Sissons's piece is certainly a shocking indictment of the standards of BBC journalism.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ January 26 2011, 7:58 PM GMTA strange comment indeed. Here from the horse's mouth (Peter Sissons):
When the topic first came to prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.
Yep, the first thing a journalist should rely on is a load of stuff on the internet.
He doesn't have a book to sell does he?
Quote: Timbo @ January 26 2011, 8:32 PM GMTSissons does not seem to realise that science is not like politics where all views can be treated as equally valid. Wheeling out an opposing view for the sake of it does not provide balance, it just distorts the story; and having some journalistic attack dog barking ill-conceived questions at scientists is not likely to add illumination.
Anyway your lengthy extract from the always objective Daily Mail does indicate that there are some media organs brave enough to defy the scientific concensus and to expose BBC bias. Though in the absence of any new science to justify their scepticism it does seem that they are reduced to wheeling out disgruntled old hacks.
The truth is that there is no significant body of scientific opinion challenging the scientific concensus, and many of those outside the concensus have shifted their position so often as to lack all credibility. Bjorn Lomberg's statements on climate change are typical of the evolution of scepticism as it has been forced to adapt to inconvenient evidence:
"The greenhouse effect is extremely doubtful"
(article in the Danish newspaper Politiken, 12th January 1998)"There is no doubt that mankind has influenced the CO2 content of the atmosphere and is well on his way to double it. But it is still not clear whether this will lead to severe temperature rises."
(p. 244 in the Danish book from September 1998, 'Verdens Sande Tilstand')"There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will influence temperature. Yet, we need to separate hyperbole from realities . . . "
(p. 317 in 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' from September 2001)"That humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past centuries, thereby contributing to global warming, is beyond debate. What is debatable, however, is whether hysteria and headlong spending . . . is the only possible response. "
(preface to 'Cool It!' from September 2007)Global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront". . . "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century."
('Smart solutions to Climate Change', to be published about October 2010).Thank God we have 10 O'Clock Live to give him a platform and bring a bit of balance back into the debate.
I do agree that for the most part you're right that the news should report the most likely consensus scientific evidence (I will point out that at the start of this thing I wasn't accusing them of not giving crack pots a hearing; what I was accusing them of is deliberately focusing on the worst case scenarios) but in the case of supposed science programmes like Horizon, they should be giving the opposing side fair hearing then using their (which you should be able to do if they are indeed wrong) superior theory to explain why it's wrong not take this attitude of "it's not worth the risk, we might actually convince one of them".
P.S. Don't even get me stated on 10 O'Clock Live.
Quote: Badge @ January 26 2011, 8:43 PM GMTYep, the first thing a journalist should rely on is a load of stuff on the internet.
Actually, yeah. That's exactly what they should do.
Where would you expect them to get their information from? The internet is the best place to find primary research, debate, interview subjects... As long as you know whose words you're reading, the internet is the absolute dog's.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ January 26 2011, 8:50 PM GMTAs long as you know whose words you're reading, the internet is the absolute dog's.
I'm glad you qualified it. The problem with some modern journalism is that the writer doesn't care who has written it on the internet, just that it has been written.
Quote: Badge @ January 26 2011, 8:52 PM GMTI'm glad you qualified it. The problem with some modern journalism is that the writer doesn't care who has written it on the internet, just that it has been written.
Fair point, "Badge".
I'm not claiming anyone should pay attention to what I write!
EDIT:
Having reviewd the evidence available, this:
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ January 26 2011, 8:53 PM GMTFair point, "Badge".
gets a 
Quote: Timbo @ January 26 2011, 8:32 PM GMTThe truth is that there is no significant body of scientific opinion challenging the scientific concensus, and many of those outside the concensus have shifted their position so often as to lack all credibility. Bjorn Lomberg's statements on climate change are typical of the evolution of scepticism as it has been forced to adapt to inconvenient evidence:
False. There is a large amount which is why the CRU leaks were so shocking. A deliberate attempt by scientists to falsify data by excluding anyone who disagrees with the basic (unproven) assumption. There really is no proof whatsoever that humans have anything to do with the temperature which is why the BBC and other propaganda organs constantly refer to the 'consensus' rather than the 'evidence'. It is pure speculation.
One of the differences between science and pseudo-science is that a real science can make accurate predictions which prove true, on this the pro-agw and now discredited met office has been laughable despite having a 130 million computer just installed. Other predictions based on global warming have been equally ridiculous (snow to become a rarity as the BBC was reporting as late as 2007) and the planet appears to be cooling down rather than heating up something which the supposed greenhouse effect of co2 cannot explain.
Both Joe Bastardi and Piers Corbyn are respected climatologists who dispute the so-called consensus view. Corbyn has correctly predicted the longterm climate trends over the last decade, something which has embarrassed the agw crowd.
I think the point of the Horizon show was more to understand why people do not trust the science than to analyze the arguments on each side; climate change was just a convenient hook. The treatment of the other issues touched on , HIV and GM was even more superficial (and in the case of GM I thought rather disingenuous).
But the point about climate change is that the scenarios are genuinely alarming, a relatively modest rise in world temperature could cause massive ecological therefore economic damage, and if people can be made to focus on the issue something can, in theory at least, be done about before it is too late. Sometimes it is right to be alarmed; the trick is in knowing when. The point about Brooker's show was, I think, that TV distorts people's perceptions of risk - though it was such a confused half-arsed mess that I am not really certain what point he thought he was making.
Quote: Timbo @ January 26 2011, 9:03 PM GMTI think the point of the Horizon show was more to understand why people do not trust the science than to analyze the arguments on each side; climate change was just a convenient hook. The treatment of the other issues touched on , HIV and GM was even more superficial (and in the case of GM I thought rather disingenuous).
But the point about climate change is that the scenarios are genuinely alarming, a relatively modest rise in world temperature could cause massive ecological therefore economic damage, and if people can be made to focus on the issue something can, in theory at least, be done about before it is too late. Sometimes it is right to be alarmed; the trick is in knowing when. The point about Brooker's show was, I think, that TV distorts people's perceptions of risk - though it was such a confused half-arsed mess that I am not really certain what point he thought he was making.
Why did they even get the sceptic scientist on if the point wasn't to debunk the opposing view point? You're now doing exactly what I'm accusing the BBC of "it's OK to scaremonger and terrify people by focusing on the worst possible outcome - we all know they're too thick to take action if they're not scared shitless", which is exactly the attitude Brooker had a go at in How TV Ruined Your Life but for this one subject it's OK.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ January 26 2011, 9:01 PM GMTBoth Joe Bastardi and Piers Corbyn are respected climatologists who dispute the so-called consensus view. Corbyn has correctly predicted the longterm climate trends over the last decade, something which has embarrassed the agw crowd.
For Piers Corbyn, the weather forecaster who refuses to share his methodology see: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/piers_corbyn.php for an interesting discussion.
it is more difficult to find an objective discussion of Bastardi as his name brings up pages and pages of rehashed Joe Bastardi press releases - he clearly has no problem finding an outlet for his views; but this is interesting: http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/01/accuweather's-joe-bastardi-admits-earth-continues-warmest-winter-since-satellite-measurements-started-and-feb-should-be-warmest-on-record/
Even on my cursory reading (I do have a life) what comes across clearly is that these are marginal and rather blustering figures whose rhetoric runs ahead of the evidence. They are commercial weather forecasters who have a vested interest in putting the best possible spin on their results; this is not quite the same thing as an objective analysis of the data. Just because someone claims to be gaining the scientific higher ground this does not necessarily make it so.
I would actually sleep rather better in my bed if someone could disprove global warming, I could feel less guilty and more optimistic, but that does not mean that I am inclined to seek solace from any snake oil salesman.
Quote: ggggg hhhhh @ January 26 2011, 9:41 PM GMTWhy did they even get the sceptic scientist on if the point wasn't to debunk the opposing view point? You're now doing exactly what I'm accusing the BBC of "it's OK to scaremonger and terrify people by focusing on the worst possible outcome - we all know they're too thick to take action if they're not scared shitless", which is exactly the attitude Brooker had a go at in How TV Ruined Your Life but for this one subject it's OK.
The point is that Delingpole is not a scientist - he is a journalist who choses to believe the sceptics rather the concensus. Hence the line of questioning - why does he chose not to take scientific advice on this issue when he would if it was his own health at stake.
I do agree up to a point which is what I found so pointless about Brooker's diatribe. Conflating crime with health and safety and natural catastrophe as if they all demand the same response seems just lazy. There is a difference between nannying and scaremongering, and there is a difference between personal responsibility for one's own safety and personal responsibility for a problem demanding concerted public action.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ January 26 2011, 9:01 PM GMTFalse. There is a large amount which is why the CRU leaks were so shocking. A deliberate attempt by scientists to falsify data by excluding anyone who disagrees with the basic (unproven) assumption. There really is no proof whatsoever that humans have anything to do with the temperature which is why the BBC and other propaganda organs constantly refer to the 'consensus' rather than the 'evidence'. It is pure speculation.
One of the differences between science and pseudo-science is that a real science can make accurate predictions which prove true, on this the pro-agw and now discredited met office has been laughable despite having a 130 million computer just installed. Other predictions based on global warming have been equally ridiculous (snow to become a rarity as the BBC was reporting as late as 2007) and the planet appears to be cooling down rather than heating up something which the supposed greenhouse effect of co2 cannot explain.
Both Joe Bastardi and Piers Corbyn are respected climatologists who dispute the so-called consensus view. Corbyn has correctly predicted the longterm climate trends over the last decade, something which has embarrassed the agw crowd.
What's your evidence that there's no evidence, if catch my meaning?
Quote: Timbo @ January 26 2011, 9:03 PM GMT
But the point about climate change is that the scenarios are genuinely alarming, a relatively modest rise in world temperature could cause massive ecological therefore economic damage, and if people can be made to focus on the issue something can, in theory at least, be done about before it is too late. Sometimes it is right to be alarmed; the trick is in knowing when. The point about Brooker's show was, I think, that TV distorts people's perceptions of risk - though it was such a confused half-arsed mess that I am not really certain what point he thought he was making.
The rise in temperature over the last century and a half was 0.7 degrees. It should be noted that the start point was coming out of a particularly cold period (the little ice age) in recent climate history and this increase seems likely to reverse itself over the next thirty years if reliable climatologists are to be believed.
It is certainly true that the middle ages experienced temperatures of 4 or more degrees higher than today without adverse effects. Indeed the rise in temperature was largely beneficial to humanity. The real killer are the cold periods when migration and unrest happened. We appear to be entering into such a period again which will be big trouble, much more so than the hysterical global warming alarmism.
For a 'scientist' to fail to mention any of these things in a 'documentary' is, as Sissons rightly says, more like propaganda than truth and the BBC has been churning this out over the last decade.
Back on topic please. This is not the place to discuss climate change.
Quote: Cheesehoven @ January 26 2011, 10:13 PM GMTif reliable climatologists are to be believed
ahem
Quote: Aaron @ January 26 2011, 10:14 PM GMTBack on topic please. This is not the place to discuss climate change.
The discussion does at several points refers back to Brooker's programme.
Quite a lot of posts now marked off-topic discuss the issues at the heart of Brooker's programme, don't they?
