Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?

Someone said "And the moral of the story is?"

You believe in the fairytale of the Royal Society quickly coming back to sense.

But that is all immaterial if BBC journos just actually did their job ..and challenged ALL assertions>

The Sheffield Star journos did their job and actaully challenged the police's strange accounts..They did not wait for the SY Police to reform

BTW It was the SY police who at first downplayed the Rotherham sexual abuse allegations..and many reporters didn't dig.

The moral of the story is that you don't have to WAIT for organisations to reform ..if the journos would do their jobs properly TODAY.

May 4, 2016 at 3:02 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

As I said in most fields the BBC does use the system of "challenge all assertions and ask for evidence", cos you can't go around just assume "authority voices" are speaking the truth.
..They do grill the politicians, but greendreamers are given a free ride.

It's no good the BBC hiding behind the line "but our staff are not experts"
If we look at the MMR scandal we could say "Wakefields's study was a PR reviewed paper in the Lancet, so it must be right" But it only takes a quick thought to ask what the sample size was realise it's startling results were not robust.

And when it comes to climate change why has the BBC only got one expert 'Roger Harrabin" ? The only reason for them to not have a whole set is cos they are scared of not having a true 'on message" voice.It's like having Match of the Day with only one pundit.There's a lot lot be said for the BBC having its own internal market place of different voices.

May 5, 2016 at 9:24 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I was over at Carbon Brief. They published a map of the Twitter conversation about climate change for March 2016.

It took a while to find the sceptics. You were a wee yellow blob in the top left hand corner. Lots of connection to each other, but not much to anyone else. I had not realised quite how insignifant you are.

I was reminded of Paddy, who dies and goes to Heaven. St Peter shows him round. There are Christians, Muslims Hindus at al, all living in harmony but one group are missing. Paddy sees no Free Presbyterians (Ian Paisley's extreme Protestant church).

Finally Paddy and St Peter pass a courtyard in the top left hand corner of Heaven. Behind its high walls are the sounds of a wild party.

"Those are the Free Presbyterians" says St Peter. "They think they are the only ones here!"

May 5, 2016 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

So, you consider the idea of sceptics in science to be a minor issue, then, EM, and worth ridiculing? Ho, ho, ho – look at those sceptics over there, all on their own. Well, science shows that it is the sceptics, reviled as they may be, who are the real movers and shakers in science; it is the sceptics who actually advance science. History shows that it is the sceptics who will be remembered; can you name any member of the consensus who countered the sceptical arguments of Newton, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein et al?

May 5, 2016 at 4:51 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent


Soapy Sam

May 5, 2016 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Radical Rodent

All four of the above went against the current paradigm and all four were shown to be wrong in the harsh light of reality.

You and yours are going the same way.

You are right. It is very easy to ridicule you, mostly because you are ridiculous.You tell each other in echo chambers like BH that the evidence for AGW is wrong, but you cannot falsify the paradigm or suggest an alternative. You get thrown off conventional climate websites because you bring rudeness, not evidence. You are justly on the fringe because you do not have the wherewithal to participate properly in the debate.

If you want to be taken seriously you should be following the pattern of Moti Milgrom. He has proposed MOND, MOdified Newtonian Dynamics .

This is an alternative theory of gravity intended to explain the tendency of stars in the outer regions of galaxies to orbit faster than expected. The other main theory to explain the anomaly is dark matter.

MOND is not accepted by most physicists, but it is taken seriously. Its properties are discussed, its predictions considered and possible tests proposed. This is done politely and without the acrimony you bring to the AGW debate.

May 5, 2016 at 6:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Jeez, Entropic Man, if BH was merely just "an echo chamber" then we wouldn't have to put up with your frequent bleatings.

The very presence of your often comments shows your argument to be false.

May 5, 2016 at 7:44 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Michael hart

The number of realists posting at BH can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Most of you vary from lukewarmers to sky dragon slayers.

Credit to BH, he has not banned me as Watts, Tisdale and Tallbloke did, but this site still meets any reasonable definition of an echo chamber.

May 5, 2016 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM. Your definition of a realist is is is is is.......?

But honestly now, why do you keep coming here? You cannot realistically expect to convert anyone, so, if it's an echo chamber as you claim, what's the attraction?

May 5, 2016 at 8:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Echo chamber

In media, an echo chamber is a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise underrepresented.

May 5, 2016 at 8:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Alan Kendall

I live in a small town in Ulster. The usual topics of conversation are religion, politics and agriculture. At BH I get an occasional interesting science debate.

I came here orininally hoping for convincing evidence to falsify the AGW paradigm.None has been forthcoming but it has become a habit. I keep prodding, but all I get is sceptic propoganda memes.

May 5, 2016 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Awfully polite of you to point out our my many flaws, EM. No matter, I have never claimed to be perfect; while I have tried to maintain my composure, your pompous arrogance can sometimes tip me over the edge. Sorry. Neither did I say that ALL sceptics are right – what gave you the impression that I did? I am sure that most TRUE scientists will agree that most TRUE scientists are usually wrong – that is an essential part of the learning process of science. How many of the consensus crowd around those I mentioned can you name? Precious few, I wager, and, even if you did, it is probable that few of them are quite as widely-known as my short list.

