I was away yesterday and have just caught up with the news that the BBC Trustees are due to publish their long-delayed report on science coverage today. The Mail says that geneticist Steve Jones – who believes that private schools are a “cancer” (no clue to his politics and worldview there, then)and that those who dare to disagree with his views on evolution should not be allowed to practise medicine – has found no evidence of bias in the BBC’s climate change coverage and also says there is a “consensus” on the subject, so scepticism can be ignored. Pardon me while I quietly guffaw. More when I have seen the report…
But in the meantime, it is an utter disgrace if true. Science does not, never has and never will, work by consensus, much as climate liars tell us otherwise. See why, here and here. How wearyingly but obscenely predictable if an intolerant, bigoted, right-on BBC-appointed eco-loon finds that it does.
My favourite line from the BBC source:
Another corporation source said: ‘When there is a clear consensus, we don’t need to put the other side.
Erm isn’t that current policy?
Unless it conflicts with the BBCs political beliefs of course. The BBC would defend its right to pimp minority groups and their opinions would they not?
The BBC gives a platform to the most vile tiny minority using the excuse that even minorities deserve representation, they will happily supply primetime cooverage for minority groups that hold the same prejudices and hatreds as the BBC. The Green party are the ultimate minority of nucase freaks and they get as much as if not more free and open positive and uncritical airtime as the Tory party.
If it matters to beeboid land it does not matter if the group consists of a handfull of nut job whackos, the BBC will shine the MSM spotlight on them and hand them priceless airtime. Like all lefists the BBC are eye watering hypocrites. If the BBC likes a group they get the airtime.
In the perverted minds of the BBC scum anyone who holds a different belief from theirs should be stamped on, insulted, frozen out and smeared. Oh and the consensus is that islamofascist psycho killers are TERRORISTS not militants but TERRORISTS they do not deserve one second of airtime to pimp their putrid vile evil. Right there is one consensus that the BBC is not interested in and there are many more.
Ah yes, that Steve Jones. A posh tit with the most ridiculous, fake “speech impediment”. I wouldn’t even give it the distinction of calling it a lisp.
I don’t think many people argue on evolution, as the scientists may have not completely hacked how it works but must be on the right lines. However, we all know what a scam the MMGW is, which is why these champagne socialist types, like Jones, don’t believe in its discussion. They would be prove to be charlatans of the highest order.
The thing is, no Creationists (or Intelligent Designists or whatever) are trying to roll back the Industrial Revolution and force the public to live a reduced lifestyle by law, while they remain a privileged nomenklatura, sitll allowed to consume and travel to their heart’s desire.
Science can never, ever be ruled by concensus otherwise the earth would still be flat, phlogiston would explains combustion , the universe would conduct gravity through the ether and microbes would not cause disease.
Each of those were ‘concensus’ and each was challenged and resisted by the concensus until the evidence became overwhelming.
It is instructive to see how Pasteur was vilified by the concensus and dismissed.
“Pasteur continued his work on this theme by studying other liquids such as milk, wine and vinegar. In 1857, he was appointed Director of Scientific Studies at the Ecôle Normale in Paris. Between 1857 and 1859, Pasteur became convinced that the liquids he had studied were being contaminated with microbes that floated in the air. The medical establishment ridiculed him”
The climate is changing…that is a constant and worthy of study…but the mechanism has been corrupted by political interests.
Science is never validated by consensus.
That would be the end of science.
RGH – could not have put it better myself. But try explaining this point to an eco-loonie; all you’ll get is the old Vicky Pollard ‘yes-but-no-but-yes-but’. Reasoned argument simply doesn’t work with these people. So, alas, those with scientific training who question the consensus remain ‘heretics’ according to the new religion. Thanks, BBC.
But Stev Jones is a geneticist…not an environmental scientist in any capacity, unless you count catching water boatmen in his small net!
He is neither qualified nor competent to say anything on this-he is not an “expert”.
Fred Dineage would be better suited to this role…even Maggie Philbin!
Suppose Jones can cite the Patten defence…it is precisely because he IS unqualified that he has been hand-picked by his puppet masters to say what the boys upstairs need saying!
Oh great Mr Jones the BBC regular [so very impartial then ??] private school hating mouthy opinionated secularist who’s field of study seems mainly to cover snails so plenty of climate experience there then ?
They just don’t get it, do they? They aren’t Galileo Galilei, they’re the ones that tried him for heresy.
It was only a matter of time…
@grist Could Murdoch’s News Corp be behind Climategate too?http://ow.ly/5IAqf
Love the use of ‘could’ in ‘serious’ media these days.
And this on the very day I see the Google logo is celebrating what would be the 189th birthday of the genetics scientist Gregor Mendel.
Isn`t it funny that the State and its lefties crow continually about Darwins role in evolutionary theory?…but don`t seem to value anything that the great Gregor Mendel did in seving the underpinning genetic theory-which is far more verifiable and scientifically valid than Darwins conjectures(theoretically helpful though they are).
Wouldn`t have anything to do with the fact that Mendel was a Christian monk I`m sure…would it?
Hats off to Google though!
“The BBC’s secular inquisition”
(by Melanie Phillips)
[Extract]:
“This is nothing less than a totalitarian agenda. Indeed, why stop at science? If ‘consensus’ dictates what is to be reported, and consensus is itself subjectively determined on the basis of the presumed weight of expert opinion (which can never be truly known) or the presumed agreement of the population (which can never be truly known), then it follows that on issues such as abortion, membership of the EU or immigration (on which even the BBC has been forced to admit it got public opinion terribly wrong) the BBC would similarly see ‘no need’ to allow alternatives to chattering-class opinion to be heard.
“A free society requires toleration of dissent. Progress depends upon the recognition that today’s dissent may turn into tomorrow’s orthodoxy. Science is littered with examples of this, from Galileo onwards. Indeed, the idea that a presumed consensus should wipe out dissenting voices is positively anti-science. If science doesn’t have an open-mind, it is no longer science but propaganda. And that is what the BBC Trust is proposing. ”
http://www.melaniephillips.com/the-bbcs-secular-inquisition
I promise I didn’t know she had mentioned Galileo too! Great minds! š
Wonder if Steve Jones has the approved state socialist views in the matter of eugenics?
This is the Socialists science of choice-from the Webbs, through to Stopes…from George Bernard Shaw and the other heroes that established the notion of Labour!
I realise that Adolfs use of the word Socialist rather missed out on the international aspect of world progress towards a rationalist utopia; but aprt from that it`s important to remind the Porritts, Monbiots and Brigstockes what the roots of their science is today.
Indeed they stand on the shoulders of these giants of socialism…they`ll not be looking down at the consequences, because we`re not as “enlightened” as they are!
Who knows-these fine figures of socialist manhood are just the kind of people we untermenschen might become if we too read the Guardian and pimped ourselves for the BBC like taxis for hire!
The reason the Left like the concept of Godwin’s Law (that Internet discuissions are silly because somebody always ends up comparing Leftist views with the Nazi’s) is that this helps justify their desire to replace free speech with broadcasting, run by themselves, which can educate people to have the correct thinking.
But the reason for the frequency of the Nazi analogy is that even Leftists would not dare defend Hitler, indeed those public schoolboys (some of whom worked for the BBC I recall) who loved Stalin so much they worked for the KGB (or its equivalent) said that they did so because of their opposition to Fascism.
So the reason why people on the Right point to the similarities between the Jew hating, anti-capitalist, free press hating Darwinians of the Nazi Party, and the Israel hating, anti-globalisation, Murdoch hating secularists of the modern Left is that this is the only politically correct critique which is avaliable.
It is no good pointing out that socialism causes poverty, that the Left is totalitarian, or that immorality destroys the fabric of societies, because that assumes that they care. The BBC (like Labour MP’s) see themselves as entitled to live off the backs of the peasants. They are appalled when newspapers write stories which draw attention to their greed and immorality. How dare they!
The “progessive” words may change (for example the racism may change from blacks are inferior (Marx) to blacks should be treated as a special case (positive discrimination) but it is always the same tune.
Narcisissm and malevolance.
Hitler was an extreme Leftist. But of course it is Godwin’s Law to point that out. That Law derives from a deeper truth. That the Nazi Party was a [German] variety of Leftism.
The pseudo-sciences change, but it is the same tune. 1) Smash everything 2) Replace it with a big State (run by themselves).
The report is out…and its worse than we thought;
Click to access science_impartiality.pdf
Im sorry but any so called “official” document that calls people “deniers” loses its credibility immediately. From Jones wording, its very clear who’s side he is on, and that isnt the side of enquiry and scientific scepticism. So in reality all we have here is the same biased people looking at a biased oranisation and coming up with the same biased opinions…that their turd smells of roses.
Mailman
Andrew: “Among the advantages in private schools compared to state schools, Jones listed smaller classroom sizes, highly-trained teachers, better facilities, and coaching through university interviews.” (wiki)
So why doesn’t the great state system attempt to achieve such goals? Answers on a postcard…