Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr Willie Soon – according to leaked information obtained by the Carbon Brief, the taxpayer funded BBC is very concerned that “climate deniers” are sometimes not properly challenged on air.
…
- Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.
- Be aware of ‘false balance’: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken. However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier. There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt.
- Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.
…
Read more: https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change/
Just in case you think providing a hostile reception to the occasional “denier” grudgingly allowed on air constitutes excessive leniency, the BBC provides further guidance regarding their green broadcasting initiative.
The BBC’s Greener Broadcasting strategy
In 2018, the Corporation launched a Pan-BBC strategy, Greener Broadcasting, to create a business that is environmentally sustainable and doing its part to tackle environmental factors that could impact our futures. The strategy is in three-parts: Ourselves, Our Industry and Our Audiences. Its goal, over the course of the current Charter period, is to create a positive environmental impact.
‘Ourselves’
looks at creating a sustainable workplace, including our ways of working as BBC employees and our ways of running our buildings and operations.‘Our Industry’
is about working with other organisations in the production and transmission sectors as well as in our wider supply chain to see how, together, we can reduce carbon emissions and learn best practice from each other.‘Our Audiences’
ensures that we, as the BBC, are informing and educating the public, allowing them to make informed choices about their own behaviours around sustainable living.…
Read more: https://www.scribd.com/document/388060002/Climate-Change-Crib-Sheet-for-NEWS
I think the advice to BBC employees seems clear. If they want to allow the occasional “climate denier” on air, make sure the “denier” is treated to a hostile reception, and make sure they don’t get an opportunity to interfere with the BBC’s mission to convince their audience make green lifestyle choices.
And that lovely word “potentially” in the advice – BBC journalists are encouraged to offer their own potentially unfounded opinions about how they think the guest “denier” is funded.
Let them have what they want. Shut off the natural gas at BBC and all electricity produced from fossil fuels. A year or so of shivering in the dark should provide a much needed attitude adjustment.
Wonder what CBC’s guidelines are…
I wouldn’t know as I haven’t watch them for 20 years.
CBC?
Probably worse. I have not heard a sceptic on CBC yet.
I wrote to the CBC and challenged them on this point, specifically about McIntyre being hailed around the world for exposing the hockey stick chart. 18 months later then interviewed him for more than an hour. It is a pretty good interview.
That’s it. They once interviewed a guy, an expert, they thought, in Alberta who to the shock of the interviewer said straight out that he was a ‘denier’ and he felt more people should come out of the closet and say so.
The interviewer, young and obviously unskilled on the subject, tried to lampoon the guy but failed terribly. He sounded like an idiot struggling to fling mud. The interviewee was completely unfazed and in answer to the question, “What causes the climate to change?” replied that he thought the sun played a major part.
That’s all. The rest of the time we get that clown modeler from Victoria or a Suzuki acolyte. Off-message messages aren’t allowed so we hear next to nothing about Doug Ford, about the second most important person in the country. All we get about him is the cancellation of the new sex ed syllabus – a popular move with the deplorables. Why teach sodomy to eight year olds in schools when there are free lessons on Sundays?
Relevant here is Jordan Peterson’s question, “Do you think it is possible for the left to go to far?” The CBC has answer and you won’t like it
Is there anyone on the planet who thinks we don’t have a climate?
Or that this climate changes over time?
I’ve yet to meet one!
There is one rather simple question that has yet to be given an adequate answer: Is the planet getting warmer?
Some places yes, others no. Its climate. It changes. It always has and always will, whether we, in our ephemeral existence, are here to witness it or not.
Do we have an effect? Meh, perhaps but not very much, and certainly nowhere near what alarmist would have us believe. Any impact we’ve had pales in comparison to cyanobacteria that probably had the greatest impact on our atmosphere, but most life on earth isn’t complaining about that (except for a few misanthropes).
The earth doesnt have a climate, it has climates from tropical to glacial.
The planet does not have an average climate or energy state i.e. temperature.
so, you’re a denier denier, eh?
Luke-warmer gate-keepers of the RGHE as yourself are an embarrassment to science , Roy, no spine, to affraid of the so-called consensus, with your back-radiation garbage.
Postma makes achump out of you every time you tangle.
Have a nice day.
“Why teach sodomy to eight year olds in schools when there are free lessons on Sundays?” … that deserves a prize!
OK…OK…Now you’re just Preaching to the Choir Boys
Tom: Aren’t they the outfit who constantly put up Suzuki for his promotion of AGW?
IF at all possible get only Mann, Mckibben and Suzuki for anything climate change related…if they are not available, Greenpeace is a prefectly acceptible substitution (feel free to quote greenpeace in all articles as well).
Exactly…..they want to push all of this green nonsense – then let them lead by example! And if they want their buildings to be so nice and green, then they should have solar panels on the roof, a few small rooftop windmills (or wherever they can reasonably place them without running afoul of government regulations and unhappy neighbors) and a bunch of people peddling stationary bikes hooked up to the electrical system to take up the slack from lack of wind and sunshine. Not sure what they’d do about their HVAC systems….those tend to be energy intensive and none of the above mentioned methods of power generation would cut it. Maybe just open the windows in summer, bundle up in winter and hope for the best.
BBc is leading by example. Their pension funds are managed by Generation Investment Management, LLC. The green investment management firm for huge institutional investors set up by Al Gore.
TheLastDemocrat
,,,BBc is leading by example. Their pension funds are managed by Generation Investment Management, LLC. The green investment management firm for huge institutional investors set up by Al Gore….
Who will they blame when the fund goes broke? Or is it already tapped into the deep pocket of the taxpayer?
UNFCCC
External Statement / 02 Nov, 2017
Re: Deployment of smart grids.
https://unfccc.int/news/shift-to-clean-affordable-energy-critical-to-attaining-global-goals
UNFCCC
Search results: smart grids
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=smart%20grids
UNFCCC
Search results: smart meters.
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=smart%20meters
UNFCCC has many articles on smart grids and smart meters.
We can use their frozen corpses as door stoppers.Their gonads that have frozen off can be used as small paperweights.
If you can hold down a stack of paper with a Raisin
shutting off the licence fee income would help tremendously
They don’t seem to have any concerns when it comes to flying their people round the world, especially to report ‘climate change’ conferences or catastrophes, or to collect fake footage for their wildlife porn*. Then there’s the bill for sending taxis the length of the country to collect/return guests for their left-leaning blatherfests. And the licence payer picks up the bills.
*I look forward to the day when disturbing wildlife for entertainment purposes is as unthinkable as spending Sunday afternoons laughing at the inmates of |Bedlam.
They wouldn’t last an hour. BBC is made up of 3 or 4 great people and a mob of snowflakes.
Basic facts are always in short supply at the BBC, but this is a spectacular ‘own goal’:
“To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.”
They would be right to deny that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday, the match was on Sunday!
https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-climate-change-guidelines-get-it-wrong/
Trouble is………….who is the Climate Referee?
Lol.
In fact, impartiality DOES require all voices, in proportions. Showing skepticism and alarmism in that order is neither balanced. As a rule, the underdog deserves the last word.
But, they discarded balance a long time ago. Waah, it is worser than expected!!
BBC must understand what is climate change — what IPCC or UNCCC definitions — before making guidelines.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
They use a Humpty Dumpty definition.
Dr Reddy,
You may have already noted that the News editor – Fran Unsworth – who made this important proclamation – has a degree in drama.
Source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Unsworth
Yes, I know that the wiki can be edited by almost everyone [until their proclivities are noted . . . .],.
A friend did drama, long ago, and there was no physics or chemistry in that degree course. Certainly, not the course that the redoubtable Unsworth did.
Just sayin’.
Auto
Ah, but auto, being a Drama Queen, she has feelings, & they ALWAYS outweigh science, rational thought, & logic!
Alan,
Indeed.
My bad.
But do the DQ’s feelings always have to be paid for by the tax- and licence-payer?
It seems so, now. But, surely, not forever!?
Auto
“The referee has spoken.” I guess science is now like a sporting event where the referee decides the “truth” and facts and data are irrelevant.
https://youtu.be/C8mKkngERW0
What no video replay?
Exactly. Lets have the equivalent of the video replay and ‘snicko’ etc on say Mann’s Hockey Schtick, Hide the Decline and Mike’s Nature Trick. Then lets have a similar forensic look at the temperature record fiddles, the actual ‘extreme weather event occurrence/severity analysis.
Yes, exactly. If the ref has spoken why did they introduce VAR?
If the general public was as informed about climate science as it was about football, it would be howling for the hides of the referees who are ‘blowing the game’.
A shame that such a previously revered institution as the BBC is now no more than a propaganda machine.
It’s been that way for decades. It’s just that 40 years ago they still felt the need to hide their biases.
BBC mantra:
‘Whites need not apply.’
Wally,
You mean the Romans weren’t Zulus?
Their gladii look a lot like assegais to me.
And the similarities don’t stop there. But I’m going with convergent cultural evolution rather than direct descent.
It is run by the government. What do you expect?
Actually it isn’t.
But it might as well be.
They’re worried deep down that they may have to brow-beat the guvment for extra Licence Fee money due to the impending £20M+ shortfall that will inevitably occur once Britian finally leaves the damned Totalitarian EU! The EU gives such amounts to ALL state broadcasters, I wonder why?
The Biased Broadcasting Company was never a “revered institution” except in its own propaganda about itself.
I recall it was once called the British Broaddcorping Castration by some wag.
Yup, just like I call Verizon Wireless “We’re lies ‘n’ virus”.
These days its the Boy Buggering Corporation.
I think over 50% of its employees class themselves as LBGT etc etc.
I would call it a “reversed institution” these days…
I recall seeing a picture, I guess from the 1930s, of a BBC Radio announcer standing at the mic–dressed for dinner. Black tie, wing collar, patent leather shoes the whole thing.
Now, that was class!
None now.
Bob Hoye
It always has been, since WW2.
It has become pretty much unwatchable, my blood pressure won’t take it!
This training blurb is very sloppily put together. I’d go as far as to say they are purposely trying to mislead and indoctrinate their own journalists by use of word play and sophistry. Take this excerpt for example (from the Carbon Brief link):
“For instance, there is very high confidence that there will be more extreme events – floods, droughts, heatwaves etc. – but attributing an individual event, such as the UK’s winter floods in 2013/2014, to climate change is much less certain.”
The operative word here is “will”. The BBC refer to projections (“there will be…”) and then immediately conflate that with the reporting of current (and past) extreme weather events. So the only context that makes any sense has to be that the BBC is saying these are very near-term projections. And also that they’re exploring here the idea of whether those projections are already being borne out. But they are not being borne out right now in relation to drought and hurricanes. That’s according to IPCC AR5 view on current extreme weather trends. The increase and attribution to climate change/global warming is only suggested in the long-term IPCC projections (and labelled as “very likely”).
So the BBC are already misleading their own journalists that they’re supposedly trying to educate and they’re doing so by conflating future projections with current extreme weather.
“there will be more extreme events” – this is not a prediction, this is a simple statement of fact. A great debate technique is to put new significance on simple facts. Millions of people are dying every year!!!!
Yeah … like the story of the airliner that went down in a graveyard ….. 1500 bodies have been recovered so far.
IIRC it was a Cessna and the crash site was in Ireland.
Agreed, however the word “more” could be misconstrued to mean an increase over the current rate of extreme events. This is not supported by available data. The statement of fact, as you noted, means that we will have extreme events in the future.
Bit strong to call BBC’s so called ‘journalists’, journalists, after all, all they are expected to do is cut and paste from The Guardian newspaper.
keith
Some have to make-up whole cloth without even the Grauniad’s guiding light [not powered by any fossil fuel, of course].
Of blooming course.
Auto
The classic Wet Office approach is denial-confirmation techniques, e.g. a bad weather event occurs wherever, then they say something along the lines of, “no specific weather event of this magnitude can be attributed to Climate Change, but yes, this is the kind of weather extreme we expect in the future!” You see? it’s the no-yes syndrome!
The absurdity of what the BBC is advertising as policy is clearly lost on the BBC. They seem to suggest the interviewer is more qualified than the “denier” who in most cases will be a researcher likely equally if not more qualified than those who are the sources of the never-ending alarmist propaganda. BBC says it follows the science of the IPCC and fails to realize much of the alarmist nonsense they publish, support and editorialize on goes way beyond the more modest claims and cautions about uncertainty imbedded in IPCC reports. They dishonestly imply the “deniers” are people who deny climate change when it is almost certainly known to them that the debate is about the amount of recent climate change, whether it is dangerous, beneficial or neutral and the extent to which human activities have contributed to and/or can act lesson the change.
Their greening of the BBC is a sign of adherence to a new religion- hardly a sign of objectivity.
Most journalists are examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect:
“Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.”
Back in the 20th century, we just called that being a know-it-all.
It’s even more absurd when many of those they would deem ‘deniers’ were contributors to the IPCC reports that they hold in such high esteem.
From Merrian-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition.
Skeptic–n[L or Gk; L scepticus, fr. Gk skeptikos, fr. skeptikos thoughtful, fr. skeptesthai to look, consider…]
Apparently not used in college anymore. Denier is pejorative, as in denigration.
Sceptic
It’s kinda bizarre. Or would be, in a normal universe.
The document acknowledges that very few critics actually deny that climate changes or even that, god forbid, humans might have some influence. Yet they still want to make exclusion of these people paramount. To my knowledge, no one the BBC has ever aired fits their concept of a “denier”.
The whole thing is pathetic. The best I can hope for, from the BBC’s point of view, is that this document is a complete lie/forgery. Unfortunately I now find it too easy to believe that the BBC resorts to such shallow thinking in order to exclude people with legitimate arguments against their global-warming dogma.
The BBC needs to be privatized. If it makes the pill easier to swallow, the government could use some of the proceeds to fund a new school of actual journalism in the UK, as long as it isn’t staffed by anyone now working for the BBC.
The Beeb needs free market competition for news broadcasting.
It is even more alarming when one goes ‘off-piste’ on the BBC website. In certain areas the articles become more and more like the SJW articles and attitudes that you can find on social media. I don’t object to such viewpoints being allowed to be expressed, but comments are rarely enabled and the attitudes of the articles are increasingly of the variety that encourages simple denigration of differing viewpoints as being socially unacceptable.
This is an organization that protected Jimmy Savile for years and you expect them to act ethically?
& Stuart Hall, & Rolf Harris & …..
The BBC denied for decades that Jimmy Savile was an abusive pedophile.
So they’re deniers, then!
The BBC acts with a view that their viewers are TAPS, (Thick As Pig Shite)!
Tragic
As the late Dr Stephen Schneider implied in his 1989 book, ‘fair balance’ will kill the AGW issue.
“It does not help the public to understand the nature of complex technical questions to balance an extreme position of a scientist or advocate at one end of the spectrum against an extreme position of a scientist or advocate on the other end. …. if only the irreconcilable debates of implacable expert enemies are reported, the typical public reaction (and probably those of politicians as well) will be, Well, if the experts don’t know what’s going on, how can I decide?” The next reaction would probably be, “You folks go back and study some more, and when you have more certainty come and tell us so we can decide how to act.” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1886
That’s reasonable. Scientists are not nearly as reliable as they would have people believe. We have the replication crisis. Most published research findings are false.
Yep …. none of the researchers put much stock in their own words ….. negative data is as valuable as positive data …. it shows you need to come up with anew hypothesis. …. but grant hungry scientist know that negative data doesn’t get you the next grant.
A recent example of the differences between experts is the Happer/Karoly ‘debate’.
Hard to decide who is right or wrong with such disparate views of the same data
Apparently the UN-IPCC is the ‘referee’, according to the BBC.
They have elevated the group with the highest vested financial interest in sustaining the climate change fraud to British ‘referee’ status. It’s equivalent to authorizing the mafia to referee who must pay ‘protection fees’ every month to keep their businesses from being destroyed…. by the mafia.
I despair for you, Britannia!
Well…you know…the sun used to never set on the British Empire, so when it does, we should see some global cooling!
Re the IPCC being the referee, in 1995 didn’t one person off his own bat change the conclusions of a committee that there was no evidence of any human influence on climate to the exact opposite?
Ben Santer changed the only part of his working group’s work which is likely to be read in its entirety: the summary.
From the article: “ensures that we, as the BBC, are informing and educating the public, allowing them to make informed choices about their own behaviours around sustainable living.”
How does one make an informed choice when only one side of the argument is presented to your viewers?
“We know what’s good for you…” is the primary diktat of the socialist catechism.
Ah. You need to adapt the old adage..is it Mark Twain?
“If you do not listen to the BBC you are uninformed. If you do, you will be misinformed”.
Please WUWT readers start protesting outside the BBC’s London HQ
Suggested placards:
BBC kills kids. Stop emitting CO2.
BBC CO2 pollution killing your family.
BBC genocide. Stop fossil fuelling now.
BBC fossil fuelling kills polar bears.
The BBC have a legal requirement to impartiality. That is not a requirement to only be impartial if it believes one side is correct … it is a requirement to be impartial irrespective of the Biased Broadcasting Company’s views on the issues it is covering.
However, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly backs us sceptics. The pause is real, the supposed link between temperature and CO2 is absent and the lies and frauds and dirty tricks from alarmists are legion.
So far from removing sceptics, if science were the basis of what the Biased Corp broadcast, then it would be ONLY sceptics that could be aired.
However, science requires free and fair discussion and tolerance of alternative views – so we sceptics, BECAUSE WE SUPPORT THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, are not afraid of dissenting views even when like those of the alarmists they have almost zero scientific credibility. The evidence will sort out the wheat from the chaff, and alarmists are clearly the chaff.
And as for the Biased Corp – they are little better than a dictator’s brainwashing factory. And if you don’t believe me … just stop listening or watching them for a few months. What you will notice, is not that you find you disagree with them … but that you realise they have an agenda which no ordinary person would ever take as their own “thoughts” except by being constantly exposed to the brainwashing propaganda of the BBC. Until I finally took the plunge a few years ago, I never knew that so much of what I thought were my “own opinions” – was in fact me, just regurgitating the PC dog’s dinner brought up by the Biased Corp. I now look at people still under their spell and wonder when they will wake up.
I have written the following to the Daily Telegraph:
BTW: I was amused to find that spellcheck suggested that ‘Unsworth’ as ‘unworthy’.
The people of England must accept that they are completely clueless. The BBC and the government of the UK are the guardians of all knowledge and power. Sit down, shut up, run, hide and die. Your betters are in control.
Mike, most are doing that.They allowed a foreign hostile takeover of their country and culture with little resistance. Nanny governments are suckling 25%+ of the population and they are raising children in households where nobody goes to work. That’s how you install these kinds of intractable governments.
Until May’s Chequers scam was exposed, I thought these opinions were those of the Tin Hat brigade. Now I know better.
“As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.”
Um…doing their job.
Fine Ray, so has the BBC ever shown or demanded to be shown the amounts AGW people receive from grant funds and what the percentage is of their personal income. Actually any persons advocating any policy change should have to report all conflicts of interest. Meaning that No AGW would result in no further grants and if their research was unprofessional then grant funds must be returned and possible legal action.
The best practice would be for a copy of the grant(s) to be made available as normal reporting. Not just the note and file number the compete document, this will also reveal any possible conflicts with parties approving said grant.
now that would doing their job
michael
“Um…doing their job.”
Yes, if they apply the requirement equally to both sides. And, if they use pejorative terms like “denier” and “alarmist” with equal frequency to both sides of the debate.
Uh huh, and flat-earthers deserve their opportunity too.
Nothing would bring viewers faster to TV than a live debate between a flat-earth believer and an astrophysicist. Why? Because the flat-earth believer has the chance to put forth his evidence and for it to be examined and questioned. Likewise, the astrophysicist would have the chance to put for his evidence and for it to be examined and questioned. The absurdity or soundness of either idea will be proven in such a debate.
In such a situation, two competing ideas are brought together to debate. That’s classic scientific rigor– at some point, ideas come to the table to be debated. One idea or another should not be expelled because of its seeming absurdity.
You and I reject the flat-earth theory, but should its adherents be excluded from the conversation? Should they not be given the chance to put for their case? I swear this has happened before… ideas being excluded merely for the absurdity… by some authoritative body. Hmm… just can’t remember it. I know it was some number of centuries ago… involving something regarding proposing that the earth orbits the sun instead of the sun orbiting the earth. Hmm… golly, I seem to forgotten it. And by your comment, it would seem you have too. Sad.
Well, for what it’s worth, to paraphrase a once great man, “I may not agree with one word you say, but, (unlike you of course), I would defend tothe death your right to be wrong!” BTW, the Earth is flat pretty much for 78% of its surface, it’s only the land masses that get a bit bumpy! 😉
You need a longer spirit level
Clyde, the current BBC bias is in the use of ‘Far Right’ (never ‘Right’, and never ‘Far Left’)
There is no “Right” in Europe, it’s always “Far Right”.
It’s just another way for the Left to diminish the Right verbally. Anyone who isn’t on the Left is an extremist, don’t you see, so they have to be FAR Right.
Mind games. Propaganda tricks. Bias.
I have alwayts believed that anyone who refers to an opponent as “Far Right”, is saying so from a position of being “Far Left”! They seem to conveniently forgotten that it was the “National Socialists Workers Party of Germany”!
the current BBC bias is in the use of ‘Far Right’ (never ‘Right’, and never ‘Far Left’)
Well, when you sit on the Far left, everything else is to the right, and anything to the right of center is “far right” in comparison.
Uh Ryan, and reporting what “potential” sources of funding they are getting. In other words, lie about who supports their research if you have nothing else, particularly if the guy has a serious point. You know this is how your side operates and nevermind the colossal funding from governments, enviros, and global gov interests buying foregone results to support draconian policies. Even Mann and others have received funding from fossil fuel companies.
So, you still haven’t learned much, have you Ryan! What one’s official status is, & what one’s actual status is are often two very different things! The BBC is run by Intellectual Elites, who happily tell lies from a position of alledged authoriy, they’ve been doing it for years!
At the first mention of “denier” you’ve already lost the argument.
Galileo would still be in jail if the ABC had it’s way.
Jim,
IMO, the ABC wouldn’t have reduced his sentence to house arrest for life. They’d have burned him, like his fellow heretic Bruno.
They would still be supporting flat-earthers.
The BBC is a hive of cultural Marxism.
I cannot use the words i use in private to describe them here, they control Journalistic traing and their Union, they infect everything they touch with progressive falseness, a truly vile worthless organisation to all but momentum and Common Purpose graduates,…….. a national broadcaster that despises the ”british” in its title and 80% of the population that do not identify as ”progressive”,……
Having 8 billion £ of your 12 billion £ pension fund tied up in the green bank is a big factor in their propaganda.
The BBC is using the term “denier.” They should be required to define what they mean by the term and why a different term is not preferred.
They need suing, so do so called professionals when descriding fellow scientists as deniers.
Attention mod
please review this post
Gary now that would be fun a class action suit for pain and suffering from being described as the same as the worst human monsters in history.
Hmm, there is an ambulance chaser when you need one. One in every country.
those who live by the sword….
nah lets not sink to their level
michael
Science is never settled.
CAGW-advocating scientists and Leftist MSM/politicians are the only institutions who believe the logical fallacies of: argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem, reductio ad absurdum, post hoc ergo prompter hosc, etc., are valid arguments..
In any other branch of science, if hypothetical projections were as devoid from reality as CAGW, the hypothesis would be laughed at, but alas:
CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypotheis, and even intelligent CAGW advocates know this, but because the CAGW ho@x will enable Leftists to: gain incredible control over every aspect of human existence, steal $76 TRILLION (2008 U.N. estimate) from taxpayers, and destroy capitalism, they have no qualms in censoring and destroying CAGW skeptics to keep the lie alive for as long as possible.
CAGW will eventually be tossed on the trash heap of failed ideas, and the timing of its demise is just a function of how well Leftists can effectively: censor CAGW skeptics, manipulate empirical data, and brainwash the citizenry…
I’ve always wondered what this spaghetti graph looks like if the models are run backward from 1975.
I read a report this morning that 90% of Google employees donate to the Democrat party.
I’m pretty sure that the other 10% don’t donate.
Donating to the Republicans is probably a firing offense these days.
6% of scientists are Republican. Scientists have no idea why that number is so high.
What is a “scientist”?
anyone defined by the BBC as having the right opinion…..
Orwellian. It’s really scary, and it reminds me of the uncompromising certainty of the religious education I received as a child from Catholic clerics, many of whom turned out to be pedophiles in disguise.
Many turned out to be pedophiles? John Jay study clearly indicates it was no more than a few percent. Clearly anti-Catholicism is acceptable here at WUWT.
Joe H
Might Trebla be speaking about his own experience?
I am sure that only a small percentage – ‘a few percent’ – were abusers.
That, still, was a lot of folk, I think.
But – is it not possible that Trebla (Unhappily) was taught [etc.] by a biased community, with, proportionally, more abusers?
I suggest it is possible., and very unfortunate for Trebla if true.
Auto
There was recently a program on the BBC that poked fun at itself…the name escapes me at the moment, but it starred the actor who played Lord Grantham of Downtown Abbey. The whole gist of it was that everybody in the BBC was involved in positions and committees that focussed on the politically correct, but nothing was ever decided, no actions were ever taken. Repetitive as hell….. Written by BBC people – there’s many a true word spoken in jest.
It is called W1A. A bit tiresome because it is so accurate but funny!