Leo Geiger says:
I’m versed well enough to know the kinds of “debates” you get on a TV show bear absolutely no resemblance to actual scientific debate.
It appears that you are not ‘versed’ at all.
Here is just one example of a real scientific debate, held at Oxford Union.
I have more, if you’re interested.
Chuck Nolan says: March 24, 2014 at 9:50 am
They got the NGOs.
_________________________
Most of the recruits for the NGOs working in the Philippines disaster, came from hippy communes. Says it all really.
R