I note that we have had a contribution from Dr David Gregory, who works for the BBC in Birmingham, and who is both a science graduate and reports on the environment. B-BBC readers might also be interested to know that he comes from that same self-smug lefty mindset that treats anyone who dissents from BBC orthodoxy with complete disdain – and responds to anyone who disagrees with that orthdoxy with sarcastic ad hominem attacks and menacing claims that the science proves his stance. Familiar? The background is that Melanie Phillips noted in her blog that David Bellamy (he who has been barred from the BBC since it became plain that he disagreed with their line on global warming) had marshalled evidence to show why warmist claims were wrong in at least some of their detail. None of what he said was based on personality. This is how the esteemed Dr Gregory responded:
…I’m a BBC Environment Correspondent and I have a PhD in Physics. But of course as Ms Phillips points out, qualifications mean nothing in the face of her certainty on this issue. I’ve had a brief correspondence with Ms Phillips before about her interesting approach to climate change science. I look forward to continuing that on her blog. Perhaps it’s worth repeating. I am not told what to report by the BBC and I am not forbidden from reporting certain things. I simply report the science. That’s my job. That’s what I do. What Ms Phillips posts here is illuminating. I mean what is her actual argument? It seems to be based around appeals to “common sense” and what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness”. Not the truth as such but rather simple facts that are based on a deep seated feeling about what is right. Following your gut feeling rather than your head. I think at worst this is intellectually lazy (after all, what is common sense but the label we give our own prejudice?) but it’s certainly not science. Which is after all, all we have to explain the world around us.
Relax chaps. We can all tell that science reporting is in safe, unbiased, hands at the BBC.
Mr Gregory, you are a journalist. That’s all. When was the last time you did anything related to your qualifications? Oh, and I am always suspicious of anyone who has to emphasise his qualifications when making an argument. It usually tends to indicate that the argument is weak, but because the qualifications sound impressive, we should all defer to him.
Dr G seems to be something of a dilettante in science, check his BBC blog for his fatuous ‘first law’, and his BBC Midlands bio for his hobbies:
‘In his spare time David enjoys clubbing in Birmingham .’
I thought ‘clubbing’ was for teenie-boppers. All this, plus his shallow vituperation, suggests to me that he still has some growing-up to do.
I thought ‘clubbing’ was for seals.
All,
Sick, but funny !
Did he not used to post on this site ?
Yes he used to flounce in and out defending every BBC story regardless. Eventually he spat his dummy and pissed off. Still taking my money though. Get a real job!!
Woops, he is the first post on the next thread. Uncanny !
Still at least he is a Beeboid who visits this site.
All I would say about David Gregory is that he surplus to requirements in as far as the licence-payer is concerned.
The extravagance of a regional news programme watched by a very small number of people having its own Environment Correspondent is symbolic of BBC excess. BBC Midlands Today also has its own Transport Correspondent and Health Correspondence, both regularly spouting a left-of-centre orthodoxy.
Meanwhile, heaps of local news, you know the stuff that people actually switch on for, goes unreported. Out goes newsgathering…in comes sheer ideological indulgence.
As someone living in the Midlands, I have had to endure David Gregory’s slanted views for many years.
It’s time he was shown the door.
I have little doubt that a resolute search for savings at the BBC could readily reduce the headcount by 10% or more very quickly, without noticeable loss as far as the audience is concerned. Many more could follow.
Like any body funded by the public, waste and empire-building is axiomatic.
Dr Gregory has been polite if dismissive in his appearances here – but I agree, what is the point of his regional job ? Or any similar jobs in other regions ? Counting expenses and overheads, there is probably £1 million of savings right there. Then multiply that by all the other unnecessary “specialist” people around the country.
……….
As regards climate change, far as I know Dr Gregory has no particular qualification to comment on matters such as the Hockey Stick fraud. He is not a statistician, let alone a specialist in the specific issues the HS concerns.
If the HS is invalid – there is no unprecedented global warming, and the whole CAGW case falls apart.
I’d like to apply the principle of ‘discarding logic when it doesn’t suit your gut feeling’ to the BBC’s attitude to Israel and Islam.
Stick with this. 😎
I watched the first bit of the Channel 4 ideas forum for saving public spending and tackling the deficit. A bit of harmless fun really. But something struck me about the inability to grasp a simple concept because you don’t like the sound of it.
