From the New York Times:
“A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.””
Read the whole thing. The BBC is highlighted here I think for good reason: they are among the worst offenders. (via NewsBusters)
I’m would be intrigue to learn the quality of weather data coming from,Africa,South America,also China and India.
The data from Africa,who is it that takes the measurements and compiles it? Taking at random,Zimbabwe,the Congo,Kenya for example,of yes and the Sudan.
It would be interesting to see how long equipment remained “unliberated” in some areas of the world.
FOul: No glee. Just simple facts. Try and imagine an impartial looking chap in a Dinner Jacket speaking in measure RP. It may help.
Peter: Do you think there’s some dusty shack in Africa with a thermometer inside?
“Peter: Do you think there’s some dusty shack in Africa with a thermometer inside?”
There had better be other wise your figures are coming out of your wazoo.They had better be everywhere else as well.
im content in the knowledge, that we have a quote from Mr Gregory, a BBC science reporter, describing the weather in November 2007, at a time of peak catastrophic human induced dangerous global warming, as “bloody chilly”
😉
Mr Anon: Weather… isn’t climate. 😉
David Gregory
Since you wish, I’m sure, to make a splash at the BBC and enhance your career prospects maybe this revelation concerning the science practices of the IPCC would interest your editor. No? I thought not.
Last night’s BBC news was at it again.
Telling us of the unusual things happening to the British weather and in the same breath that it was down to MMGW and to expect more.
This is a non sequitor.
The British weather is just that, weather. Inevitably it changes up and down in most measurements over the years.
It is only MMGW if it is also happening on a global scale, ignored by the article.
They did tell us MMGW was a clear trend however. No clue as to how they came to this conclusion as the clear trend over the last 8 years has been stability. Never let an incovenient fact get in the way eh guys.
Umbongo: He did lose interest after I couldn’t really nail down a Midland angle. Ahhh, the tyranny of geography in regional news!
Yesterday evening’s Beeb coverage of our seasonal snow shower in Scotland was prefaced by the presenterette with the bald statement “Following the second-warmest year on record…” with no attribution, no statement as to whether this referred to Scotland, the UK or the planet. Just a glib bit of propaganda pretending to be context.
And I have to pay for this or go to jail……
To the esteemed Cockney, 03.01.08 – 3:02 pm and the esteemed Dr. David Gregory, 03.01.08 – 4:54 pm, show some chivalry chaps. Or at least refain from making an indirect call for the murder of the lady (Cockney). In addition, both of you need to be reminded that it is a very poor argument indeed to baldly state that someone is wrong without presenting the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary. Surely you can do better than that?
Oh, hang on….
Bryan: I think the best you can say about Ms Phillips is she doesn’t really understand how science works. For evidence I refer you to any post on her blog about science.
I think I’m remarkably restrained about her given how rude she’s been to me!
Bryan, sorry if you’ve misinterpreted. Was trying to make the satirical that if you took Melanie’s columns at face value the carnage around Britain’s streets would resemble the 30 years war by now. Obviously I wish her no personal harm.
Re: facts, the climate change debate is notable for the vast range of peer reviewed ‘scientific’ analyses predicting everything from apocalyptic doom tomorrow to absolutely no problem whatsoever.
In the absence of a Nobel Prize for science, supercomputer and team of crack researchers at my disposal I can’t really come to an independent view but it does seem disingenious for a non scientist like Melanie to pounce on every outlying report of the ‘no problem’ variety and anounce ‘oh-ho, it’s all a lie’ without acknowledgement of the wider body of work. That’s when she’s not denouncing everything as a socialist plot without any evidence whatsoever. Clearly the opposing extremist side of the argument as personified by that berk Monbiot is equally foolish.
Incidently, I’d be interested to hear what people think of the senate report supported by the “hundreds of prominent scientists” she refers to (and this is a serious question, I won’t claim climate change is my area of expertise!). Does it have any credibility?
Here’s one of the experts:-
He is Chris Allen, weather director at WBKO, the ABC affiliate for south-central Kentucky. On his blog, Chris says this about global warming:
“My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people’s minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what’s going on. (Dear Lord Jesus…did I just open a new pandora’s box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don’t believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that’s what this movement is ultimately out to do – rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is “we know more than God – we’re bigger than God – God is just a fantasy – science is real…He isn’t…listen to US!” I have a huge problem with that.”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/29/125741/46
Nowt wrong with god, but biggest argument? The list done seem to be a bit flaky
Surely God has given us free will anyway?
