Thursday
Oct212010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Nature on sceptics
Oct 21, 2010 BBC Climate: Sceptics Journals Nature has published an opinion piece on the subject of the BBC's science review and in particular the way it handles global warming sceptics.
In reality, perhaps the most common complaint from scientists about the corporation's coverage of global warming is the exposure handed to sceptical non-scientists, such as former UK chancellor Nigel Lawson. This is the source of the long-standing 'false balance' problem. The BBC Trust, which is running the review, should take a stricter line here. If BBC staff want to use non-experts to criticize widely accepted science, they must explain this lack of expertise to the audience, and why the BBC has invited them to participate.
Reader Comments (86)
Breathtaking arrogance!
The great unwashed seen from the ivory tower...
Be careful there are termites about...
perhaps the most common complaint from scientists about the corporation's coverage of global warming is the exposure handed to sceptical non-scientists
This sounds like a typical Nature statement made with no evidence to back it up. Most scientists that I am aware of, like me, don't complain about the exposure handed to sceptical non-scientists, but the exposure afforded to alarmist non-scientists, such as the BBC correspondents and reporters, the environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth and politicians.
Widely accepted science. I saw no science from Bob Watson when he was on the politics Show with Lord Lawson.
Who says it's widely accepted?
Yet again, an unscientific article by Nature.
Presumably this line of thinking would apply to warmists / catastrophists Gore et al ?
If BBC staff want to use non-experts to create the illusion of widely accepted science, they must explain this lack of expertise to the audience, and why the BBC has invited them to participate.
I hate the continual ‘you’re not a scientists so you can’t have an opinion’ meme.
I once had an argument with my boss about some software that transferred meter readings from remote plant equipment to the control room for billing purposes. I said that the readings were being incorrectly recorded by the software and we needed to get the software company in to redo it. He asked me why I couldn’t do it instead. I pointed out that I didn’t have the time free or the experience in the instrumentation and the software to do it. Ahhh, so if I didn’t know what I was talking about, how did I know the meter readings were wrong? No matter what I did, I couldn’t make him understand that it didn’t take a software expert to compare the readings on the plant with the readings in the control room and find them at odds but it did need a software expert to correct the code. Funnily enough, one of the reasons why I couldn’t fix the software was because it was completely without comments and the promised documentation was missing (see, it's not just the CRU). Rather than confront the ‘experts’ my boss chose to scrap the control room figures and send someone out each month to read the meters.
What is it with supposedly intelligent people that they can’t stand back and see simple truths?
I slept in this morning, great to be recently retired and on the O.A.P!
So Phillip Bratby beat me to the comment "Widely Accepted"...BY WHOM?
Here are 3 little bits from an article posted 6 October 2010 on New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Climate Truth Snippets:
"In every 85,800 molecules of air, 33 are CO2. Of those, humans just produce one. That the UN IPCC and Al Gore claim that one (1) molecule of CO2 in 85,800 molecules of air catastrophically warms the planet is nonsense. That the UN IPCC and Al Gore claim that one (1) molecule of human CO2 causes catastrophic warming while the remaining 32 molecules of Nature’s identical CO2 do not is insanity. " Hans Schreuder, retired analyst.
In God and Nature, we trust. All others bring data.
All ye who have “data” to prove that the above is NOT true, put it on the table and let the world see it. So far, after more than 20 years of “research”, NOT ONE SHRED OF ACTUAL EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN PUT ON ANY TABLE, NOT ONE!
Peter Walsh
As a scientist, I have spent a lot of effort investigating complex problems. I have found that well informed "non-scientists" are perfectly capable of asking searching questions that deserve polite, well argued answers. I would be mortified if my only defence against a difficult question were to be an appeal to a "concensus" view -or worse - to describe most questions as stupid, à la Hegerl, without attempting to seek common ground.
But Lord Lawson mostly talks about the economics of Climate Change. Nobody would argue he doesn't know anything about that!
The climate change debates covers science, economics, politics and a whole range of social issues and other matters.
Also, there is no such thing as a climate scientist. There are those who study particular aspects of the climate based on other disciplines, and there are far more scientists, technologists, statisticians, etc, who study a whole range of areas associated, but not directly linked, to the environment and climate.
Finally, the Nature arguement works both ways. If it is perfectly okay for pro-CAGW government ministers, environmental activists and NGO representatives to appear on the BBC to discuss climate change then it is perfectly okay for those who are anti-CAGW, who are similarily non-scientists, to appear as well.
Nature, as ever, is being hypocritical on the debate on climate change.
Does this mean we won't see Bob Ward on the BBC any more? Expert...???
I can dream!
Ross do not say that, I am waiting for the British Championship bout between BH and FGS Bob Ward with Andrew Neil as Referee...
I would have Barry and Philip as seconds, with Lord Lawson as Angelo Dundee.
I think tactics would be "Foreman" tiring himself out in the mother of all rants, for "Ali" to respond with "is that the best you got FGS?"
Of course his beliefs would prevent FGS BW to go into the Grill business afterwards...
I posted this on Nature:
I am sorry but you have completely misunderstood the problem of 'false balance'.
'If BBC staff want to use non-experts to criticize widely accepted science, they must explain this lack of expertise to the audience, and why the BBC has invited them to participate.'
I agree with that - Nigel Lawson can comment on science only as an intelligent layman, that is clear.
But the BBC are not just presenting, say on Newsnight, a science programme. It tips, almost always, into policy - should we sign Kyoto, do we need to do something now, what should it be, do we accept the Stern Report, should we build wind-farms, will cap and trade work, what will the cost of rising sea levels be, and so on.
I have absolutely no interest in Bob Ward's opinion, Bob Watson's opinion, or Phil Jones's opinion, on any of those things. The BBC should surely explain that they have 'lack of expertise' in the fields of policy response to the audience, and why they are being asked to participate in a policy response discussion.
Please explain the difference to me? It is a classic example of scientists crossing the line from science into policy response, and, yes, often advocacy. It is not done well, and I am constantly surprised to see it being done at all.
Jiminy
Had to stop myself falling off my chair then. With all the bluster from Mr. Ward, he could patent the Wind Powered Grill.
At least he would have a sustained source of wind.
Nature's comment is disingenuous tosh even if it is the current party line in science-hack circles.
Nigel Lawson is a prominent member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the membership of whose "academic advisory panel" can be seen at:
http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html
Hmmm. Seems from here to have far better credentials than Nature's editorial board - plenty of the great and a fair whack of the pretty damn good.
I was (to put it mildly) no lover of Lawson's politics when he was in office but when he appears on the BBC one is struck by how he is generally well on top of his brief.
OTOH, with that lot advising me, even I would be.
Nature and the like are concealing the status of their critics by resorting to cheap ad hominem remarks.
In my opinion, there is no such beast as an expert in climatology. As a science, it is still evolving and i would be very wary of anyone who claimed to be an expert in this field.
Dave B -- Nature has no editorial board.
Roddy -- I'm happy to try and explain the difference to you, as I see it:
"should we sign Kyoto, do we need to do something now, what should it be, do we accept the Stern Report, should we build wind-farms, will cap and trade work, what will the cost of rising sea levels be, and so on."
these are not questions of climate science. very rarely, if at all, can the media find climate scientists to discuss them (believe me, I've tried) -- except perhaps 'do we need to do something now', which is very vague.
in my view, people who take a strong line on economic or political grounds that we should not sign kyoto, build wind farms etc should not be characterised as climate sceptics, and I do not refer to them as such. Bjorn Lomborg for instance is not a climate sceptic -- he accepts the mainstream climate science view, and i agree with him that whether it is sensible to spend so much on mitigation to counter the threat is a legitimate debate.
the problem I have is where people who object to such policies don't argue on economic grounds, or political grounds, or just that they don't want a windmill near their house, but that they try to attack what they perceive as a softer target and attempt to undermine the scientific basis of the problem, as a way to derail the responses they disagree with. that was the basis of the oil-funded climate denial stuff in the 1990s, and it still pervades the 'sceptic' community today. Nigel Lawson says on the BBC that wind farms are too expensive and intermittent to base UK energy policy on? fine. Nigel Lawson says they are an expensive waste of time because global warming science is shaky and fossil fuels pose no danger? not so.
David Adam
Nature
"...the scientific basis of the problem,"
"Nigel Lawson says they are an expensive waste of time because global warming science is shaky and fossil fuels pose no danger? not so."
"...that was the basis of the oil-funded climate denial stuff in the 1990s, and it still pervades the 'sceptic' community today. "
Nature has its position. This position is confirmed in its articles and its editorial stance. This position is clearly shown here. Nature's view of the view from the top of the tower is that science is settled. Confirmation bias, does not make a truth.
The termites are multiplying... not oil fed ones, but bullsh*t fed ones. The more the bullsh*t the more they mulitply. Termites that view the current state of science and think "hang on... the science is not settled." There is no more better bullsh*t than bullsh*t aux Naturelle
David - very much appreciate your answer, thank you. I'm nipping out for a haircut now (!) but this distinction between, effectively, who is 'qualified' to speak on WG's 1, 2, and 3 is endlessly interesting, and I would love to hear your views on it.
Tags like 'sceptic' do not begin to help, not because they are pejorative but because they are wholly imprecise. I accept warming, I am a luke-warmist. I am sceptical about attribution, as per Judith Curry's recent blog posts. I am sceptical about WGII - the work on impacts seems often er, imperfect. It seems likely to me that the impacts on mankind of anthropogenic climate effects from GHG's are dwarfed by other anthropogenic impacts unconnected with ghg's or climate. And so on.
Personally, and this is a crude distinction, I am happy to hear non-scientists opine on impacts, since impacts are part science and part economics -so Lawson, in that sense, can say that fossil fuels warm, but that the warming presents less danger than people think, as well as opining on Stern and energy policy.
That's a brief comment - many thanks again for answering me.
Roddy
David Adam.
Nigel Lawson is a clever man and seems across much of the science of global warming. Looking at his career it is obvious he is quite an intellect and able to take on new subjects. In addition he has scientific backup (on another point the science section of the GWPF's website is the most interesting and is generally written by someone who does know the science, according to your logic Lawson should never talk about this!)
But David, I wonder, is all that experience beaten by a degree in chemical engineering which allows one to qualify to write about the science of global warming?
Interesting discussion re some of this over at Judy Curry. Starts around here... http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/14/open-thread-week-in-review-101410/#comment-4318
David Adam - thank you for your post. It is revealing on more than one level.
I would encourage you to re-read it at some later point and look for evidence of assertion vs fact, ad hominem characterization. Just imagine for a second - that your opponents are intelligent, informed and not invested in a political outcome.
Give it a shot .....
To solve the problem of sceptics being described as not being climate scientists who can therefore be ignored, I make the following suggestions
Create the Bishop Hill College of Climate Science
Award Certificates equivalent to normal academic qualifications, from 11plus, through O's A's GCSE's Degree, post grad Dr's and professors. Not forgetting NVQ's of course
This would instantly give the MSM far more scope, and a less biased pool of people WITH relevant qualifications in Climate Science, and at a fiver a pop, might make good christmas presents, and a little earner for someone
There is a parallel universe..
Dear fellow congregationists
The above statement is not the only problem with the Nature article.
The rest of the piece reads like a stream-of-consciousness junk that would splatter out from a blogwarmist under the influence of pentothal.
"Society should do this, science should do that, the BBC should something, Nigel Lawson ...IPCC....here is our advice"
And David Adam is gone. Should he decide to drive-by again, maybe he could point us to the long-awaited piece of actual evidence, that is not a theory from the lab or output from an unverifiable model?
To be worth listening to on any subject requires three things in my opinion, intelligence, integrity and knowledge.
Letters after your name do not indicate that what you say will be factual, up to date, relevant or well intended. Bob Watson's performance at the Guardian debate is a prime example.
To suggest that Nigel Lawson should not be allowed to give his opinions on none economic subjects is lunacy. He should be judged on what he contributes not his qualifications.
The guy who invented the wheel had no qualifications?
If BBC staff want to use non-experts to criticize widely accepted science,
I don't see what the problem is, the BBC seems quite happy to use non-experts to push the "widely accepted" science.
Well said Rhoda. Adam's last words not so is without scientific evidence.
You lot slightly baffle me. If David Adam drops by and expresses his view, in answer to a post of mine, politely and intelligently, surely make him welcome, even going out of your way to do so? How else can debate happen?
It is a frequent, and entirely justified, complaint against Realclimate that if you post something not from their song sheet you get abused by fundamentalists until you go away. I'm not suggesting that happened here, but the welcome mat was not out.
Roddy Campbell
I have not noticed anyone hurling personal abuse at David Adam? This sitre can in no way be compared to Realclimate since no one on this site is accused of telling lies, falsifying data or manipulating results to fit a theory?
More importantly David Adam was not told by anyone that he should not offer his opinion or that the letters after his name mattered in the slightest.
Oct 21, 2010 at 2:09 PM | Roddy Campbell
*applauds*. You are one of the rare deniers I've ever witnessed who seems to have some integrity, and a critical eye which works both inwards and outwards.
This site is notorious for people plotting utterly unethical tactics to try and further their own cause. Those not actively involved, sit idly by and do nothing, and pass no judgement.
I raise the rather tasteful hat I'm currently wearing to you.
That said, being a denier, then everything you do is wrong, obviously.
Sorry if I gave the impression that he should not come back. In fact I garnered the impression that he wasn't planning to come back, having made his assertions. If he comes back to justify his frankly non-scientific inconsistent attitude, I will be the first to praise him. Hope he brings that piece of empirical evidence.
David Adam,
Please explain to me how the science of global warming is settled, when:
I reside <20 miles from a NWS station which has records going back to 1909. The winter of December 2009 -- February 2010 was the coldest winter ever recorded at this NWS station according to NWS data records maintained for this facility. How could this 3 month event occur during what is supposedly the warmest period in a millennium? Perhaps even the warmest year per Hansen? The latter is even more remarkable since this NWS station in recent years slowly has become surrounded by a sprawling concrete-laden community and has become seriously biased by UHI effect; i.e., a 3 month cold record event should never, ever have occurred. My residence is rural, and my quality electronic remote weather sensor is located 900 feet from the nearest highway, >200 feet from the nearest building, and 2 miles from the nearest small community; it's accuracy is listed as within 1F -- at night my minimum temperature readings during the winter average 7-9F lower than this NWS station. Isn't it strange how it is much colder at night where I reside compared to this NWS station sitting in the midst of a concrete universe? Yet the latter recorded the record cold winter, not me.
Do you understand why I am skeptical of the surface temperate models of GISS and Hadley?
"Do you understand why I am skeptical of the surface temperate models of GISS and Hadley?"
Oct 21, 2010 at 2:53 PM | DrCrinum
It sounds more like you don't understand the difference between short term local weather and long-term global climate.
What you see through your living room window on a wintery Thursday afternoon, is not representative of long term climate trends over the whole planet.
You also need to brush up on your AGW theory. It doesn't say that winter will stop happening.
Roddy -- happy new haircut. when asking who is qualified to talk about WG1, WG2 and WG3, you must remember that the IPCC only surveys and reports on published studies (some peer reviewed and some, as we now well know, not). so i don;t think any one individual is fully across all the contents -- but that does not make them unqualified to address specific issues within.
You are correct to be skeptical about attribution, it's a really hard thing to prove, but lots of studies have offered evidence that very strongly supports it. ultimately, it's a question for all of us about how much evidence we need to see. if people here still don't accept that observations support the theory then fair enough, but you can knock down any scientific theory you choose with that approach, from newtonian physics down.
Impacts is less clear cut, which makes WG2 less precise, and perhaps this is where some of the problems have been. certainly there has been exaggeration by campaigners and politicians (i am on the record as criticising the swamping of new york in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth). there are uncertainties, but in both directions. again, it comes down to individual assessments of risk and hazard.
WG3 isn't really a science report at all.
I have no problem at all with Lawson, or anybody else, saying the impacts won;t be as great as people think if they provide the evidence to back that up. the bottom line is he doesn't know for sure and nor does anybody else. Whether the evidence that has been gathered of likely serious impacts points strongly in a certain direction is again a personal decision. I think it does.
Stonethrower -- ouch. i don't think i've ever claimed that? certainly when i am asked to talk about this topic, i am at pains to point out that i am no expert in climate science. but then, i am not disputing the findings of those who are as lawson does
leardog -- hard for me to respond to that. point them out and i'll try
Rhoda: evidence of what?
dung: "To suggest that Nigel Lawson should not be allowed to give his opinions on none economic subjects is lunacy." that's not what i suggest. i suggest the BBC point out that he is not an expert in climate science
Pogo: i agree, up to a point. but those non-experts are usually not trying to dispute what climate scientists say, merely repeating it, usually with ref to the ipcc report
Dr C -- that's weather, not climate. but i suspect you knew that already
david
@ZedDeabBeds
"You also need to brush up on your AGW theory. It doesn't say that winter will stop happening."
Really?
As promised, kudos on the return to what must perforce be an unfriendly environment.
Evidence of what? Observed evidence that the CO2 portion of any warming seen is of signifance compared to the 'natural variation'. Evidence by observation of the CO2 sensitivity.
But why stop there? As this thread goes to the heart of why we can't get a proper debate (from a lukewarmers POV at least) and credentialism from both sides which sometimes appears to be an intentional impediment to getting the thing thrashed out in public, why don't we, yes we right here, organise a proper debate. Not run by Nature. Not by the Bishop, but by us. Tell you what David, you pick some speakers who will represent the so-called consensus, or at least the IPCC view. I'll get the Bish to pick a team in response. The science is to be the topic, some neutralish question like 'what does the science tell us?', not a debate motion. No policy, no economics, they could be for the second and third events. Neither side has a veto on the opposing sides team members.
I'll book a hall, sell tickets, pay expenses. Somehow we'll agree on a moderator, mutually acceptable.
Are you up for it?
ZDB, let me draw the line between the dots for you.
DrCrinum notes that his temperature measurement device, is recording temperatures 7-9F lower than the "official" device is.
Thus assuming that this "official" device has its output used as part of global measurements, it is highly likely that these results are being skewed upwards by UHI effects.
So, how much of the "official" record is a true representation of local/regional/global temperatures and how much is an artifact of siting.?
Now, your opinion on this? http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f4fcfbc3970b-pi
The US State of Kentucky, shows a zero temperature rise over the 1895 to 2010 period.
It shows ups and downs of average temperature, 53-59F, but over a period of 115 years, there's no trend.
Well just one state, so how about another, the "largest state in the Union" Texas
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f4e1ca64970b-pi
No significant change over 115 years. Again, ups and downs, 63-68F
Where's the warming?
David Adam,
Precis your own post above....It boils down to .... "but lots of studies have offered evidence that very strongly supports it." the "it" being attribution of climatic changes to anthropogenic atmospheric emissions.
In other words, you do not have any answer.
Secondly, if you are a good climate scientist or observer, you do not artificially separate WG1 science from what is in the WG2. The WG2 is where the rubber hits the road and if it is not good, it only reflects on the state of climate science and our understanding as a whole, rather than solely on some arbitrary lines dividing what we know about the climate.
Uniformly, every observer/journalist/blogger one can encounter will wash their hands off WG2. But that is where all the climate knowledge, the storehouse of which is the WG1, is supposed to translate into things that happen in the real world.
Another issue:
If you are indeed the author of this article, para 4 is an absolute mish-mash of opposite ideas, and is misleading and erroneous to boot. To wit, the passage begins:
This is not what the draft document says at all.
Roddy Campbell
You are not entirely correct, sir. The whole complaint is that Realclimate will not allow commenters to give it back to the abusive fundamentalists. They can only dish it out, but they cannot take it.
The Pedant Geneal.
Wow, a 10-year old newspaper article written by a journalist, which doesn't actually claim the point you're trying to make.
That's me told.
To all other contributors to this blog - is this the high standard of evidence I should be aspiring to achieve?
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/21/the-bbc-gets-it-completely-wrong-once-again/
Jo Abbess is such a wonderful sceptical resource - for evidence of the craziness of the CAGW activists...
Jo:
To my mind at any rate, the BBC film was appalling. Narrated by the young Adam Fleming, it was dripping with Climate Change sceptic thought.
In Jo's article - she also quotes replies from Bob Ward and George Marshall criticisng Andrew Neil and other interviews, should he be worried for his job?
More evidence, In case you missed this one... !
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/13/the-messiah-with-us/
and:
Adam Fleming : BBC Complaint
Posted on October 20th, 2010 Jo 1 comment
Dear BBC
I am writing to complain about a short news article presented as online video, narrated by Adam Fleming, which contains a number of inaccuracies regarding the operation of Climate Change science and the results of inquiries into it.
The piece that I am referring to is here :-
Followed by a long complaint...
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/20/adam-fleming-bbc-complaint/#comments
Zed - I thought from your fetching hat-raise to me you had a gsoh, so I'm afraid you do have to admit that:
'According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.'
is at the very least an irresistable response to your:
'You also need to brush up on your AGW theory. It doesn't say that winter will stop happening.'
ZedsDeadBed still lurking around here? Have you finished summarily deleting posts that don't agree with your "doctrine" on the Daily Mail? A sort of one-man Guardianista.
Barry,
Unbelievable stuff. Please stick a red button warning before showing such stuff.