One proposal was that we should increase the scope and level of VAT and compensate the worst off accordingly.
That way average earners and the better off would pay as they consume, but the poor wouldn’t be affected.
The audience didn’t like it at all. Why not? They all had the same illogical complaint. “The poor would suffer.” “It would hit the worst off the hardest.”
No matter how many times the chap tried to spell out that his idea included provision for the poor, they wouldn’t understand the concept.
Whether you’re keen on using VAT to raise money is neither here nor there. It’s the inability to grasp a simple concept because you don’t like the sound of it. You construct a barrier of prejudice which you won’t allow reason to penetrate. You could call it a prejudice/reason filter.
The way people ignore overwhelming evidence about what was behind the ‘humanitarian’ flotilla for Gaza is a typical example. In fact the way they won’t make the connection between radical Islam and the campaign to delegitimise Israel is a bit of a puzzle too.
How can people be selectively stupid? Are they like reverse autistic savants? Instead of having a devastating inability to communicate by normal means with an inexplicable superhuman brilliance in a specialised area such as music or number memory, these people seem to have normal levels of intelligence and communication skills including an average ability to calculate, comprehend and reason. But they suffer from a tiny specialised area of obtuseness when it comes to Islamism and Israel. Reverse autistic savant syndrome.
The whole BBC suffers from this condition with regard to Israel, and because it’s unfortunately and undeservedly influential in the newsgathering field, the whole globe is being influenced and encouraged to accept the delegitimisation of Israel however illogical it may be. With their natural predisposition for antisemitism, the BBC and the abundant Islamic states will ensure that the Muslim World will soon be just The World.
Mr. Gregory, I’m not agreeing with your accusation against Melanie Phillips by the way, because I understand that she deals with the principle and interpretaion rather than the actual science. As far asI know she doesn’t pretend to be a scientist.
Her comments on that topic are the opposite of what you have written. It seem to me that the BBC, if anyone, are the ones who are guilty of following their gut feeling rather than the logic. You’re both journalists, aren’t you?
The biggest problem with the BBC is its constant barrage of opinion dressed up as scientific fact, shoehorned into as many programs as possible.
Gardener’s Questions: Dr Joe Blogs from the leftist institute of climate belief says that Aunt Mabel’s cabbages won’t grow big and healthy because of climate change…
So David gregory explain what wankers like Harrabin and Shuckman are doing ‘reporting’ on cimate change? Those two mongs have no idea of the science involved yet parrot lies without fact checking even the most basic climate change stories.
Oh and what science qualifications does Al Gore.
Marty — a B.S.
It seems to be based around appeals to “common sense” and what Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness”.
Now this is revealing
Many of you are thinking: who the frack is this “Stephen Colbert” of whom this giant boring windfarm quotes.
Colbert is a so-called comedian on a so-called American cable “comedy” show (the Daily Show) with the so-called comedian Jon Stewart as the host.
It’s so left wing if it were a plane it would topple over.
Colbert’s schtick is to pretend to be a “conservative” commentator — a bit like Alan Partridge I suppose, but without the humanity.
This allows the left wing Colbert to damn conservatives with banal inanities, while pretending to “believe” them.
And this is who he compares the incisive Melanie Philips who merely quotes a scientist Dr David Bellamy.
Dr David Gregory, the thinking man’s Doctor Nick Riviera.
Colbert has his own show, which follows Stewart’s every evening. He does play the sophomoric caricature you describe, for a full half hour. And he’s extremely popular with the same kind of crowd that shows up at Question Time.
Given the alternative lefty, alarmist, and downright false points of view from the BBC brainwashed elite, I’d sooner take what David Bellamy says any day of the week. He speaks with knowledge, and from the heart, whereby the likes of Harrabin, Black and Gregory appear to be advocacy mouthpieces, with little empathy, sense or feeling between them, let alone actual knowledge.
Even when they’re proved utterly wrong, and we sit in freezing houses, they’ll insist that the planet’s really warming, and it’s all our fault.
Somebody needs to grab the BBC by its socialist neck, and wring it with the utmost vigour, but even then the wings will still be flapping.
It’s rotten to the core and requires purging, urgently.