Nowt wrong with god, but biggest argument? The list done seem to be a bit flaky
Ben | 04.01.08 – 3:20 pm | #
Oh and Newton said God is the watchmaker.
Your example is a bit flaky
Care to expand?
Ben:
Care to expand?
Ben | 04.01.08 – 3:51 pm | #
So he has a religious reason for disbelieving anthromorphic global warming and says it is the best argument he has against AGW. How does this put his other arguments against AGW on a shaky footing?
David Gregory (BBC):
Mr Anon: Weather… isn’t climate.
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 9:30 am |
and
BaggieJonathan | 04.01.08 – 11:44 am |
david,
it seems that you and BaJo agree on this point…want to enlight your colleagues?
not enlight, enlighten
David Gregory: “Surely God has given us free will anyway?”
Ah yes, David. Free will at the Beeb to report, or fail to report, anything they like – with suitable revisions as needed to satisfy the in-house pro- and anti-agendas. Free will to threaten people with jail if they have a television set even if they don’t watch the Beeb’s shovelings. Free will for the Beeb to be responsible, or biased… hmmm, okay, I think that’s enough free will for now.
noobie | 04.01.08 – 3:58 pm | #
Am I alone in believing that the primary argument regarding climate change should be informed by science and not God?
oops. not anthromorphic but antrophic
Ben:
noobie | 04.01.08 – 3:58 pm | #
Am I alone in believing that the primary argument regarding climate change should be informed by science and not God?
Ben | 04.01.08 – 4:11 pm | #
No. But I don’t think professing a religious belief necessarily makes him ill-informed about the science
“Surely God has given us free will anyway?”
No.the government has found a way to tax it.
David Gregory
“He did lose interest after I couldn’t really nail down a Midland angle. Ahhh, the tyranny of geography in regional news!”
It seems then that no-one at the BBC is interested in the major source of AGW “evidence” being found wanting – ah the tyranny of a collective closed mind!
Mr Gregory you might be interested to read this analysis of the criticism of the 400 experts who wrote to the US Senate on Climate Change. It actually draws a comparison between the expertise involved in their letter and that involved in producing the latest IPCC report.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html
whats really a shame about the world is that when the UN says we need to act now to stop ppl killing each other in Kenya, it gets a few mins on the news and no one does nothing, but when the UN says we need to act now on climate change, every lefty and greeny loony screams for action and its gets how much news coverage?
Cockney | 04.01.08 – 2:23 pm.
Thanks for that clarification. Be interesting to find out in time whether Melanie Phillips is really on one extreme side of the debate or whether she’s simply got hold of the right side of the stick. But I guess it might take longer than our lifetimes to prove this issue one way or another.
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 1:25 pm,
It wont help me to study Melanie Phillips’ writing on MMGW since I don’t have the scientific background to judge her take on the issue. I was simply looking forward to an argument from you setting out in idiot-proof point form why she is misguided. After all, she ain’t a BBC colleague and so you have no reason to hold back.
“We are a tiny island. With a population due to hit 80-90 million by 2020 (that’s another 20-30 million on our exisitng population)”
The population is due to rise by up to half within 12 years? Source for this?
I’m not a scientist but it sounds like tosh.
Answering my own question, but a quick trip to statistics.gov.uk confirms it is indeed garbage.
Official projection is just under 67.2 million in 2021, a rise of about 6.5 million.
Bryan:
As a scientist I think it’s the scientific process that’s important. It’s what has brought us the modern world as we know it. And indeed living in the centre of Birmingham I’m very aware of the history of that kind of advancement all around me. I love it.
Ms Phillips simply decides her position (climate change is wrong for example) and then seizes on anything that apparently supports her theory and says everything else is incorrect. At worse this is just unsophisticated (hey it’s cold in New York! Where’s this global warming eh?!) But at worst, well for an intelligent woman who apparently worries we’re going to plunge into some terrible dark age (due to other issues) I find this approach deeply depressing. Ironically its much more likely to lead us backwards rather than forwards.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s right (or polite) for me to do much more than point out the flaws in her approach. Anything beyond that will have to be saved for the pub.
seizes on anything that apparently supports her theory and says everything else is incorrect
Indeed she does, as do a large number of the scientists working in the area of climate science.
