Lot of complaints about Climate Change item on News Hour Prof Curry vs Non-Scientist Bob Ward ? Non cos he is PR for BigGreenHedgefund. BH has the story
He was MISLABELLED as a co-climate scientist with Prof J Curry, but NO not a scientist, but just like Lawson he has expertise
... Things take time to explain properly so this is the long version .. a shorter version is in my 2nd email
Please do not just ignore this complaint as it may form along with previous complaints the basis of a legal case alledging that the Lord Hall BBC failed to hinder warnings of it's own implicit part in a large misselling scandal of a scale no smaller than PPI, that needlessly raised citizens energy bills by hundreds of pounds, lowered their standards of living and cost some their jobs and livelihoods.
If you do choose to ignore it you are reinforcing my 3rd point
0. Why your previous complaints are just political. - Your complaints from green activists that Lawson should be kept off air on the grounds that he is not a scientist are easily contested, as they don't complain at all at other times. You'll notice that most of the scientists the BBC airs about climate come from other fields e.g. geneticists, biologists. If they really think you have to be an expert to speak they would have complain also abot these non experts, but they only complain when someone speaks against their dogma. I will now explain why banning people from contesting "scientists say" is based on a fallacy anyway, so there is no way that the BBC should be implementing it.
Re : Lawson on the Today programme I also wish to complain about it, but from the other angle the Non-Eco warrior Movement angle. The BBC's coverage of green science issues is an epic national scandal. Whereas theirs is just a one off I can easily write a 4 page letter every day complaining about the BBC deceptive coverage so the magnitude of my complaint is much larger in magnitude than theirs. I knpw no greater let down in modern life including PPI & Savillegate that the atrocious drop in the level of the BBC's coverage of green science issues.
There has been a systematic corruption of the way Green Science is covered by the BBC. As it has completely failed to keep it's integrity and stand up to the influence of the Green Industry and the Eco-activists. Instead it has let them push it into a number of shortcuts via logical fallacies, which means that when it comes to Green Science the BBC is letting the public down, by 1. Just broadcasting Green Industry/activist propaganda and 2.the BBC is damaging science as it has thrown the proper scientific method in the dustbin. as part of redressing that the BBC should not be falling into tricks that conthrm into bsnning challenging UNVALIDATED science, but rather have 10 times more skeptics on.
1. Oversimplifying - Science is often complex and to explain it properly takes time. However it is the nature of media items that without careful control, presenters are drawn to oversimplify and jump to conclusions; the BBC should have measures against this.
2. "Scientists say" and the white lab coat trick of old washing powder ads.
- Old Washing powder ads didn't have time to explain their science so they used the trick of a featuring a chap in a white coat. However thay didn't create a truth is is merely the FALLACY of appeal from authority. - Is "Scientists say" the same as "science says" ? No it is merely the same fallacy. True there has been a decline in the scientific movement so that many are not properly observing the scientific method, but that does not excuse BBC management accepting the same shortcut from presenters in a rush to conclusions. "Oh a scientist said that so that makes it science, so we don't have to waste time with outsiders who challenge it." - "Scientists say" doesn't become science until it has been properly VALIDATED and that is a process of strong challenging. (And don't fall for the shortcut that peer review is the same as Validation, it is not as in fact there is evidence that is often a flawed and corrupt process JPA Ioannidis) The proper scientific method is that the scientists take their theory and themselves challenge it from every angle, then ONLY when it predicts accurately the future and this has multiple independent replications by others, can this be considered properly validated and therefore unchallengeable. Although certain parts of climate science have been validated in a laboratory conditions, most of the theories applied to the real world have not been validated, that is why predictions of models are not very good. They are for the most part still scientists opinions so it's outrageous for BBC staff to fall for the line that "scientists say" cannot be challenged by anyone. Screaming that Lawson is not a scientist hides the fact that there are plenty of non-green scientists and experts like Lindzen, Pielke, Tol, J Curry, but they are effectively banned for not having green-skin.
3. New Institutional Racism at the BBC. Yep Greens can come on anytime, but non-greens are banned. That is what a rule banning Lawson and skeptics amounts to.
4. Smear tricks instead of proper refutation. 4b Shouting "denier" - just as point 2. above is an example of the argument from authority, this is a similar fallacy : An example of the "Poisoning of the wells Fallacy". Listen to my side, we have authority, but don't listen to them they have NO authority, whatever they say".
- I should say once again that I find the term offensive, unscientific and unacceptable. The term is clearly defamatory and does affect the income of us skeptics, if the BBC smears us with term. Ironically it seemed to be used by Eco-nazis, a term with similar weight, that I would not use on air.
- 4b The "Big Oil" smear trick . So I should state that I have no finacial interest apart from some Sid shares in British Gas and that my lifetime CO2 is not likely to be even half that of the average green (No kids, no house, no car, few possessions)
- I used to be a normal BBC listener enjoying the BBC's science coverage, but in the last 12 years being quite well educated on science I became appalled by the daily deceptions that I kept hearing mostly on green science so that now I find myself everyday checking websites which counter the green religion propaganda that the BBC outputs.
- For me and many others the BBC that used to have so much integrity for science has now lost its integrity due to the pattern of green science reporting it has fallen ito. I would like the rational world to take back the BBC from the grip the green business and activists.