The clubbing Dr Gregory is indeed a local celeb, and perhaps one of the better journos on the idiotic “news” show Midlands Today. For those of you who do not know the show, it is the main programe emanating from BBC Birmingham. Essentially it consists of a series of naff news reports held together by faux cheerful presenters who excel in the banal, childish humour that is deemed appropriate for regional audiences. THis is the BBC idea of local journalism (of course they all earn staggering salaries too). In other words, from its footballer wives HQ in the Mailbox (the most expensive but of real estate in Brum) the BBC treats the second biggest city in Birmingham with a brutal and patronising intellectual disdain.
To my mind, this is one of the most odious aspects of BBC power – the concentration of cultural power in London. There was a time when BBC Bham produced some of the best dramas and docs in the country… but no more. Now we get News for Remedial Kids and, errr, the Archers (relentlessly promoted by the BBC, natch). The result of this is the cultural disenfranchisement of the whole country (except London and maybe Manchester). And the fuckers get away with it!
We should organise a “Burn you licence tax” party outside the Mailbox, to let them know what we think. I would love to see how the morons report this on Midlands Today.
“I’m a BBC Environment Correspondent and I have a PhD in Physics.”
You are also a snobby, arrogant, conceited, intellectualist with poor social skills. We don’t need your twopennyworth thanks.
There are simply far superior ways of acquiring culture, knowledge and intellectual learning by simply reading good books, befriending like-minded people and avoiding pompous assholes like yourself.
If an accomplishment junkie like yourself was as good as he says he is, why are you writing bollocks for the BBC and not doing physics?
Did Albert Einstein have a Ph.D in physics?
In 1905, he received his doctorate from the University of Zurich. His thesis was titled “On a new determination of molecular dimensions”. That same year, which has been called Einstein’s annus mirabilis or “miracle year”, he published four groundbreaking papers, on the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and the equivalence of matter and energy, which were to bring him to the notice of the academic world.
As far as I know he never wrote about Global Warming!
Well if he didn’t understand that human farts cause the glaciers to melt he can’t be very bright. David Gregory says so.
I have noticed some of the most left promoting stories on the Humberside (I know Humberside doesn’t exist but the BBC thinks it does) version of Look North.
I understand that some years ago Prescott’s son used to be a producer on the programme – the ethos remains.
I think in all the time I used to post on B-BBC no one ever called me an “arsehole”. We always managed to discuss and usually disagree pretty politely.
The reason the original quote Robin has reproduced mentions my PhD is because in that context it’s important. And the reason for mentioning “truthiness” is that it seemed a very useful term to apply to that particular debate.
I am flattered to have my own post on B-BBC though and I’m sure it had nothing to do with pointing out a small error in an earlier post.
Oh and to the person who asked on the other thread if I’m gay. I am indeed. Just got engaged too. Perhaps it’s time to redo my biog though. Us soon-to-be-married types really don’t go clubbing as often as we once did.
David Gregory,
You were called worse than that during some of the last Warmism arguments you had with people here before you left these pages for good. It’s too bad, really, as you were the only Beeboid willing to discuss bias in reporting, but ended up being the whipping boy for Warmism. As I recall, you weren’t allowed to comment on any other topic without being drawn back into some Warmism debate.
As for your bio, I would also recommend that you get rid of the bit about how shameless flirting got you your first BBC job. That would never have been allowed for a heterosexual male in today’s climate, and it gives a bad impression of homosexual behavior at the BBC.
It could also do with being checked for typos and spelling mistakes. I know he is a physicist but even so…
As for boasting about getting a BBC job by flirting, well the BBC seems to think it is a law unto itself and blatantly flouts employment law despite being an arm of the State that made that law and being publicly funded. Imagine boasting about it, though! Apart from being immature and ill judged, it brings his employer into disrepute.
David,
Personally, I welcome any Beeboid posting on this site. Please do not allow any “ad hominem” arguments dissuade you.
To some fellow posters. Do we want to exclude people through abusing them ? Surely, we should encourage them , so that we can debate evidence and opinions ?
Personally , I couldn’t give a damn about David Gregory’s sexuality. What has that got to do with the point at issue ?
Agreed entirely
David P, John A and Marky,
Many thanks for your support.
The great thing about this website is that it is uncensored and we have more freedom to post than on the BBC website. I just had an email from the BBC censors removing a post I made on 12 May on Michael Crick’s blog. It was a quite mild post.
I think that here we should never lower ourselves to the standards of the BBC.
Grant, People are abused on here all the time. I didn’t know you cared. Is sexuality a special case when it is homosexual? Well, I know the BBC thinks so.
Millie — er, some nutbag charmingly wished I developed throat cancer about three weeks ago!
That’s nice huh?
Yes, I remember that, Jack. One of the worst comments that’s ever been posted here. Can’t remember who the idiot was.
Millie,
Well I know people are abused here . I don’t particularly like it, but support the lack of censorship here. So it is inevitable.
The point I am making is that, if some people are put off appearing here because of abuse, we are all the losers. Do we want to end up, just a group of mainly like-minded individuals agreeing with each other ?
I wish more Beeboids would post here so we can demolish their arguments.
No – I too don’t care about Gregorys sexuality – but the BBC does.
People who spout propaganda deserve to be attacked, reasonable argument does not work against it. AGW is not a scientific theory it is a political one. When Gore was going on endlessly about 100ft waves drowning everyone and that we only have 5 years to save the polar bears. Did people like Gregory raise any objections publicaly about this rubbish, no they did not, they ran with any and every alarmist claim no matter how ridiculous. Until the BBC stick with their charter and reflect all views then they will get no respect from me.
Did someone call you an arsehole? I must have skimmed over it. Perhaps you hadn’t worked long enough at the BBC when you used to post before and have only recently graduated.
Seriously, however, can I raise a point of order here. Many people have said before that it’s a shame people from the BBC don’t comment here. If they do so they should be challenged but hurling insults isn’t going to encourage further participation.
Grant
Great minds…!
And fools seldom differ ………..
I am flattered to have my own post on B-BBC
You’ll note that unlike Richard Black’s self-aggrandizing BBC blog, we don’t have any army of “censors” ready to delete any posts that differ from the party line.
Nor an organized cardre of “responders” all given the same ID who snidely “answer” those they allow through. Sometimes answering 3 or 4 posts a minute on multiple threads.
Jack,
Good point !
As soon as I saw the asshole comment I thought it was uncalled for.
As David is away I probably should ask everyone not to ad hom. Please.
I would like input from the BBC on the blog, and I think our mass descent upon one individual like a pack of wolves would put them off. But OTOH it’s not really surprising we do that when someone comes out with something outrageous. I would like to ask Mr. Gregory if he reads this blog regularly, or was it just a fluke that he picked up on Robin’s post?
I often wonder if BBCers have been warned off, or if they’ve just lost interest. We used to have John Reith, Sarah Jane, Chip and one Pea or something, and various others. Brave souls, but misguided.
There are too many Davids on this website 😉
There are too many Davids on this website
And not enough Goliaths.
Jack,
Speak for yourself 😉
sue,
One News Online Beeboid popped in once to say specifically that he and some colleagues won’t take this blog seriously because of a few remarks about homosexuals. As if that somehow negated everything else said here on every other topic. Pretty revealing about the BBC mindset, really.
As for the rest of them, both John Reith and Sarah Jane made comments at one point about being unhappy with the tone and lack of links in main posts early on in David Vance’s tenure, not long before they vanished. Sarah Jane has looked in once or twice since, and was just unhappy with all of us, from what I could tell. Also, I was under the impression that David Gregory simply couldn’t come here without being forced into a debate about Warmism regardless of the topic at hand, and so no longer saw any point in participating.
Probably any other Beeboids who came in to comment without revealing themselves gave up very quickly for the same reason that certain defenders of the indefensible quit: they were unable to debate the actual issues.
I remember someone not all that long ago who said he was from the Beeb, and that he wasn’t ‘allowed’ to post here. Or was it just that he had to remain anon because he was agreeing with something anti-BBC ?
At any rate, look how two teeny posts from Dr Greg have livened things up round here. Nearly as lively as the days of Hillhunt. The KKK fixation period, not so much the Opinionated era. I wonder what became of him and his fanblog. Heartless really, leaving poor ‘Dave’ and ‘Jesus Chris’ high and dry.
So why are these Beeboids so fastidious about tone or remarks here? They are not at all fastidious about the junk they put out on the BBC, much of which is offensive to many people in a variety of ways, whether it be touting the Thug Campbell around on every programme or inflicting the Thug Prescott on viewers, not to mention the foul Ross, Brand, Norton and countless others.
And while these fastidious flowers can flounce out of here if they don’t like it, how about our freedom to opt out of what is inflicted on us, namely the BBC, whether we want it or not?
Please remember the “Flag” option at the bottom of each comment.
Hit it once and the comments administrator gets an email alerting them to a potentially suspect comment.
If a certain number of *different* IP addresses flag the same comment it will go into hidden moderation until it can be checked out.
Please use this facility wisely and fairly (or else it will be taken away) but it is a good way to help the site self-moderate rather than have anything imposed.
I had always wondered what “flag” meant , but was afraid to ask !
QUOTE: I think in all the time I used to post on B-BBC no one ever called me an “arsehole”. =======================================
Where does it say that? Has anyone else seen it? Perhaps it is a mirage that can be seen only by the globally warmed, heat-blinded Beeboid warmist.
PS: Mr. Gregory, This is an insulting sort of place. anyone can get it. (In case you are taking it personally.)
QUOTE : (after all, what is common sense but the label we give our own prejudice?)
Now there’s a stupid and ignorant comment if ever I’ve seen one. Just goes to show that possession of the PhD is no guarantee of judgement, intelligence, reason, accuracy and reliability of pronouncements by its possessor.
I feel someone should speak up for Dr. Gregory. When he was a regular contributer on B-BBC is was unfailingly polite and never gave the impression that some other BBC supporters give, of requiring an urgent reevaluation of his medication.
There is a distinct shortage in journalism (not restricted to the BBC) of people with training in anything other than journalism even those with some sort of generalised Arts degrees are a minority. It is not surprising that someone with a Science degree in any field becomes a science correspondent for all fields.
His highlighting of his PhD is at least in some part a response to claims that journalists are writing about things they don’t have the tools to understand. In many cases that is, of course, true.
Positions in science are limited, often poorly paid, remarkably dependent on contacts, fashion and office politics and only marginally connected to the research that gained the doctorate in the first place. In any case statistics would seem to show that a single lifelong position in the workforce, that our fathers expected, has become rare. As someone whose career path has been windy, to say the least, I sympathise with anyone who finds themselves employed in a completely unexpected area.
All that said, he may he honestly WRONG!
Deegee,
Agree with you 100% !
I must agree. David Gregory was always polite and intelligent and I do admire his candour. Congrats on your engagement, David, I wish you well.
However….. perhaps you would like to address my point about the cultural disenfranchisement of the country’s 2nd biggest city (because the snobbish, pampered, self-important Beeboid Yentobites find the city so, errr, declasse)? And also perhaps why we are treated like Special Needs children (who writes those fuckjing tedious Ann ‘n Nick links fort MT….?!).
I beleive Al Gore is polite if you don’t disagree with him.
As soon as they resort to playing the man not the ball you know they’ve lost the arguement – and that they’ve realised it.
This David Gregory does seem to exist up his own arse as it were. I am still surprised after all these years that people with his set of psuedo intelectual skills still exist and that he seems to labour under the illusion that when he musters his wisdom most people dont automatically think to themselves ‘what a c*nt’.
I think the term self opinionated asshole springs to mind and he reminds me of a Simpsons character called Martin and this Mr up my own arse shall henceforth be known as Martin of the Simpsons.
Please note,
I appologise for any ad hominen insults and any distress caused by me regarding my last post.
It was not my intention to hurt or cause distress of any kind,however I do dislike smart arse comments that have the same effect as my post and always feel the need to respond in a manner more suiting my common northern upbringing.
This does not escuse my behaviour in any way and please accept my appologies for lowering the tone of the blog. O:-)
Yes, it has always been so high toned hereabouts. O:-)
Cassie,
Not to be confused with our beloved Martin, of course. His bad language and insults, at least, have the virtue of inventiveness and comedy. I think you should cut it out 😉
Well, it seems to me that Mr. Gregory is so high up in his ivory tower that his feet can’t reach the ground any more. He has attemtped to discredit Ms. Phillips through referrals to his qualifications, and commentary which is notable alone for its lack of substance.
This is fairly typical of the BBC, and as a former BBC employee, the bias and rot is endemic within the it. The BBC is publicly funded organisation and its narrow cross section of gay champagne socialist populous who have a soft spot for even the most extreme religious organisations, can only lead to an immensly distorted view of the world which people like Mr. phd in physics tout as gospel truth.