Melanie Phillips is no less,or more informed than most journalists on ant specialist subject,but,and it is a big but,she is airing the heterodox viewpoint.This,because of the enormous implications of proposed actions by governments it is vital to make all the viewpoints public.
For example when heating costs escalate,how many old people is society willing to sacrifice to “save the planet”?
The debate isn’t over,it hasn’t even started yet.
Lo, the Carbon Madness has begun.No doubt the Beeboids will get get carbon credits in their bonuses,the rest of us can kiss our grannies goodbye.
‘David Gregory (BBC):
Bryan:
As a scientist I think it’s the scientific process that’s important.’
Ex-scientist. A scientist is a person who actually does science. You don’t. You may know a little about physics (no doubt you knew a lot about the tiny field you studied for your PhD but that is a tiny bit of physics field, and what you knew is probably out of date as physics moves on so quickly)but you are not qualified for any other science. You may have an ‘A’ level in biology, chemistry, or whatever, but that does not make you an expert in these fields. You report what others say or do, and that’s it. You do not validate results in your own lab as is the case with real scientists checking results. You chat with people, and read ‘Nature’, press releases, etc.
PhD’s take time and effort to get but they should not be used by ex-scientists to make out that they know all of science, nor in an attempt to stifle debate by making out you are somehow better than them. If someone is wrong prove it. Quote reliable scientific literature that can be checked, agreed with, or proved wrong. Of course you could say that such an approach will be unsuited to this format but you continuously profess your love of the scientific method. You could also start by giving your experience in the topic you are professing to be an expert in, any work, sponsorship, gifts, etc., received from any party in relation to these topics, in the case of global warming such ties to oil companies by real exerts has been used to undermine their results and opinions. The same should apply to you. I mean science has to be unbiased and seen to be unbiased.
The scientific method has been defined as:
‘Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.’
By this reasonable definition you are an ex-scientist who fails to follow the scientific method
Ms Phillips simply decides her position (climate change is wrong for example) and then seizes on anything that apparently supports her theory and says everything else is incorrect.
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 11:11 pm
Isn’t this precisely what the BBC does, and not only with MMGW but with every subject it touches? The bias even creeps into sports reporting. See the BBC’s abominable anti-England coverage of the 2006 Football World Cup as an example.
But I digress. I reread Melanie Phillips’ article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/413976/good-news-earth-not-flat.thtml
That’s quite an impressive case against MMGW, made, not by her, but by the eminent people she quotes. So it’s beyond me why you reserve your ire for Phillips rather than the eminent ones. Why are all these people, in your opinion, wrong?
I see the Beeb are running a story this morning about recycling Christmas Trees, the basic advice seems to be that 8 million people should jump in their cars and take them to the local tip, have they really thought this through?
Now I don’t happen to believe that CO2 is causing most of the warming but they do, so how come they want all these people to burn all this expensive petrol and clog up the roads, and queue for hours to dispose of their trees.
It’s like most ‘Green’ Ideas absolute madness
Is it not the fact that climatology is a theoretical science,that the only experiments can be done are carried out by computer models.
It is obvious that measurements are far from state of the art,there is disagreement as what measure,how and the significance of the results.
Most practical sciences use the ability to replicate results by other researchers,GW has been a very hole in the corner affair.There is obviously a story here for some enterprising Media organisation,shame for the BBC it won’t be them.
anon126: Sorry. I’m still a scientist. When you move to a job outside the lab they don’t suddenly revoke your “scientist licence”. Indeed B-BBC favourite Dr Whitehouse published a couple of astronomy papers while at the BBC. And since you ask I’m working with researchers at a local University towards something that may make a short paper somewhere too.
Bryan: David Deming. He’s an interesting researcher to put it mildly. I wonder why he asked Ms Phillips to remove quotes from him from her article too? Meanwhile we’ve discussed Dr Whitehouse at length. As for that final link to all those hundreds of scientists. Well the source of the report gives us a few clues about that. I would politely put letters and these sort of reports in the political part of this “debate”.
Link to the papers in Nature produced by these 100s of Scientists and lets talk.
It’s all interesting knockabout stuff, but (with the exception of Dr Whitehouse for reasons I’ve already explained) it isn’t science.
‘David Gregory (BBC):
anon126: Sorry. I’m still a scientist. When you move to a job outside the lab they don’t suddenly revoke your “scientist licence”. Indeed B-BBC favourite Dr Whitehouse published a couple of astronomy papers while at the BBC. And since you ask I’m working with researchers at a local University towards something that may make a short paper somewhere too.’
There is an old adage that ‘once a soldier, always a soldier’. Though people may feel sympathy for soldering because of their experiences it does not mean that they are actually soldiers for the rest of their lives. The do not actually pop over to the nearest war to relive old times. The same thing with science. Science is about doing not about talking about others doing.
You are a journalist who used to be a scientist.
I’m glad you have a hobby working with some researches. I’m sure it will be marvellous, brilliant even. Until you actually publish the results in a peer reviewed journal we cannot tell. Peer review of completed research is the key point.
Following your logic anyone here who ‘may’ publish a short academic paper has as much weight as you. Intention or maybes don’t count. Results do. As of now you don’t have any. Until you publish in a peer reviewed academic publication how do we know what you are doing is science. You may think it is, but real scientists seeing the results may have different views. This is not meant to be insulting rather to illustrate the fact that science is what the wider scientific community agree is science. There have been many cases where ‘science’ done with the best will in the world, with the best equipment, turns out to be unscientific (cold fusion anyone?). Until the results are written up, and can be scientifically replicated, no one can judge.
I’m glad that one of your colleagues has published papers on astronomy. A brilliant topic in my opinion. Of course you don’t have to be a scientist (PhD’s and the like) to produce such work. Many important contributions and papers have come from people with no qualifications. The results are all that matter. These people who do produce work of scientific interest do not call themselves scientists. Bearing in mind their solid scientific achievements they should.
The important point is expertise though. The field of physics is huge. No one is expert in it all, and it changes so fast that people who leave it get left behind. In this case you are holding forth on global warming. What is your expertise that allows you to so, apart from reading a few books I mean? Are you a climatologist? Oceanographer? Paleoclimatologist? An expert in the changes in the solar wind and the Sun’s magnetic flux? Geomagnetic effects? Changes in total irradiance, ultraviolet irradiance? Changes in Geomagnetic effects? Oceanography? What about the effects of biological organisms on the capture or dispersal of carbon? Atmospheric chemistry perhaps or the interaction chemicals within a complex and changing environment?
What about computer modeling? Believe me as someone who does such models you can make them say anything you want.
I think I’m safe in saying that you did not get your PhD in more than one of the above, even if you did study a single topic. And that’s the point. You are reporting the work of others. You do not reassess their results, conduct your own experiments, and submit your BBC work to academic peer review. It would be silly for you to do so, you are a TV reporter.
I see you didn’t provide details of any gift, largesse, funds, etc., received from any source that may affect your judgment. It might be useful to do so when you are pontificating about topics as a ‘scientist’ so there can be no suggestion of otherwise.
By the by, Godfrey Hounsfield one of the inventors of the CT scanner did not have any university education much less a PhD. This did not stop him receiving the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1979. If your PhD makes you a scientist for life then I assume you think that Godfrey wasn’t a scientist? As I said in the previous note it is the results that matter, he had them therefore he was a scientist. You do not have them; you are an ex-scientist.
“Bryan: David Deming. He’s an interesting researcher to put it mildly. I wonder why he asked Ms Phillips to remove quotes from him from her article too?”
Oh dear Greggers,one doesn’t do that personally,one gets ones lawyers to do it.Note that the copyright will owned by the Washington Times,the contact would be between their lawyers and the Spectator’s lawyers.
Lastly the quote is still there,think you not that you have been had?
The BBC simply decides its position (man-made climate change is correct for example) and then seizes on anything that apparently supports its theory and says everything else is incorrect. At worse this is just unsophisticated (hey it’s hot in New York! That’s global warming eh?!) But at worst, well for an intelligent organisation which apparently worries we’re going to plunge into some terrible dark age (due to “climate change”) I find this approach deeply depressing. Ironically its much more likely to lead us backwards rather than forwards.
“David Deming. He’s an interesting researcher to put it mildly. I wonder why he asked Ms Phillips to remove quotes from him from her article too?”
You’re not seriously suggesting that you believe the comments ascribed to David Deming were actually posted by him, and not a troll?
BBC perspicacity at its finest.
So here’s what Mel says
“And now for some good news. Geophysicist David Deming writes that parts of north and south America and the southern hemisphere, from California to Korea, have been experiencing freezing weather of such unusual extremity and harshness that crops have been devastated and states of emergency declared. (NB: I have removed the quotes from this article because the author has objected to their being reproduced).”
So… why pull the quotes?
As for anon126… well guess what I used computer models in my PhD and I realise you can do anything you want with them too… but enough about me, clearly in your eyes the only people qualified to comment on climate change are the scientists doing the research right now… so which one are you? Name, rank and serial number? Seems only fair, then I can google you as you’ve googled me.
“well guess what I used computer models in my PhD and I realise you can do anything you want with them too…”
At some time Orville you have got to get it to fly.It’s like rocket science you can make computer models,wind tunnel tests,static engine runs but eventually you have to get it into the air.
All that the AGW crew are doing is saying, in effect. is spend vast amounts of money on a hypothetical problem with a hypothetical solution.None of you know if any of it will work.
BTW When I commented on Deming the quote had not been pulled.Why was it pulled? Probably the same reason as heretics were burned unless they recanted.
‘David Gregory (BBC):
So here’s what Mel says
“And now for some good news. Geophysicist David Deming writes that parts of north and south America and the southern hemisphere, from California to Korea, have been experiencing freezing weather of such unusual extremity and harshness that crops have been devastated and states of emergency declared. (NB: I have removed the quotes from this article because the author has objected to their being reproduced).”
So… why pull the quotes?
As for anon126… well guess what I used computer models in my PhD and I realise you can do anything you want with them too… but enough about me, clearly in your eyes the only people qualified to comment on climate change are the scientists doing the research right now… so which one are you? Name, rank and serial number? Seems only fair, then I can google you as you’ve googled me.
David,
Regarding quotes I do not know why they where pulled, copyright material, because they where asked to remove them, who knows, do you? Have you asked her? I always thought reporters asked the people involved question… It’s not very scientific to smear the report by innuendo though. If it’s wrong prove it, if the work by David Deming is wrong, or misquoted, prove it. Don’t besmirch, it’s not cleaver or scientific.
As an ‘expert’ on computer models, well those use when you where a student in your particular, though unnamed field, do you believe that trillions of pounds should be spent on the basis of models that can to be tweaked to get the ‘right’ result? Have to agree with ‘Anonymous | 06.01.08 – 4:43 pm’ about models. The ‘right’ result bringing jobs, honours, wealth, and power to those involved. Do you believe that science knows enough to be able to create an accurate model of the ecosphere and the effects upon it of geology, climate, chemistry, sea, biology astronomical phenomena, and all the vast amounts of effects we need to know to have a hope of creating a vaguely accurate model? Do you think this money should be spent this way rather than trying to move people out of poverty, cure preventable diseases that ravage the third/developing world. There is only a finite amount of money and resources; if you focus on one then the other has to be ignored. Do you think that we should condemn people to poverty and death from things that are both real and preventable, and focus all our effort and money on things that may be real, or may not; may be manmade, or may not; and may be preventable, or may not? You have to bear in mind that science has been wrong before (the new ice age anyone?). As an expert how many millions should we condemn to a very real and very preventable death now in order to fix a problem that may not be real? Is it your view that it’s OK to let millions die as long they’re African, non-white, what? This is a political decision. One which the BBC seeks to effect public opinion. It is not unbiased. What it says and tries to persuade the public and politicians to do, will kill people, maybe for the greater good (someone has to take it for the team, as long as it’s not us of course), but maybe not. What is your view?
You never did answer about what largesse or gifts, etc.; you’ve received from parties interested in one side of the argument or the other. Are you a member of any environmental pressure group, or political party, or sponsored by big oil, or the nuclear industry, etc.? Do you have to follow BBC rules regarding global warming/climate change, or genetically modified food, nuclear energy, green taxes, or whatever topic you are holding forth as expert about at any particular time? I mean you are a public figure (regionally) so these things should be known as they may effect your biases. Should you and the BBC not embrace the new world of openness in this respect?
Actually, you are wrong. I strongly believe that everyone should take an interest in science regardless of their background. Something to do with being a well-rounded person. People should try to get a picture of the pros and cons of any argument. This is not limited to global warming/climate change. In this way things that effect, or will effect them, can be hopefully understood by the people rather than self-selected elite. Innovation and scientific revolution does not come from such elites.
Being an old-fashioned libertarian I believe strongly that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
The problem I have is that you seem to be using your ‘scientist’ tag to make out that your views are worth more than the people you decry. That’s the problem. That moves the whole argument from a debate about opinion into one about scientific correctness. The moment you try to become the font of all scientific knowledge, or even a scientific expert in any particular field, you need to make explicit your research and training in that specific field. A nuclear physicist would have no expertise in plant genetics, say, or climatology, or whatever. As such, their views would be no more valid than anyone else’s. It could be argued that arrogance makes your views less valid then anyone else’s as you seem to think you’re right about anything, so disparage the views and research of others. After all, you work for the BBC!!!! Regionally anyway.
As for googleing I’ve followed your advice and have just went through various academic literature sites and could not find you listed (unless your second initial is L. even if it is nothing recent or important was found). I freely admit that I found your page on the BBC, but this is rubbish with no detail of your academic background. And that’s it I’m afraid. I never thought of looking before, this may be due to me not being bothered before. As you mentioned it, I had hoped of reams of sites professing adoration to your good self, racy photos, etc., but no. I was so disappointed. The thing with the evolution of the web is that anything online is public. As such, it is open to anyone to look at and use. For a reporter being in the public eye it goes with the territory. You seem to believe that the act of looking is somehow wrong, as a reporter working for a company that is spending billions on websites this is a little surprising, not to say old-fashioned, quaint even. Do you think that different rules apply to BBC employees? If you do, you are so wrong it’s funny. The rules have changed, sadly you do not realise it.
It is interesting that you ignore the importance of results and actually doing science. It’s a shame about poor old Godfrey. No doubt, you feel that he isn’t a real scientist like yourself.
As for my name, it’s not relevant. Attacking the messenger rather than the message is a bit old-hat is it not? I have not professed any qualifications, or even views on any contentious subject, either for or against. Then I again I’m not the person who grandly promotes themselves as some kind of scientist with some sort of exalted position by actually working for the BBC(regional). One with special knowledge that the ignorant plebs could understand but has to accept as you’ve said it.
You are.
That is the point.
I was just thinking that after all the effort in getting to where I am I never once thought ‘that’s it, now what….Harvard, Cambridge….research….business…go for the Nobel Prize? Nah tell you what I’ll work for a telephone help line providing kids with answers to physics questions (c.f. your BBC website). Then I am so passionate about physics I’ll be become a local TV reporter’
Then again as your BBC website says being a reporter is a lot better paid. That’s the main thing. They used to say that people you can do, those who cannot teach. What do people who cannot teach – do regional TV? Who knows?
You have your views; we all have our own views. You have your views about the BBC, well local regional TV at any rate. That’s fine; again we all have our own ideas. The fact that you work for the BBC does not give yours anymore weight than the license fee payer.
You don’t have the knowledge, or experience to pretend you know all the answers. More importantly you do not have the ability to deny the credibility of real scientists, or anyone else for that matter. You’re a TV reporter. This is fine, as long as you’re a good one (I don’t know anything about your BBC career so cannot judge). But that’s it. You’re not a scientist; you are a science CORROSPONDANT. You report on the work of others.
The fact that you cling to the idea that you are a scientist rather than being a reporter is a little odd though.
Sorry 4:43 was me.
This isn’t Biased David Gregory,this is Biased BBC.The BBC has a duty to present the heterodox view on such an important issue as Global Warming/Climate Change.The financial and social costs of the proposed schemes to limit carbon emissions are going affect the way we live for decades ahead.Some of them are going to pauperise swathes of society,mainly the poor and the elderly,not at some hypothetical date in the future but this decade.
I can understand the BBC has and eye on its license fee which is in the gift of the government,it may be impolitic to go against the accepted wisdom,but the BBC cannot call itself unbiased until it reports both sides of the issue.
anon126
I’d like to make the point that PhDs are not what they are cracked up to be. I did one between 1996-2000 in Telecoms. I would have thought David would have had a least one or two peer-reviewed publications to his name, given that a PhD involves doing research that is timely, novel and contributes to existing knowledge.
The main criticism of PhDs, especially British ones is that they are too narrow, which is understandable. But having one definitely does NOT give you the right to lord it over non-PhDs / non-scientists, especially if you lack experience.
PhDs certainly don’t cut much ice with a lot of employers. I would say I learned far more in industry than in academia. The academic world has more than its fair share of daft ‘visionaries’ and vague charlatans, who would find commercial environments difficult to endure.
Andy you’re right about PhD’s.
DG may very well have co-authored some papers, probably in fact. Without the initials I don’t. No doubt he’ll tell us