Always knew that would come in handy one day.
The BBC’s science editor, and climate change campaigner, studied English [and claims non-scientists shouldn’t be allowed to comment on climate change], and its politics correspondent, Chris Mason, studied Geography and Broadcasting….kind of figures….what did Nick Robinson study….ethics, morality and honesty in broadcasting?
Somebody’s not a fan of Chris Mason….
First texter to #bbcqt Extra Time. Good evening… (I studied geography too) pic.twitter.com/TI4mMb3Qhu
— Chris Mason (@ChrisMasonBBC) January 18, 2018
And yes Mason really did study geography….ironically from a newspaper called the ‘Craven Herald’…..
After leaving school, Chris studied geography at Christ’s College, Cambridge, before going on to do a postgraduate diploma in broadcast journalism at City University.
The BBC doesn’t even allow scientists to comment on Climate Change, even if they are Members of Parliament. If they do so, then the BBC censors the program and wipes the recording, and then sends its staff for training. I presume that means the BBC punishes its staff by brainwashing them on some loony left-wing environmental propaganda training course.
A BBC presenter even campaigned to have the only scientist on the governments science committee, removed from the Committee.
And none of the BBC’s ‘best scientific experts’ had causational Climate science expertise, and that was because it turned out that the BBC had invited a bunch of scientifically unqualified left-wing environmental activists.
Do we know what these people mean by ‘ Scientist’? Is a graduate engineer a scientist? Is a laboratory chemist a scientist? Who qualifies? Are Roger Harrabin and Richard Black acceptable as scientists? If so, then anyone with an opinion must also be included. So, we can all voice our understanding of the Climate question and what we conclude is absolute rubbish. But the far-left bbc probably only takes their advice from shitholes such as the UEA CRU.
A definition of ‘Scientist’ for you J inC.
Use the academic question – WHY?
What are your propositions?
How did you come to these propositions?
Show me your results (from the experimentation to back up your theory).
I/We with then try to pull apart your proposition to prove it true or otherwise.
As opposed an ‘Artist’ (BA) trained to argument ‘the whichness of why’ with no evidence.
‘Class of degree’ is irrelevant.
Are scientists “infallible?”
Are non-scientists “infallible?”
Which group tends to be the most arrogant and pretentious when they are proven wrong?