I am very suprised that such an educated person as Mr. Gregory claims to be, could subscribe to such ill founded beliefs, perhaps he is not as smart as he thinks he is.
However it is noteworthy, that Mr. Gregory is a physicist and NOT an engineer. Engineers set about disproving things to assess their credibility, physicists dream things up and then try and prove they are correct. No guessing which methodology is the one best suited to real life.
The global warming theory – pertaining to the man made element – has already been discredited and the hundreds of scientists just like Mr. Gregory have already been exposed as frauds who were paid to find the result the politions wanted. “Global warming” is a taxation excuse and a business boost excuse – you know the sales pitch “by this car its low carbon”. What I find most revealing is that they claim to be able to tell you want the temperature will be in 70 years time, but in reality can’t reliably tell you what it will be next weekend or even tomorrow.
What a very good post of the kind the B-BBC has become (in)famous for.
I hope you share more of your experiences within the belly of the beast.
Yes, Cassie, I hope Peter Farrow posts here more often. I don’t recall him here before.
The BBC is publicly funded organisation and its narrow cross section of gay champagne socialist populous who have a soft spot for even the most extreme religious organisations,
Not the Catholic Church, of course. That’s beyond the pale.
… in fact, not the Christian Church in general. Or the Jews. So what does that leave… oh yes! The Religion of Peace!
The logic being that if they appease Islam enough, they get to choose which mountain they will be thrown off.
So, because he reads and posts on this blog, everyone backpedals, and he’s a jolly good, decent chap? It doesn’t make a scrap of difference. maybe by just reading peoples’ comments he may get an idea of how deeply we feel that the BBC lets us all down, and frequently through people such as himself, about whom there have been oodles of detrimental postings. Typical Beeboid, homosexual, “right on” and lefty too. Those, er, qualities which are so typical have been the point of many a discussion on here, and because one of these people sticks his head above the parapet, does that mean we all have to toady up and be nice? I don’t think so. So he reads the blog, so he comments – doesn’t make him any better than the rest of them. Give me strength.
No, he isn’t a jolly nice chap at all. He is sneering, dismissive, unreflecting and disdainful. Oh, and completely unreliable in what he pronounces upon, while waving a PhD in physics in our faces. I don’t find that polite at all.
I dislike the double standards employed by those who would try to demean critics by citing and inferring ignorance/poor education/lack of qualifications, its like pulling someone on their spelling rather than being able to counter the arguments made.
The BBCs Harrabin-Black-Shukman have no science qualifications and yet they can offer their tuppence worth in those areas without hesitatation, indded I have never heard one of these beeboid propagandists ever offer any note of caution that their partisan views have no actual foundation in scientific knowledge and training.
I would take common sense over an ivory tower synthetic wisdom any day of the week, I certainly prefer simple common sense and reasoned argument than any amount of puffed up self regarding smoke machine bullsh*it. I may not have the oxbridge education but my bullsh*t detectors are working just fine.
FWIW you are very correct in your opinion of David G, just because he does the right and moral thing of attempting to defend his employers belief system does not mean he is somehow better than anyone on this blog.
Cassandra: “I would take common sense over an ivory tower synthetic wisdom any day of the week, I certainly prefer simple common sense and reasoned argument than any amount of puffed up self regarding smoke machine bullsh*it. I may not have the oxbridge education but my bullsh*t detectors are working just fine.”
==================
Mr Gregory PhD doesn’t even know what common sense is. He thinks it is a bad thing (!) and the opposite of what it actually is: reasoned and sound judgement. His ignorant dismissal of it betrays his own prejudice and disdain. It demonstrates that he is no guide to truth and that what he says cannot be taken on trust.
The climate has been changing since history began, does Dr Gregory wish it to remain static?
Another useful idiot beeboid who doesn’t realise quite how thick he actually is.
Dr Gregory is paid by the government funded broadcaster and he pushes the government’s line on climate change. Does he actually believe what he says or is he in it for the money? Who knows? To be on the safe side it is better to avoid the climate views and opinions of people with their snouts in the government trough.
And where is the evidence that Dr Gregory’s opinions are of any higher quality than the vast bulk of the BBC’s output? The BBC is full of graduates producing utter trash like Eastenders and Casualty. Perhaps Dr Gregory’s opinions are of a similar quality.
