Following my article on how the BBC and others report 'global warming' in such a biased manner, and why. I received a rather interesting comment from one of my 'Anonymous' commenters. Here are their comments and my initial responses:
'Anonymous said...In answer to the last comment I could have come up with all sort of analyses as to amounts of coverage of the 'warmist' agenda versus the more honest scientists but I know that my views would be dismissed as being biased and unscientific so instead let the BBC's very own Jeremy Paxman have his say:
Different opinions from different scientists analysing different datasets. So what?
28 February 2012 17:22
Blogger Not a sheep said...
So? In each case the left-wing media report the conclusions as fact, they report what thethey want to report, what they believe; there's no critical analysis reporting - That's what.
28 February 2012 20:28
Anonymous said...
meh
28 February 2012 20:43
Blogger Matt said...
The point is, Mr Anyonymous, that the BBC only chooses to present one point of view as truth, even though it's consistently wrong, and completely ignores the other.
29 February 2012 10:36
Anonymous said...
There's a difference between reporting the findings of a study and stating something as 'the truth'. Scientific studies will contradict each other. Science changes with the evidence - that is the point of it. If all the evidence starts to suggest climate change is not happening, then happy days! But it isn't. Generally the BBC let viewers make up their own minds. If anything, they give too much time to fringe opinions in the attempt to be 'balanced'. You just don't like the fact the bulk of the evidence points to global warming, and I don't think you really understand rhe principles of science either, Matt
"People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC's coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago",Is Jeremy Paxman lying, mistaken or correct?
Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007.
Yes, nice point, well made - I always enjoy reading your blog; but I think you were communicating with someone 'educated' in the NL era, so probably little capacity for critical analysis.
ReplyDelete"If all the evidence starts to suggest climate change is not happening, then happy days!"
Erm, a significant facet of real science is that not "all the evidence" has to change to discredit the CAGW theory.
I guess that's why we see the Team and BBC hiding and ignoring evidence against CAGW; yet at the same time, because they're rumbled, we get the constant name-shifting as ,for example, from things like Catatrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (oh woe, calamity!) to Climate Change (which has incontravertibly been going on since well before humanity existed).
"Different opinions from different scientists analysing different datasets. So what?"
Well, the "so what?" is that as humanity does not have unlimited resources we have to prioritise.
If we waste trillions of dollars of resources in a vain attempt to unnecessarily modify climate by 0.1 degree, then those resources aren't available to deal with other real and immediate problems, which will have more significant long term effects - like not having any power to heat our homes to ward off the chilling effects of 'Global Warming'.