Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 21 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 20 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > BBC & Media Bias re :climate/energy/green issues ..new thread

EM, we are all looking forward to your explanation of the cause of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Then you can explain what is not now happening, and what is different.

May 10, 2016 at 11:31 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Entropic man on May 10, 2016 at 10:48 PM

"yet the sceptics can produce no credible counter hypothesis to AGW"
They don't get the chance, do they? Phil Jones thinks they shouldn't get the data either! :)

I am in awe of your ability to predict the outcome of discussions on so many topics and know in advance that any televised discussion would not bring any greater understanding to the viewers, even if the BBC permitted itself to put together real experts with differing view points. Here is one on Quantum Mechanics that appears to have managed it:
Measure for Measure: Quantum Physics and Reality

IIRC, it dawned on one of the originators of the Big Bang Theory that while the theory predicted many of the experimental results, it is not internally consistent. Einstein's Cosmological Constant, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are attempts to remedy the problems with the current models that DON'T work! I am sure there is much to discuss!

May 10, 2016 at 11:38 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

No, EM. You really do not understand science, do you? There DOES NOT have to be an alternative hypothesis to counter a hypothesis – that is the equivalent of requiring to find another suspect before any charges against you for murder can be dropped (unless you did commit the murder…). If the charge is wrong, it is wrong! Alternative suspects do not have to be found.

…facts are never definitely established.
You doubt the Sun will rise tomorrow? Okay, there is the possibility – a very, very, very remote possibility – that the Sun won’t rise, but Science has established over many thousands of years of observations, as well as millennia and eons of proxy recordings, that the Sun rises every morning; I think that is a fact that is pretty much definitely established. Unless you know better, of course…

The thing about AGW is that there really is NO EVIDENCE that supports that hypothesis, hence, it is not possible to provide evidence that there is no evidence – can you not understand that? There is evidence that supports other hypotheses, but you have been dismissive of them, so I won’t bother you with details.

It would be interesting if the BBC did arrange a televised debate about climate change – a proper debate, with a balanced panel, not one lone voice in pack of howling activists, as seems to be the usual form of BBC climate “debate”, as seen in the Big Question.

May 10, 2016 at 11:54 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I believe EM is a paid shill for the Green Blob, and will produce any rubbish to support the Green Blob.

There is no evidence to disprove this.

QED. Climate Science Selective Logic wins again.

May 11, 2016 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Another BBC ploy to neutralise the leader of the only national party that doesn't want windmills across the country:

"Ukip sources say the broadcaster has decided not to include anyone from the anti-Brussels party in a live clash to be shown on BBC1 two days before the historic national vote on the country's European future.

Corporation bosses have decided that a senior Tory, almost certainly Boris Johnson or Michael Gove, will line up with another politician, probably a Labour figure, to make the case for the UK quitting the EU on the show, Ukip insiders claim.

A BBC spokeswoman tonight insisted that no final decision had been made, however."
Farage's fury as BBC bosses 'try to freeze him out' of televised Brexit debate!

Let us hope that the BBC changes its mind.

May 11, 2016 at 12:40 AM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Robert C:

I suspect it's more a case that the BBC does not want to get involved in the internecine UKIP cat-fight involving Farage, Hamilton, Gill and Evans (not to mention Carswell and Reckless) as to who actually runs UKIP.

May 11, 2016 at 1:30 AM | Registered CommenterSalopian

Summary update:

Thread begins well. Initial prediction of a rantfest proven incorrect.
EM arrives and thread veers off course in usual manner. Usual suspects appear like leucocytes attacking an invader. Invader insulted even though he begins with, what must seem to him, a valid argument*
Attack morphs into anti BBC rant.

Notes:
Thread poses no question to be addressed.
Focus on BBC, even though thread should be concerned with other media.

Prediction: soiau (coded)

*Question. Are some BH leucocytes behaving a little like the BBC? [BH itself very unlike BBC]

May 11, 2016 at 6:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, no, wrong question!

Are some Green Blob leucocytes trying to suppress Inconvenient Truths about GBH (Green Blob Hysteria)?

Green Blob Histrionics are destroying freedom of expression, to maintain their professional interest in committing Grievous Bodily Harm to science.

May 11, 2016 at 8:26 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Thanks , I hope commenters will put their own points ..rather than let EM set the agenda.

@GC wake me up if he ever says anything useful.

May 11, 2016 at 9:21 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Bottomline how come
Skeptical opinions on Climate are not allowed on Climate : due to the "false balance" rule
Yet Fracking item are excempt from this rule ?

Every fracking item seems to have a bit from a protester, when surely all the science say that in practice their isn't much danger from fracking.

The Steve Jones anti-false bias report is a serious flaw in BBC management policy

May 11, 2016 at 9:26 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

No, EM. You really do not understand science, do you? There DOES NOT have to be an alternative hypothesis to counter a hypothesis...

This is a persistent theme of EM. He comes up with it again and again - even if a theory is shown to be wrong, it has to be accepted until a better alternative comes up.

I wonder what sort of science teachers EM had? He should have been put right on this misconception in the 4th form.

And to think that he spent half his lifetime teaching 'science' as a schoolteacher....

May 11, 2016 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

You may have a point, Mr K. However, there is a certain amount of pleasure to be found in pointing out the flaws in discussions with one who strenuously claims to be a scientist, yet is willing to contradict himself without a blush:

In matters scientific it rapidly becomes apparent that one viewpoint is correct and the other is not. Opinion then becomes irrelevant.
May 10, 2016 at 8:32 PM
Correct only after facts have been definitely established.

This is science, the facts are never definitely established.

May 10, 2016 at 10:48 PM

So, facts are never definitely established, yet opinion becomes irrelevant. If he is prepared to so openly contradict himself in so few posts within 3 hours, it is important to show this, so that others may question what relevance any of his arguments might have.

It is also important to highlight this, so that any who do wish to involve themselves with genuine debate (i.e. not a shouting match) can see the sort of guile which they will have to face. Facts are irrelevant – it is the message that is important!

May 11, 2016 at 10:14 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

"The naysayers tend to be really disliked, they are called deniers,

.......they are denying people the chance to get rich, then on the way down they are accused of causing the crash."

That was a good point at the beginning of an Australian podcast about : Investment manias, particularly housing bubbles

I could see parallels throughout regards the way the Climate issue runs.

May 11, 2016 at 10:26 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

There is an tissue of media 'property paarn shows' stoking up the bubble.
The industry has an unhealthy relationship with the media.
Manias have happened many times in the past,even Charles Mackay got got caught out after he wrote The Madness Of Crowds ..people just want to believe simple magical narratives over complex truths

(that post was refused until I split it into 2 parts ..ah the Indonesian filter blocked the p word !)

May 11, 2016 at 10:28 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

May 10, 2016 at 4:46 PM Alan Kendall

The second tactic that will be used to smother your suggested policy, is for the BBC to argue that the facts supporting the green message in their programmes can't be trotted out every time they are mentioned. That would create boring TV or radio. They would soon be in a position to argue that the oft repeated facts can now be ignored because they are known to the informed audience, are accepted by the majority of scientists, and are only opposed by a tiny minority (with dubious and perhaps even crackpot ideas). In other words, back to where we are at present.

I disagree with that pessimistic view. My reason is demonstrated by Entropic Man here on this site. He has repeatedly stated that the evidence is overwhelming. And he has repeatedly demonstrated that it isn’t. Let’s face it, he isn’t very persuasive. In fact he is comically overconfident in his beliefs.

Most people would be shocked if they encountered such folly. The faith he espouses would be questioned by the vast majority if they saw his lack of evidence.
The BBC won’t ever discuss the evidence against AGW. If they had the discussion once then the entire House built on Sand would wash away.

And in my opinion, they know it.
Look at the number of comments that AGW articles get in the Guardian and especially in the more sceptic Mail and Telegraph. The BBC could meet its Reithian obligations and get massive viewing figure by challenging the “experts” as to why the models are hot, the tropical hotspot is not and how they have such an incredibly wide range of projections.

May 11, 2016 at 10:31 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

@M Courtney And we are back to the issue I mentioned at the beginning about Facebook , of those key individuals who choose/steer the news agenda.
.. They feel they know better than us so are helping the world by steering us away from a Trump presidency etc. and towards a greendream etc.

May 11, 2016 at 10:50 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

golf Charlie, Martin A, RR, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all,

I think EM makes a valid point about challenges to an accepted scientific theory being weaker if no acceptable alternative is suggested. The big bang hypothesis has already been mentioned. There is now much evidence it cannot explain, but because there is no accepted hypothesis that explains what the BBH does do well, it persists with innumerable bolt-ons (like dark energy) for which there is little independent evidence. In other words a theory known to be, at least in part, wrong, persists.

EM's problem, however, is that there are other valid explanations for climate change, not least amongst them that the changes are entirely natural, with human effects being minor at most. He refuses to acknowledge their validity as valid alternatives.

Yet Martin A attacks EM for not understanding science when his real problem is a different one, and others simply attack because EM has history here, and so anything he says must be wrong and is to be rejected forthwith. EM does occasionally talk sense.

gC. MY speculative question, so not wrong. Leucocytes was also my simile. Suggest you think up your own for your own purposes (pack of wolves, perhaps?). NOI

May 11, 2016 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, "Attack" is a word with wide meanings.
A debate where no-one attacks will not progress.
A debate where the attack is to shut down discussion will not progress also.

Personally, I want Entropic Man to be given as much publicity as possible. That is the line of attack I would prefer.

This is the opposite of the BBC line of attack on science which is to deprive counter-narratives the oxygen of publicity.

May 11, 2016 at 11:20 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Of course there's no evidence that anything other than Global Warming, or is it Climate Change, is happening, apart from this:
100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

But we can ignore all these papers because, as only Climate Change is happening, they are all wrong.

We know that only Climate Change is happening because our 'Betters' have told us that it is so, especially Bob Geldof, Emma Thompson, Vivienne Westwood, all our Energy Ministers and the BBC 28-gate meeting.

QED :)

May 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Yet Martin A attacks EM for not understanding science when his real problem is a different one, ...
May 11, 2016 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Attack? I would not have described what I wrote as an 'attack' but everyone has the right to express themselves as they wish.

AK - Bear in mind that EM has a habit of lecturing us on the basic principles of how science works, so pointing out this blind spot/ misconception in his understanding of how science actually works has to be a valid comment. It's not an "attack" so far as I can see.

It is true that EM sometimes comes up with interesting and challenging points. It's too bad that these are so often buried in the general guff he more often comes up with. I suggested to him to filter out the guff and post only challenging or interesting points that compel you to say something like "yes, he has a point there. Need to think about that" but obviously he did not heed my suggestion.

But I think I have detected a shift in EM's approach.

At one time he would repeat how he wanted to debate the details of the physics involved. But now, he has apparently switched into "everybody accepts it so it's true, the science is settled, the debate is over" mode. Plus he evidently equates not being convinced by the lack of evidence of the CAGW hypothesis as dishonesty. What could be more revealing of his attitude?

As I said, the debate is now about the consequences, and the extent to which we should change current lifestyles to limit future damage. Go onto television and debate that. You sceptics would be listened to with more respect and given more airtime if you honestly accepted that, rather than denying that there is a problem.
May 10, 2016 at 10:48 PM Entropic man

Note (his last line) that, as I have often pointed out, EM will imagine something and state it as reality. So he then states that since we (most at least) say "I see no convincing evidence there is a problem" as we deny that there is a problem. Not the same thing, though EM seems to think they are the same thing.

May 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

M. Courtney. I understand and in fact sympathize with what you say, and it may be true that I am more pessimistic than you. However, I keep returning to the same old question - if AGW is so wrong, why hasn't the normal scientific process seen it fail? Why was it able to capture the high ground? Most explanations treat the different question of how it retains its commanding position. Why weren't governments warned at an early stage by their chief scientists that it was an unproven theory and measures proposed to combat climate change were unnecessary and unlikely to succeed? I have talked with a preThatcher chief scientist when I was at UEA and he had nothing good to say about AGW.

I also discussed AGW with an atmospheric chemist at UEA and he asked an interesting set of questions. He asked "if someone came up with definitive evidence that disproves AGW, wouldn't they have published it? Wouldn't they have gained fame and prestige from publishing, wouldn't the journal publishing it also get due recognition? Wouldn't environmentalists and politicians be eager to adopt the implications of the work - no necessity to cover the landscape with ugly wind turbines, no need to cover the costs of switching away from fossil fuels." It's easy to answer these questions now, but answering them in the context of the 1970s and 1980s is much more difficult. Essentially the question is why are we in the position we are in today? Answering this question may explain the BBC's bias.

May 11, 2016 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Simply stating that Brandy on the Planet Betelgeuse has a nice nutty flavour, and challenging anybody to disprove the statement, is not science. Then diverting the subject by arguing that differents nuts have different flavours, and that threaded nuts taste different, depending on the machinery used etc ......

May 11, 2016 at 11:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterUncle Tom Cobbly

@AK The answers are on Judith Currys blog

BTW there is an alternative hypothesis about CAGW and that is that : Today's climate patterns are within the margins of previous patterns, so it is possible that CO2 driven warming effects and largely cancelled by CO2 driven causing cooling effects in the circle of feedbacks
(But #1 it's a topic for a new thread if you want to start one
#2 I'm not proposing to defend that hypothesis I am conent just keep finding the faults with CAGW alarmists work)
(If someone fairly challenges an assertion ,properly without ad homs ..then I wouldn't call that an attack)

May 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Alan Kendall on May 11, 2016 at 6:05 AM

Your post mentions nothing specific, so not really worth the effort: more tension relieving than goal achieving.

BH posters do not force payment for an unwanted offering so that other services may be reached, which is what the BBC do. They are legally expected to provide a level playing field, and they do not.

Part of the 'BBC & Media Bias re :climate/energy/green issues' is that it is BBC policy to never allow a non-Global Warming view to be broadcast, unless of course they present it in a disparaging way. It is why J Ball, D Bellamy and Nigel Lawson have been prohibited from comment. In Nigel Lawson's case, he shouldn't have been allowed to quote the IPCC or comment on the economic implications, and he had only been a Chancellor of the Exchequer! John Redwood has excellent ideas, has a sound understanding of the British economy, yet he rarely gets more than a sound bite on the radio. Nigel Farage was on the BBC during the run up to the General Election, but instead of discussing his party's manifesto, he was grilled about his school days!

Prohibiting anyone who might give an 'unhelpful' view and, for the few that manage to appear, restricting any discussion to less relevant matters is part of the BBC bias. In other areas, conflicting views are encouraged to promote discussion, but not when it is contrary to the BBC agenda.

And it is very healthy to have leucocytes around. The BBC could with a few themselves: it would make it a healthier organism, and probably a lot cheaper to run.

May 11, 2016 at 12:02 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher