Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Public investigations | Main | Shub and the IPCC renewables report »
Wednesday
Jul202011

BBC review is out

The BBC review of science coverage is now out.

Readers may remember that Tony Newbery (of Harmless Sky) and I made a submission to the review. In it we demonstrated that the BBC Trust had misled the public over a seminar discussing climate change coverage back in 2006.

Obviously this was quite a serious allegation and one that should have raised some important questions for the review. This is how Prof Jones chose to address our allegations in his report.

A submission made to this Review by Andrew Montford and Tony Newbery (both active in the anti‐global‐warming movement, and the former the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science) devotes much of its content to criticising not the data on temperatures but the membership of a BBC seminar on the topic in 2006, and to a lengthy discussion as to whether its Environment Analyst was carrying out BBC duties or acting as a freelance during an environment programme at Cambridge University. The factual argument, even for activists, appears to be largely over but parts of the BBC are taking a long time to notice.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (93)

(reposted from earlier thread)

The BBC welcomes Prof. Jones’ report, but, to its credit, reins back from some of his criticisms of on “over-rigid application of the Editorial
Guidelines on impartiality”, pointing out the importance of taking into account the social and political context.
This is about as far as the BBC can decently go in disagreeing with Prof. Jones, and at first glance, there is much to disagree with.
The section on climate change (p66 “Man-made global warming: a microcosm of “false balance”?”) is one of the nastiest bits of anti-sceptic filth I’ve seen.

Jones speaks of “...an organised response by determined climate-change deniers” and “...a drizzle of criticism of BBC coverage of the topic in some newspapers, much of it arising from a handful of journalists who have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive”.

Other extracts:
“Before discussing the subject in detail it may be worth putting the mind-set, and the
tactics, of some (but not all) proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth into
context. They, with many others, practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to give the appearance of debate ...The tale is told of a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and of dissent quashed by secret forces. People with strong opinions should be given equal weight with experts. Any evidence that contradicts their ideas must be publicised and the rest ignored, while any statement of doubt about conventional wisdom is trumpeted from the rooftops. Standards of proof should be set so high as to be impossible to attain. Personal attacks (Hitler was against smoking) are acceptable and absolutism is useful (one ninety year old smoker proves that tobacco is harmless)”.

“In its early days, two decades ago, there was a genuine scientific debate about the reality of climate change (although that attracted rather little attention). Now, there is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise. At present, the pessimists are in the ascendant and today’s increase in floods and snow (as predicted for a warmer atmosphere which can take up more water) is on their side”.

What did he think he was doing, bringing Hitler and smoking into the discussion? Is he quite mad? He thanks a long list of people consulted in Appendix 3, including Sir Paul Nurse, James Randerson, Fiona Fox, and Geoffrey Boulton. Is that an excuse?

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Lets be honest here...did you really expect the BBC to treat your submission with anything other than contempt?

The BBC are out and out Mann Made Global Warming (tm) cultists and they shape their reporting to support their religious belief. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Regards

Mailman

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

[One criticism was] ... An at times “over-rigid” (as Professor Jones describes it) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the “non-contentious” nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving “undue attention to marginal opinion”.

Q: Who decides what is non-contentious and marginal opinion? A: The same leftist BBC drones who have been doing it for years. Now there is official sanction to put climate skeptics in the same basket as Creationists.

Stop paying the licence fee, in millions.

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

"At present, the pessimists are in the ascendant and today’s increase in floods and snow (as predicted for a warmer atmosphere which can take up more water) is on their side"

Jones seems to arbitrarily pick the alleged evidence that "floods and snow" are increasing because they are the worrying counterintuitive to "drought and warming" but he forgets the little detail of where it is categorically shown in the real world that this is happening.

Christ. What do you say to insane reasoning like that? All hail the pessimists.

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterTS

Has the BBC posted yet on who was present at the seminar? In my mind I have a picture of Prof Jones as the ventriloquists dummy with Black's hand shoved up his *** and the word bubble above Jones's head saying..."Move along...Nothing to see here"!....Over to you Josh!!!!!!!!!

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

Stop paying the licence fee, in millions.
Jul 20, 2011 at 2:50 PM |@rRick Bradford

Love it! Not paid for years! Chase me BBC!

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

Just had time to read it.

Far from being a 'vote of confidence' in BBC science coverage, there are shocking comments about its coverage of science in the news.

It says that 75% (yes 75%) of news science items are based on Press Releases, and only 1 in 8 of those reports have a voice not mentioned in the press release. What lazy, lazy journalism.

Needs better contact with scientists. Is this really the case? How can professional science journalists who are paid very well, and been in the job for years, need better contact with scientists!!! What incompetent, incompetent journalism.

It says they do not use the www properly. Again incompetence.

Says they are not representing the full range of science, and are too narrow. Again, lazy, incompetent journalists.

Says they use the same experts too often. Lazy journalism.

Says they only get their news from a handful of journals. Lazy journalism again.

Too much based in the south east. Lazy journalism once more.

Is reactive and not original. Lazy journalism once more.

So, this is not a vote of confidence as the BBC would like you to believe. Read it and you will see it is a terrible inditement of very poor journalism, and as most of them have been in the job for over a decade they won't change.

If such things were said about other professions people would be sacked or redeployed.

This is a shocking report on BBC Science News.

Look in the appendix (a), in the sample periods used to judge science output Sky News did more science that the BBC (which has a far greater number of reporters and resources.)

Heads should roll. That professional science journalists, handsomely paid by the taxpayer, who have been in the job for many years, should have such criticisms is shameful. They, and their boos, should go.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterJrosen

Just downloaded my copy of Hockey Stick! As a graduate of PSU, prior to MM's tenure, I have refused donations to them (except to my Track Team Alumni endowments!). Keep up the good fight. Don't let the bastards get you down.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterdfbaskwill

By the way Bish...As you are accused can you explain to me what the "anti‐global‐warming movement" is, how do you become a member and how much does the oil industry pay you per year? sarc <

You can so see Black and his cronies involvement in all this!

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

I don’t normally go over the top, but Jones is beyond belief. In the global warming section, (p68ff) there is a perversion of the truth in every paragraph.
“A 2011 Horizon in which the President of the Royal Society interviewed other climate sceptics also revealed their marginal position”.
(That was the one minute interview with Singer in a diner and the famous “rape of Delingpole”)
This is Jones lying about the content of a BBC programme in an idependent report to the BBC about impartiality at the BBC.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Isn't it peculiar that a study entitled


BBC Trust review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science

Uses this reasoning to marginalise sceptic opinion.


A 2011 Horizon [BBC program] in which the President of the Royal Society interviewed other climate sceptics also revealed their marginal position.

Nicely recursive. You can't win.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterTS

Steve Jones did his job - he provided many words. It is a shame to find that he is dishonest, however. What exactly do Nurse, Jones (P), Jones (S), et al have against simply stating facts?

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Not only has Jones done his job but, more importantly, the BBC will be able to point to his words and say "see, we arent as biased as you believed us to be".

Mailman

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Read it with a growing sense of disbelief.

Has anyone else noticed that the GWPF is mentioned many times. More often than any other group (in fact it's the only group mentioned).

Why is the GWPF so prominent in this BBC report?

It certainly feels like the BBC has an axe to grind, or I suspect, they will use this report to ban the GWPF from the airwaves.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterterre

When I read the "Global Warming" section I can almost see the spittle flying. How can any professional expect to be taken seriously when writing a formal report in this style? Is he really a scientist, or just another yobbish political activist?

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

Similar to Inspector Fox's report of an investigation into a homicide at the Hen House.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterDrcrinum

Steve Jones, you are ZedDedBed and I claim my cut of the Greenpeace Euro-handouts.
My quote on the Nurse programme above comes just before the jibe about Montford / Newbery being off-topic, and just after a remark about Monckton “adding to the gaiety of nations”. The whole paragraph can be summed up as follows:
1) “Things are, perhaps, improving”. (i.e. we’re managing to silence/ignore the sceptics)
2) Monckton is a buffoon
3) Active sceptics Montford and Newbery don’t criticise the science; they’re only interested in nitpicking.
4) “The factual argument, even for activists, appears to be largely over”. (i.e. activists / sceptics don’t argue science)

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

I am absolutely appalled at this ridiculous representation of the BBC 's global warming debate as presented by Steve Jones. It is clear from his arguments in the section GW that his primary intention here was to present a case for belief in catastrophic GW, not primarily to consider the BBC's contribution to that debate.

He presents numerous false arguments with never a suggestion of another point of view and as Geoff points out, brings in every red herring he can think of, from Hitler to smoking to astrology, from AIDS to MMR to 9/11, plus six uses of the word "deniers", and five of "denialists" or "denial".

His opening words to the climate section tell us all we need to know about the direction of his arguments. "... A belief in alternative medicine or in astrology and a fear of vaccines or of GM food are symptoms of a deep mistrust in conventional wisdom."

He claims that the Global Warming Policy Foundation ([are] "active in casting doubt on the truth of man‐made climate change) - he knows full well, or should do, that the GWPF are concerned with the disastrous economic policies that have followed from an irrational belief in CAGW.

"It is difficult to deny the consensus...." oh, no, not that blooming consensus again...and all those unconvincing percentages of scientists who say this or that.

" exemplary....investigations by Roger Harrabin..." Oh,yeah?

"Bjorn Lomborg, previously a major sceptic...." Ditto.

It would have been possible for the Bishop and Tony N to have had a reasonable and polite response to their arguments, but it was obviously too much to hope for from such an investigator.

Oh, well, I suppose we must add it to the growing list of dubiously independent investigations and continue to fight the good fight. Once more unto the breach, dear friends....

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

I am stunned. I shouldn't be, but I expected more from Steve Jones. To even stoop to throwing around accusations of 'denialism' is intellectual laziness of the worst kind. Piss poor, in my opinion.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterProgContra

We waited so long...for this!

the BBC had its chance and has failed.

Self-rightous, inaccurate...but what's the point. The BBC is always right. Never did anything wrong. It decides what scepticism is and doesn't even use that definition even handedly.

A sad day for journalism, and for the BBC. they truely know not what they do.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered Commentermaise

Two minutes silence for BBC Science journalism.

Prayers in St Brides Church, Fleet St.

Will the last real journalist in BBC science turn the lights out when they leave.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM | Unregistered Commentermaise

I have read (suffered through) numerous official documents during the past thirty years at home in New Zealand and here in the UK, but this is, by a considerable margin, the most biased interpretation of reality it has been my misfortune to examine.
Jones mandate was to give the Old Boys Club a big tick and to hell with the poor bloody taxpayer who has to not only foot the bill in its entirety, but has to suffer being lied to comprehensively.
I now fully understand why my forefathers fled the British Isles and why the concept of America and the Colonies succeeded!

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

“...a drizzle of criticism of BBC coverage of the topic in some newspapers, much of it arising from a handful of journalists who have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive”.
I think this sums it all up: one should have a Belief. Never mind the data.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterEyal

I have no words to express my disappointment in this 'work', and especially in Steve Jones.

I'm not one for burning books, but if I need to do so to keep warm, his books will go up in flames first.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

"Reassuringly, the researchers found no significant factual inaccuracies in the coverage that they analysed."

...ah that old chestnut. I wonder how they managed not to analyse the significant factual inaccuracies in coverage pointed out in the submissions, and all over the internet.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

I have put up a post on BBC "points of view" messageboard expressing concern that the policy of bias towards mainstream opinion on Climate appears to extend also to data, with more extensive reporting of data which re-inforces the alarmist message and less extensive reporting of data which doesn't.

The example I have given is the HadSST3 analysis with its reduced warming trend post 1950. Pretty much everyone seems to accept that SST3 is an improvement on the previous HadSST2. The IPCC in AR4 depended on SST2, so if SST2 hugely overstated the warming trend, the IPCC conclusions in regard to dangerous global warming are suspect.

The BBC so far has totally ignored this data and eschewed any possible debate on its possible significance. Can you imagine for one moment how the BBC would have reacted had SST3 shown a 30% INCREASE in the global warming trend?

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave

Can Prof Steve Jones really be described as a scientist when he dismisses hiding the decline as "a simplification of an image"? No true scientist would ever be associated with such a practice.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterFZM

Tonight I feel ashamed to turn my TV on.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterwill

The key statements are between p.66 & p.77.

However, a few clear examples that the review has not understood the issue can be found on p.71:

"Bjorn Lomborg, previously a major sceptic" is demonstrably wrong as Lomborg has always said he believes in CAGW but that his issue is with putting too much emphasis on mitigation while ignoring the benefits adaptation.

"The real discussion has moved on to what should be done to mitigate climate change" is another clear indication that this review is either unaware or unwilling to discuss 'adaptation' options.

"The major point was the acceptance of scientific accuracy" seems at odds with the report from the UK Sci Tech Committee, who conceded that the Muir Russell Report did not adequately test the science.

However, I'll refrain from commenting on the statement on p.69 concerning "a simplification of an image for the cover of a report means that climatologists are doctoring a graph to hide global cooling" as I'm sure the good Bishop is will no doubt have something to say about it.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

and while we are at it lets slide a Polar Bear cub story through to inflame the discussion and (currently turn the comments off)!

I am beginning to lose the will to live!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2016322/Polar-bear-cubs-dying-climate-change-melts-Arctic-forces-long-swims.html

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

Nature and time will provide the answer to the AGW hoax. There is no reason to fret over nonsene like the BBC report. Just be vigilant and aware to stop them profiting from their lies. Becaue be sure that there will come a time when the narrative will collapse and the current warmists will adroitely try to be on the other side. That is the point where we have to ambush them with the facts of the damage they are doing now. Thankfully the Internet is there as a record of who said what and when.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterNik

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14218989

BBC praised for science coverage is the headline.

Laughable indeed.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Cowper

I for one am quite pleased about this BBC report.

Now, as the alarmist position is gradually, and inexorably, pulled apart over the next few years, they will have nowhere to hide.

It will be impossible for them to pretend that they had any kind of impartiality on this subject.

When the public demand a reckoning, they will not be able to pretend they weren't told.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

Does someone have a link to Prof. Steve Jones' bio?

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterbernie

@Bernie

There's this: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slms/people/show.php?personid=10687

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterProgContra

The Guardian is covering this at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/20/bbc-climate-change-science-coverage
quoting Sir Paul Nurse, and of course Bob Ward, who:

.. said it was crucial for the BBC to "challenge inaccurate and misleading claims made by bloggers, campaigners and politicians who 'reject and deny the findings of mainstream science for ideological reasons.'
"The BBC is required by law not to sacrifice accuracy for impartiality in the coverage of controversial scientific issues such as climate change. Yet it is well known that there are particular BBC presenters and editors who allow self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' to mislead the public with unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements," he said.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Invest in Coal, Gas and Oil (including a few renewables) for the pension pot
Push CAGW
Write a report to make sure few will question the line taken
Watch the price of those commodities rise due to fear created
Rake in the cash!

OK, so not that believable, but neither is this report. Sad day, I am going to stop paying my TV licence. If they don't speak for truth and honesty, what's the point in paying them?

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss H

I love the word CONsensus where AGW is concerned.

The 1st three letters say it all!

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Walsh

Our Bob (Ward) has been employing his flying fingers this afternoon.

He was 4th comment on the BBC's blog about the review as well (with the same cut and pasted comment) in the Guardian blog.

Of course, he is an expert on journalism.

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBobret

Resounding in the many, many corridors of Broadcasting House are the words “blinder well played”.

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

I wonder what Lord Patten makes of this? The BBC "Trust will continue its annual reviews of the impartiality of the BBC's output, and will strengthen this by introducing and leading impartiality seminars". Doh!

http://www.newsonnews.net/bbc/10224-lord-patten-publishes-review-of-bbc-governance.html

The Trust is working well but these changes will help make it an even stronger advocate for licence fee payers. They will strengthen the current governance arrangements, help audiences to understand how the BBC is accountable to them, and ultimately enable us to get on with the job of re-shaping the BBC for the future, ensuring that within a tough licence fee settlement it continues to deliver high quality and distinctive services.

What!

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

@ Stuckrecord
What evidence is there that the CAGW nonsense actually is being pulled apart in the minds of the mainstream public or media? I see very little evidence of that apart from on these blogs sadly. Car magazines never challenge it, my local paper pushes it, and I sat astonished at an article on my local news program the other night about a primary school that has erected a windmill generator, just pushing how much CO2 had been saved, how it was saving the planet etc. Not a single question was put to test any of the claims made by the school nor official spokesperson.
Yes I know the cawg science has been pulled apart, there is fierce opposition to carbon taxes in Australia, China and others ignore it, but it appears to me that in Europe and especially the UK it is as strong as ever? Any evidence to the contrary (please!) other than the man in the pub?

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterSerge

A note on Steve Jones and the BBC. When the request for comment was made, I sent an email to the address supplied by the BBC. I immediately received what appeared to be a personal response from Steve Jones saying that he had read my comment with interest. This was absurd, as my message was sent in the middle of the night, UK time. I complained about the automated lie, and subsequently received a response saying that he would read messages...

...However, I found this general lack of honesty disappointing as I had thought that Jones was a good writer.

