RB: Later in the day, however, the World at One, striving to be impartial, unearthed
- framing again RB, they didn't unearth BC, He is one of a number of high profile sceptical scientists so easy enough to find ... and RB is trying to make it sound like it is difficult to find a skeptical climate scientist, they could have just asked one of the ones frequenting the skeptical blogs
an Australian geologist
- INCORRECT NAMING OF HIS TITLE and credentials so defamation Bob Carter mentioned above
from the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change, the NIPCC, who was more than happy to express an opposing view.
- yep fine with that
Bob Carter: ... climate has always changed and it always will - there is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, of ice volume, of sea level or of extreme weather events.
- the main assertion of the whole prog was that BC was wrong & didn't know what he was talking about. So all they had to do was deconstruct his words and show the evidence he was wrong, yet they made no attempt to do that.
Roger Bolton: Some Feedback listeners were not amused.
This phrasing would be OK if they can show the overwhelming majority of listeners - they showed no evidence of that
- Many of us were fine with what Prof Carter said
Vox-pop (actually organised greens ?)
- points can be easily answered
- MASSIVE vested interest not mentioned
RB - gives SJ full title yet refers to Carter just as "denier"
HIGHLY OFFENSIVE pejorative it is defamation to use this word which means liar.. would you likely label someone a holocaust denier just cos they disagree with Israeli government)
- The BBC is politically correct about every other word yet you quickly use this very LOADED word. Since you like authority - check this report http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/03/09/are-they-really-climate-deniers-closing-down-debate-in-science-and-politics/ March 2013 Warren Pearce Leverhulme Research Fellow on Making Science Public programme, University of Nottingham
SJ speaks- OK He is entitled to have crazy views beyond the evidence
RB acts like a supporter (imagine a conservative MP interviewed by a conservative MP) doesn't challenge, gives him 2 bites of cherry etc.
- SJ asserts : BBC science is the best in the world particularly Horizon :(CONFLICT of INTEREST his wife's Wikipedia page opens with the info that she makes films about crises for Horizon)
SJ - "Most of it (science) is a consensus." This is a tremendous error Careful, most of it is FACT not consensus of OPINION ..there is a difference yet SJ tries to conflate the 2
RB Makes the point ..In other issues BBC has assumed a consensus and kept out all outside voices, as if this prevented correction.
"And belief can never fall apart." seeming to say "skeptics are not logical they just have a firm dogmatic belief"
"Well, you're arguing facts against opinions." yes he is saying that
Then a very strange phrase"Now, it's so much a fact that even the climate change deniers look away from it and don't deny it." .. Yep generally a measurement is a measurement it's not skeptics who are extrapolating from that it's Catastrophists
What Jones seems to be saying is that "scientists opinions are facts" and "skeptic's facts are opinions"
RB uses "deniers" (pejorative)
"The problem with the enormous number of passionate climate change deniers out there," using the pejorative again
"is that whatever the evidence, they will not accept that they are wrong. STRONG assertion without evidence
(when you know climate debate, you recognise PROJECTION the tendency of alarmists to reflect their own behaviour in the assertions they make against others)
"So, under those circumstances, there's no real point in talking to them." (false assertion)
- scientific test conducted on IPCC skeptics to prove "they will not accept that they are wrong" NONE
evidence of Jones evidence based scientist = ZERO
"the dissenting voice is not the voice of science - it's the voice of opinion." (again that fallacy of "scientists say"=science, when in fact a scientists opinion is just an opinion)
"And one could dig into where those opinions come from, and how many of them in the hundreds of emails I get, that climate change is a lie, how many of them are generated by the oil industry
, in various people with a parti pris * to pouring out pollution - I think quite a lot. " (he believes that, where is his evidence ?) smear post hoc reasoning, but no evidence quoted
* (a position or attitude resolved upon or taken in advance.)
- every activist does believe this myth that all skeptics are paid by the oil industry, but that is not true ..we are mostly poor and the oil companies love the green panic cos it pushes the price of oil up