Report: BBC ‘has ordered program editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming skeptics’
Protecting scientists
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/3/23/protecting-scientists.html
In his Mail on Sunday article today (keep scrolling) David Rose reveals that the BBC – at least in Scotland – has a new policy of protecting climatologists from challenge on air.
A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.
Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.
Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.
If dissenters from the climate consensus are not to be allowed to put their case directly, there is presumably little point in having those arguments put by BBC interviewers. So from now on the pronouncements of climatologists will be treated as holy writ and the most alarmist scientists can be allowed to scaremonger without fear of contradiction. The consensus over the existence of the greenhouse effect is used as a pretence that all aspects of the climatology are beyond debate.
Coming so soon after the brouhaha over the Lawson/Hoskins discussion on the Today programme, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the BBC are dancing to the tune of the environmental movement. The effects of the 28gate seminar seem to live on.
The end of the licence fee cannot come soon enough.
Sent by gReader Pro…
APS reviews its AGW statement again: 1/2 of committee are skeptics
APS reviews its AGW statement again: 1/2 of committee are skeptics
Among the scientific disciplines, the concentrated climate panic is confined to the specialized interdisciplinary clique of self-described “climate scientists”, a scholarly discipline that was pretty much created and greatly inflated with the very purpose of spreading the climate hysteria and to make it look “connected to science”.Actual scientists in disciplines that have existed before this political movement became strong are usually neutral or skeptical about the climate panic. This includes people in the adjacent disciplines such as meteorology, geology – and physics itself. Physicists should be particularly immune towards this kind of brainwashing. After all, when Galileo Galilei kickstarted physics, he was fighting against similar religious attempts to “constrain” the human thought.Some physicists have been very honest and outspoken; others less so. The disappointing physicists’ attitudes were particularly embarrassing in the case of the American Physical Society (APS) that actually became one of the most mindless mouthpieces of the climate alarmist movement. Things have a chance to change again.Five years ago, APS began to review its offensive statement about the climate change issue, after Will Happer of Princeton and his colleagues requested such a review in their influential letter. Nothing much has come out of the review, however. APS fat cats remained faithful to the demagogic proclamation.In 2010, Hal Lewis resigned from the APS because of its position on the climate change issues. In 2011, he was followed by Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever. None of these events mattered for the general attitudes of APS to the AGW dispute.There is a new, more realistic chance that these things will improve. As James Delingpole, Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, and perhaps others noticed two days ago, the APS is organizing its climate change statement workshop.You should look at theAPS Climate Change Statement Workshop Expert Bios (APS.org server)The committee includesBen Santer (famous for planning to beat crap out of Pat Michaels),Isaac Held (an atmospheric scientist),William Collins (climate modeller),but alsoJohn Christy (UAH),Richard Lindzen (MIT),Judith Curry (Georgia Tech).Let us flatteringly count lukewarmer Judith Curry as a full-fledged skeptic – she may deserve it for her courage 😉 – and you may see that 1/2 of the committee are climate realists. I am not sure how such a diverse committee will agree about anything but they should try.It’s no guaranteed win but let’s hope that among similar political scholarly organizations, physicists may regain their …
‘The Climate Scientist Who Got It Right’: In 1996, CSU’s Dr. Bill Gray predicted weak cooling for the next 20-30 years’
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/the-climate-scientist-who-got-it-right/…
Hillary Clinton wants ‘mass movement’ on climate change
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/22/6259980/clinton-wants-mass-movement-on.html…