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

I think the kind of an approach Steve Jones has toward a certain subject, is best characterized in his own words. When asked about his own knowledge of biology, Jones says he put it as:

"remarkably broad, but fantastically shallow".

It is clear that the dear doctor has come on the same footing toward the 'climate wars'. It is clear Jones reads Science, Nature, the Lancet, officially released reports (such as the Muir Russel review), the IPCC reports, and that's about it. No further thinking, no critical analysis, nothing - just like a high school student, just believe what's in the books, memorize it and regurgitate it.

Jones, for instance, quotes the Science magazine letter formulated by Peter Gleick. He is clearly unaware that many of the National Science Foundation members who signed the letter have no expertise in climate science. Nor is aflicted by any sense of ignominy, it is clear, that the publisher of the letter let it be accompanied by doctored photographs of a polar bear. That these flaws bring to serious question the impartiality and objectivity of such a letter is simply lost on Jones, who happily wheels in such sources to construct his text.

Take another instance. Jones is seen doing a quick take on the Lancet-Wakefield-MMR affair. Who does he quote, to support a view he puts forth in the text? Anderegg et al 2010 (!). (You can check it - cited as reference #21). It doesn't even make any sense.

I feel happy sometimes that, in the higher echelons of the scientific enterprise, reside such superficially knowledgeable minds who lack any ability to see past what's in the newspapers and the TV everyday. It is proof for the Yeats theorem.

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

I am in agreement with Stuck-record.
Sooner or later the "catastrophic" bit of CAGW will be proved to be false. I suspect that the rest will be as well, at least to the extent that scientific claims will be seen to be exaggerated and the conclusions that global warming is unstoppable will leave many otherwise reputable scientists with egg on their faces. When the BBC finally implodes on this subject I shall be in a front seat laughing my little head off!
Jones' report does not surprise me. I have little time for the man who I have always seen as arrogant and conceited (at least that's how he comes across). He was never going to even half admit that anyone without at least a doctorate was qualified to have an opinion on anything scientific and certainly he would conclude that the BBC have every right only to listen to "experts" (ie. scientists). What we are supposed to do when scientists have differing views on a subject is another matter. The BBC sets the agenda on science as on so many other things and has always had its stable of rent-a-gobs who can be relied on to pop up and pontificate as and when required. Whether what they say is correct or not is irrelevant; they get paid for trotting out what the BBC wants the public to hear.
Looking at the situation from a distance I'm afraid I have come to the conclusion that the BBC is one of the most poisonous organisations in the UK and the sooner it is broken up the better. Unfortunately, like the NHS, it is seen as being "the envy of the world" which it may have been once but is certainly no longer, with the result that none of the UK's gutless politicians will make any move to do what needs to be done -- and the BBC knows it.

... it is well known that there are particular BBC presenters and editors who allow self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' to mislead the public with unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements
And there are "newspapers" that allow public relations hacks the same privilege, Bob, aren't there?

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Jack Cowper writes....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14218989

BBC praised for science coverage is the headline.

Laughable indeed.

It is even more laughable that the report come under the "entertainment-arts" heading and not under "Science"

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohndeFrance

@mike Jackson 5.16
I agree with you but I fear it will later rather than sooner, when we have all been committed to stealth taxes galore by Huhne et al. My question is what evidence is there that the hypothesis is collapsing? I look for it across the MSM, magazines, newspapers etc but see little other than complaints about energy prices. Certainly out of all my relatives and friends (who all likewise complain) I am the only one that takes an interest in this subject. So, i am curious as to whether the collapse is restricted to those of us who have a questioning mind and frequent here, WUWT and others, or is it truly spreading across the wider public? If so, how do we know that is true?

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterSerge

Peter Walsh - "I love the word CONsensus where AGW is concerned.
The 1st three letters say it all!"
Thanks for the explanation Peter.
BTW, are you the Peter Walsh who used to call himself RETEPHSLAW, by any chance?

Jul 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered Commentersimon abingdon

"... A belief in alternative medicine or in astrology and a fear of vaccines or of GM food are symptoms of a deep mistrust in conventional wisdom."


On the other hand, I've considered for some years that those sorts of beliefs are a symptom of being a Greenpeace supporter.

Jul 20, 2011 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterMalcolm

Jones, p70:

The BBC still gives space to them to make statements that are not supported by the facts; that (in a February 2011 The Daily Politics show) 95% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, while in fact human activity has been responsible for a 40% rise in concentration"

Oh. Dear.

Jul 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>