Plus, in his defence, he can make very good points [recent tweet]:
There is nothing more annoying than someone pleading penuary and then Facebooking about chopper trips and splashing the cash.
..if, possibly, rather setting up his colleagues and employer a smidge on the ‘do as we say…’ front, especially in the twitterverse.
well i have also have a PhD. (biochemistry) and my reading of the ‘science’ of climate brings me to the totally opposite conclusion of David Gregory. ie i think climate change is a bunch of lies
If David Gregory is so well versed in the scientific method he will know that in science one creates a falsifiable hypothesis which then one does ones best to disprove. if you cant disprove the hypothesis you ‘may’ have a theory. but no gurantees because someone can come along next week and disprove it.
this is exactly the OPPOSITE of climate change research. where they start with the idea that climate change exists – then seek out all the evidence they can to back up their idea whislst ignoring all the evidence that disproves climate change.
in other words the exact opposite of Karl Popper’s scientific revolution.
so if ‘Dr’ Gregory is going to swank about his qualifications – he might like to re-read his A level physics book on scientific methodology
oh and while we are at it i seem to remember that David Bellamy also has a PhD and i think used to hold the chair of botany at Durham University. so if we are playing top trumps on the academic achievement i think a professorship out ranks a PhD.
Great post Kevin,
The industrial strength mud slinging by the warmista at highly gifted people like David Bellamy has always made me see where the alarmists are coming from.
Its easy for any person to see the methods of the alarmist side have nothing to do with science and the scientific method and more to do with the political method. This political method consists of poisoning your enemies,lying and cheating and twisting the facts and truth, it also demands a complete lack of moral rectitude.
The moment the BBC treated David Bellamy with such poisonous cruelty and contempt simply beacause his training in the sciaences didnt fit with the BBCs political narrative made me an enemy of the BBC.
I ask this simple question, if the BBC are so sure of their beliefs and prescious narrative then why bother trying to destroy the reputations of those sceptics who disagree? I see a bigoted greedy and arrogant group of inbred groupthink assholes who think nothing of launching a poisonous hate/smear campaign against their perceived enemies. The BBC in fact have the morals of a hungry sewer rat.
Spot on, Kevin.
A word of caution regarding David Gregory FWIW, as a pet scientist he is privy to and perhaps even engages in all the BBC dirty tricks and partisan reporting that the BBC have engaged in for years.
He will defend the use of non scientists when it suits and attack non scientists when it suits, this shows if not proves where he is comiong from.
As a pet scientist the BBC keeps him in his cage and as a trained pet he knows full which side his bread is buttered and we know how long he would last if he chose to blow the whistle or tried a David Bellamy.
You see a collaborator is no better than those he collaborates with, he chooses to hide the dirty tricks of those he works with because he knows he would suffer for exposing them to the light of day.
IMHO Mr G was ordered to disengage with us at B-BBC by those who would try and end all debate because debate shoots holes in the fake consensus.
Sorry, but I think he gave up because he wasn’t allowed to comment on anything without being forced into a debate on Warmism. His recent appearance here is a case in point.
Sorry but anybody that in effect says ‘I have a PhD therefore you don’t have the right to an opinion’ (even when it is based on creditable information sources) is at best an asshole, at worst a fanatic. That was really what he was saying, wasn’t it?
Not since my school reports have I read such pompous patronizing shite as that from this ‘Dr’.
Moderate me if you want, but I stand by my comments 100%.
Yes I remember Gregory when he posted here – I was accused of “cherry picking” evidence. Finding evidence that goes against the hypothesis is “cherry picking”. Half truths and manipulated data is not.
The farce was exposed when the BBC changed the label from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” . Then came all the attacks on people who “denied climate change”, even though no one did ( it was the cause not the effect).
First they talk of cutting carbon ommisions (they also mix up CO2 with carbon because carbon can be seen whereas CO2 cannot), to put us back into some ideological pastoral world that has never existed (but they see it as some commune full of hippies), then they talk of overpopulation. The dangerous idea that people are the problem and must be culled (but only the people who disagree with them). They talk of Nuremberg Trials and criminal charges against anyone who disagrees with them.
The BBC by taking only one side of the debate is complicent in this, and as such anyone who shrills on their behalf deserves no respect whatsoever. The only people who are guilty of “crimes against humanity” are the alarmists.