David - thanks for second response.
Judith Curry is covering precisely this area, and attempting, as a mainstream climate scientist, an overview of AR4, with her latest pieces being on attribution.
'You are correct to be skeptical about attribution, it's a really hard thing to prove, but lots of studies have offered evidence that very strongly supports it.' - in the end attribution depends entirely on believing we know the counterfactual, what would have happened without our ghg's etc. ie you have to believe the climate models (see Judith's previous post on the models). The climate models are beyond me, and me old mate Nigel too, and I dare say you and the Bishop - which makes it tricky to comment 'scientifically'.
I have little doubt we have contributed some of the warming. To believe that we have models such that we can be 90%+ confident that more than 50% of the post-1950 warming is derived from increasing concentration of GHG's requires us to believe that we know what the temperature would have been to within 1/10 of a degree without the increasing ghg's. Hmmm.
(I know it's an old sceptic playbook trick - I am, you will be surprised to hear, not an expert on contagion. Nevertheless, having counted the number of Mexican deaths in the first couple of weeks of swine flu, I concluded that a global pandemic was not on the cards.)
It's not just about 'observations support(ing) the theory' - it's what is the quantum, how much, and how sure are we of how much. Do we really understand the PDO and all the rest that accurately?
'Impacts is less clear cut, which makes WG2 less precise, and perhaps this is where some of the problems have been.' - agree.
'WG3 isn't really a science report at all' - agree.
'I have no problem at all with Lawson, or anybody else, saying the impacts won't be as great as people think if they provide the evidence to back that up.' and 'Whether the evidence that has been gathered of likely serious impacts points strongly in a certain direction is again a personal decision. I think it does.'
I think those two sentences can be seen as contradictory? If the evidence is so unclear that conclusions drawn are entirely personal, then you dont need to be a 'scientist'? And Stern attempted to measure the costs of impacts, so Lawson is right in there anyway, every bit as qualified as Stern, no?
All the best ....... I shouldn't have worried about the comments made here, for a moment I forgot you were a hack, and therefore as thick-skinned as I am!
Long Live the Citizen Scientist!
Rhoda: "Observed evidence that the CO2 portion of any warming seen is of signifance compared to the 'natural variation'. Evidence by observation of the CO2 sensitivity."
as said, i'm no climate scientist, but it sounds like you're talking about attribution? i'd refer you to the relevant ipcc chapter, but i sense that wouldn't convince you.
Shub:
see here (page 2):
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session32/inf09_p32_draft_Guidance_notes_LA_Consistent_Treatment_of_Uncertainties.pdf
david
David Adam.
If Lawson disputes the views of some scientists, and supports the views of others, then there is nothing wrong in that, he has evidence for his views. Look at the Politics show earlier this week, he said nothing wrong and actually, never has. Just because he is not a scientists does not mean he cannot read, learn and make his own conclusions. To say they are invalid because he hasn't got scientific credentials is actually an antiscientific thing to say. Criticise what he says and not be so prejudiced as to discount it just because of where it comes from.
and yes, its obvious you aren't an expert but even so. You accept the mainstream and castigate the minority not because of the facts but because of their background.
some journalist...
"ZedsDeadBed still lurking around here? Have you finished summarily deleting posts that don't agree with your "doctrine" on the Daily Mail? A sort of one-man Guardianista."
Oct 21, 2010 at 4:23 PM | James
1) That is a lie. I very rarely report comments in that comic, never without warning, only for sustained abuse or false accusations of the type you made there, and never for disagreeing with what I'm saying. Classic denier. No evidence at all for what you say, but you state it as fact.
2) Always very telling when people like you assume I'm a fella.
Budiansky:
"My three years at Nature left me painfully aware that scientists are about the worst people on earth when it comes to confusing their political inclinations with objective fact — and absolutely the worst in the concomitant certainty that one's opponents must be liars, frauds, or corruptly motivated, since (obviously) no honest person could possibly have reached a contrary conclusion through objective reasoning. As absurd and unwieldy as democracy is in handling scientific matters, I found myself constantly thankful that scientists weren't running things, mainly because of this supreme intolerance for differing political conclusions."
David Adam,
Thanks for reading my comment. I knew that's what you would say, and actually I initially wrote that's what your response would be, but then I blanked it out because I did not think you would resurface. Nice to know that the Editor of Nature reads the Bishop's blog.