You claim, in your high-handed manner, that you are a scientist, yet cannot accept that it is NOT up to a sceptic to prove any part of a theory wrong, only to question that theory, and for the proposer of that theory to convince us that it is right. It is NOT the obligation of sceptics to falsify “paradigms” or to offer alternative theories, both concepts showing clearly that you really do not have any real understanding of how science works (or should work). To date, no-one has even attempted to prove the AGW theory, but to castigate, insult, belittle and out-rightly threaten any who dares to question that theory (see the May 5, 2016 at 6:47 PM comment for a good – apart from threatening – example for that). Sorry, bub, that ain’t science; that is religion.

IF (big, big, BIG IF) you can present evidence that the theory of AGW is correct, you will find many on here who will accept that, and will move over to your side. However, you obviously cannot understand that, and will continue in your arrogant manner with constant promulgation of your weird ideas, none of which are censored or disallowed. (Thank you for debunking your own argument, by the way; you have saved so many a little effort.)

May 5, 2016 at 9:29 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

...I live in a small town in Ulster.
May 5, 2016 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


You live in a small mind in Ulster.

Bishop Hill is where you come to find that your opinions don't match those of a significant number of other people in the world.

May 5, 2016 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

EM Ulster is full of people keen to rewrite their history to suit a religious/political doctrine/dogma. Did the LIA and MWP get written out of your history books aswell?

May 5, 2016 at 10:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical Rodent,

Censored, disallowed or underrepresented.

Anyone accepting AGW at BH is not banned, but are certainly discouraged. Note Michael Hart's 9.48pm insult, typical of a BH regular addressing a non-sceptic.

Big, big, BIG IF

I think that is called prejudice. You have pre-judged and are therefore unlikely to judge any evidence I give you objectively.

May 5, 2016 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man says,

You have pre-judged and are therefore unlikely to judge any evidence I give you objectively.

We have judged. And you are found wanting.

I refer you back to my post on this very thread, at May 1, 2016 at 5:13 PM. It shows convincingly that we do consider your evidence. That was the problem for your “evidence”.
Because your evidence is rubbish.

If you also judged, instead of sticking to your faith, you would have prepared better evidence.

May 5, 2016 at 11:12 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

EM: sorry, I am not going to censor others on this site whom you might find upsetting; Mr Hart does have a lot to offer, and I enjoy reading his posts, even if I might not agree with them all.

“big, big, BIG IF

No, not prejudice, just observation. You have presented very little evidence to support your own prejudice, merely linking to sites (see above, to Carbon Brief – which has one other “guest author” post containing the phrase: “…human-caused climate change…” in the first paragraph, as if this is a proven fact. Sorry, it isn’t, and no-one has yet offered anything to support the supposition that what “climate change” there has been – oh, and you still have yet to provide an example of that – is human-caused) that you obviously consider to be killer arguments that prove your cause.

BTW, my own views are also underrepresented, but I don’t take it quite as personally as you seem to.

May 5, 2016 at 11:27 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Has anyone else noticed EM's sneering contempt for anyone not sharing his vision based on faith, rather than evidence?

If only some of his preferred sources of information allowed dissenting opinions, he might realise 97% of scientists think global warming is only for gullible idiots, and those with a political axe to grind.

May 6, 2016 at 12:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The Irish aspect of this is interesting. Dork, being from the lovely south is much more entertaining and often interesting. EM, in sharp contrast and from the North near Ulster, we find out, demonstrates T. H. White's ideas about the Gaelic mind rather well.

May 6, 2016 at 4:09 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

EM. I am sorry that my innocent question to you, about why you frequent this site, and your honest reply was the cause of you being subjected to the usual abuse. Interestingly over on the EU-bashing discussion thread, when you took a pro EU stance, you gained support and, I think, from some now giving you grief. Interesting that.

Rabid Rat challenged you to provide any evidence that humans have caused climate change. You could have replied by quoting Christie's work in California where irrigation in the Great Valley has caused the climate to change.

You're welcome.

May 6, 2016 at 5:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

"Rabid Rat"

Alan is it a good idea to come up with epithets like that, particularly in view of your own apparent thinness of skin?

May 6, 2016 at 7:50 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

@EM Why don't you or someone else start a new thread
: @EM's "Carbon Brief says skeptics insignificant on Twitter" *

Since I note : Apr 27, 2016 at 12:05 PM | Entropic man SAID

Alan Kendall
Since you do not know how to set up a discussion thread, I set up one for you.
For future reference, go to the bottom of the Discussion menu page.
Then the next time I see EM he's here driving this thread off topic, when he should have started a new thread

Please do and we can all discuss your point. By all I mean the whole world.
... CAGW 'True-Believers'are not banned here (or generally on skeptic sites), but I think have a cultures of AVOIDING and not showing up for proper debate.
(or they call bona fide challenging "harassment")

* an alternative title could be "or "@EM's CAGW propagandists spend so much money on Twitter trolling, that they almost drown out skeptics, but at same time still a big chunk of the public are not convinced by those CAGW theory promoters "

May 6, 2016 at 8:06 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Martin A. I am full of respect for RR, and use "Rabid Rat" affectionately. Somewhere in the archives you would find a RR complement about it. RR also has a nickname for me involving a minty confection.

May 6, 2016 at 8:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

RR if I offend 1) it was never intended and 2) I will desist.

May 6, 2016 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall