Roger Harrabin reports here on the Royal Society being forced to review its pro-AGW fanatcism by a revolt of members. I note, despite his uncharacteristic inclusion of some of the thoughts of those who support the revolt,that he still maintains that climate change propaganda is “very widely believed”(no doubt whose side he is on)and he still drones on about the importance of “consensus”, as if scientific truth was reached by the same process as electing a member of parliament.
REVOLTING ROYAL SOCIETY
Bookmark the permalink.
Well, here’s a fellow REATH (Reporter/Editor/Analyst/TalkingHead) who might be off the Christmas card list right away for not letting any journalistic investigation get in the way of a good press release, but, horrors, kinda ‘fessing up and actually asking around (if a bit late)…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/05/computer_chip_implant.html
‘While I accept that I should have adopted a more sceptical tone – and stressed more clearly that any threat to implanted medical devices was decades away – I think the story was worth doing’
But then, possibly some scepticism, in some quarters, is more acceptable than in others?
Well, I suppose we should be glad he’s reported it. Although it never made it to any of the radio or TV news that I’ve come across so far. But it’s handy to be able to produce it when the BBC is accused of never reporting the sceptics viewpoints.
One line from Mr Harrabin caught my eye. “Lobbyists funded by the fossil fuel industry were fighting to undermine that consensus…” Does he always state who funds each point of view?
RH
Harrabin does disclose that Lord May’s ridiculous panic-inducing crapola conerning CO2 was ill-judged and OTT. However, one swallow does not make a summer and, the article is written as if the protesting members are a troublesome (but “well organised”) group who, somehow, have to be placated. He also discloses (deliberately or otherwise) that at least 2 of the review members have already made up their minds that the protesting fellows are wrong. Thus is the new tradition of pre-judged spurious inquiries concerning warmism preserved.
As an aside and as if it’s not a matter of contention, Harrabin also notes that the BBC, in its devotion to the AGW cause, has appointed Lord Rees – ace warmist and Lysenko fan [ see http://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=1521&terms=channel+4 ] – as this year’s Reith Lecturer.
I can think of a few other things that are far more “widely believed” around the world than AGW/ACC, and often by the same people: homeopathy, the healing power or health benefits of magnets, and astrology.
The difference between these beliefs and the belief in Warmism is that those trying to sell those beliefs generally refuse to let their data be studied objectively because real scientific tests prove them to be false every time. Oh, wait…..