I wasn’t going to post this yet as I was saving it as part of a longer post but it will be a while before that gets done, so here is a prime example not only of BBC anti-climate sceptic propaganda but a deliberate attempt to ‘smear’ sceptics and dismiss their ‘scepticism’ as some sort of psychological problem which is not based on rational thought or science:
Political Prejudice
Availability: over a year left to listen Duration: 30 minutes First broadcast: Monday 17 September 2012
If you think that you are rational and unprejudiced, Michael Blastland hopes you will be open minded enough to listen to the evidence which suggests that you are probably not.
We might think our views about global warming, nanotechnology or the value of IQ tests are based on scientific evidence. But the beliefs we hold about these issues often say more about our ability to screen out the evidence we dislike than it does about the scientific facts.
Michael Blastland investigates the causes of our cognitive biases and our remarkable ability to not let the facts get in the way of a deeply held belief.
The programme concentrates on ‘right wing climate sceptics’ almost to the exclusion of anything else….it mentions Left Wing ‘deniers of scientific truths’ but blink and you’ll miss it….presumably just included to provide evidence of at least a minimal attempt at balance.
Good of the BBC to leave it on the iPlayer for at least a year…..can’t have you missing out on the facts.
I think this is just another example of what I think is termed projection; assigning one’s own prejudices, beliefs, fears onto others.
Thanks for the link. I could take it up to about nine minutes in, to the point where some “expert” from Yale (I think) told us we had no right to disagree with “experts”. Ironically, he referred to the circularity of the Earth. The geometry of his own argument would have been a more appropriate reference.
This constant “appeal to authority” ALWAYS amazes me. I studied Physics in the sixties (19!) and the history of the subject is studded with brilliant guys who completely overturned the “scientific consensus” of their time by looking at things in a different way. Guys (& gals) who who argued against what EVERYONE else thought. How any argument about climate science can be based on “consensus” goes completely against the way that science really progresses
Listen to the world service during the wee small hours to truly understand the depths the bbc plummet.
It is amazing what they think they can get away with saying when they think no-one (from the UK that is paying for them) is listening. I occasionally pick up “World News from The BBC, London” from crappy little radio stations Like Riviera Radio who syndicate it. Arab-centric, leftwing bigotry, Hope and Change White House talking points, protestors anywhere on the planet supporting.
The effect of man-made carbon dioxide on Global Warming of 0.76 Kelvin is only an IPCC assumption or a RELIGIOUS BELIEF called WARMISM, not a fact with evidence. In science, once you make an assumption, you then try to prove that assumption right or wrong. Is it right that the BBC censors science and scientists who inadvertently touch on the “trying to prove it wrong” bit of the argument?
The two possible assumptions are:
(1) The increase in CO2 caused the warming: Not according to the Unified Theory of Climate calculations or using the CO2 Atmosphere of Mars as a proxy, adding the fact that there is no formula for feedback because the feedback is negative.
(2) The warming caused the increase in CO2: Ice cores show that an increase in CO2 follows a warming after about 800 years, most of the increase in the CO2 was caused by the Medieval warm period which peaked about 800 years ago, this is proved by Carbon-14 levels that show that only 4 percent of the CO2 in the Atmosphere is from Volcanic or Man-made sources, which means a maximum of 15 percent of the 100 ppm increase in CO2 was from man-made sources.
Conclusion: something else caused the warming:
(1) Direct solar irradiance changes: 0.1 Kelvin, or not enough.
(2) Indirect solar irradiance: “Bingo” Despite the politically induced cover-up of the CLOUD experiment results and the poor warmist attempts at rebuttals of the Cosmoclimatology theory, evidence continues to accumulate for this theory which also seems to explain the changes in the brightness of Neptune as well as changes in the Earths cloud albedo.
What facts in Astronomy does the psychiatrist Michael Blastland think I and my fellow Mensa Space Special interest group members have missed out in this debate that the BBC will not allow on air.
The fact that the above evidence is debated within the high IQ society Mensa but not on the BBC, is proof that the BBC screens out the evidence it does not like.
Michael Blastland should investigates the cause of this cognitive bias of BBC staff and their remarkable ability to not let the facts get in the way of a deeply held belief in the cause of Global Warming.
IPCC confession (don’t tell auntie) –
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
I think the point is made well enough right there, Alan. It’s just like the Beeboids believing that there can be no legitimate opposition to the President’s policies, or the BBC’s general dismissal of legitimate concerns about mass immigration without integration, ascribing all such unapproved thoughts to racism or the equally pejorative Islamophobia.
Any unapproved thought must be due to genetic defect.