Image via WikipediaNew BBC guidelines extend 'due impartiality' to religionhttp://richarddawkins.net/articles/533942-new-bbc-guidelines-extend-due-impartiality-to-religion
The BBC has further beefed up its guidelines on religion by stating that "any content dealing with matters of religion and likely to cause offence to those with religious views must be editorially justified and must be referred to a senior editorial figure".( Science is included in guidelines too ! )
Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/06/israel-scientist-sacked-evolution-climate
Why are environmental organisations pressuring the government over alternative energy that is both unattainable and probably very costly? These questions cannot be avoided. The answers to them are likely to surprise and possibly disappoint. But the moment science is enlisted for political ends – that is, in the name of ideology – questions arise as to the scientific basis of environmental organisations.
How fear of bias dominates the climate change debate
Climate sceptics say they want science free of politics, yet their campaigning frames discussion
( Not bad. He didn't make it past the header before showing that he wanted to control all parts of the 'discussion' as per his specifications. )
What's to be done? First, acknowledge that many of us, especially researchers and committed science journalists who fear accusations of bias, have internalised the sceptics' conspiracy-laden worldview. Second, we all need to avoid playing along with their agenda, by carefully explaining scientific results to avoid the inevitable contrarian wilful misinterpretations, without name-checking "the sceptics" as a group. We don't accept vocal fringe groups such as creationists framing the reporting of evolution, and likewise, we should actively avoid letting fringe ideological convictions frame public discussions of climate change science.
( How shameless can you get. Not only is disagreement mere 'Denying' but 'Climate Science' is suddenly on a par with the Theory of Evolution for respectability ....and presumably for demonstrated utility too !
When exactly did we get to projection from proven model ? I'm sure if they had tested results we'd hear about them !
I wonder how - or if - this is 'reported' in the BBC, BTW.
There's that Chilean miners/Cancun conference budgetary problem too : coming up. )
TurningTide
15 October 2010 2:46PM
We don't accept vocal fringe groups such as creationists framing the reporting of evolution, and likewise, we should actively avoid letting fringe ideological convictions frame public discussions of climate change science.
But evolutionary theory - unlike climate science - has a long and distinguished history and a vast body of supporting evidence from a plethora of different fields.
Climate science, on the other hand, is a discipline still in its infancy (Phil Jones, of Climategate infamy, for example, doesn't have a degree in climatology. Why not? Because when he was a student, climatology didn't exist), with many uncertainties and unknowns.
The AGW bridgade have over-egged the pudding, the scientists have allowed their discipline to be hijacked for political purposes, and now it's all turning round to bite them on the bum.
If they want to (re)gain any respect and credibility, a lot more openness and humility is required.
sisterzoot
15 October 2010 3:28PM
Simon Lewis says “no scientist would hide controversial data”.
So does he agree with George Monbiot that what Jones was doing at CRU was “not science”?
FedUpWithPropaganda
15 October 2010 3:46PM
The more the word 'denier' is used, the more climate science is seen as a religious movement - in a 'how dare you not agree with us'.. kind of way.
It is nice to see Simon leave that term out of his piece.
What Simon misses here, is that any new theory/hypothesis is debated heavily at the time of its release. Be that evolution, relativity or whatever. The notion that such a discussion should not happen with climate science is anti-scientific. And the fact that AGW is a new theory, with a so-called consensus, does not automatically put it in the same ball-park as evolution, which as TurningTide currectly points out, has a mass of evidence to support it.
This piece, as with many others written by advocates of AGW smacks of desperation, if the evidence was as overwheming as is often stated then, the wording in this article would be unnecessary.
I wonder if Simon Lewis will be honest to himself and to the public in stating the true premise of AGW - in that we cannot account for the current warming through natural (solar & volcanic) means, therefore we link it to CO2.
This is what it boils down to.
Yes, models are programmed that are claimed to valiate the theory of AGW, but they are only models, not even experiments, and certainly not empirical - and they have failed to predict current temperatures relative to the current levels of CO2.
Based on this - AGW followers are surprised they are questioned over their theories that will ultimately drive policy that will cost the taxpayer trillions of dollars...! This is why climate science has become politicized, and when you start to complian about that fact Simon Lewis, you should remember that is was the AGW crew that turned the science into a political agenda.
sisterzoot
15 October 2010 6:19PM
Simon Lewis says:
[As] a result of the long-running sceptics' campaign [a] similar change occurred last month at the Royal Society ... The science is the same, but Lawson's gang have politicised its presentation
.
The new version of the Royal Society guide says:
It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.
There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.
So is this the same as the original version? And if, as Simon Lewis says, the science was correct, and hasn’t changed, does he agree with the above Royal Society statement?
We are going through a profound revolution'
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/20/stories/2010092052441100.htm
Interview with Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian.
We live in a revolutionary era where technology enables everyone to publish, and this calls for a redefined role for newspapers, says Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian. In an interview with G. Ananthakrishnan and Mukund Padmanabhan, he covered a wide range of subjects, ranging from reader engagement and core values of journalism, to free speech, defamation, the rise of mobile devices and the Wikileaks phenomenon.
A year ago we decided the environment was the biggest story of our lives. So we have six reporters doing the environment – one in China, one in America and four in the U.K. And then we built a network of environmental sites. We aggregated and became part of a network, with about 20 or 30 sites. A huge amount of editing and resources goes into the environment. That's like saying, almost regardless of revenue, its going to be such an important subject. And that as a newspaper, this is what we ought to care about. If you are going to do the environment with one correspondent, you are not going to make yourself distinct.
At the moment, the big controversy in Britain is that newspapers are complaining that the courts are developing a privacy law on their own, and that Parliament has never debated this, and that this is happening by the back door.
University investigating prominent climate science critic
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/wegman-plagiarism-investigation-/1
A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Estimations of climate sensitivity based on top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1923/2010/acp-10-1923-2010.html
Large climate feedback uncertainties limit the accuracy in predicting the response of the Earth's climate to the increase of CO2 concentration within the atmosphere. For the doubled-CO2 climate (or 3.7 W/m2 forcing), the estimated global warming would be 3.1 K if the current estimate of 0.85 W/m2 TOA net radiative heating could be confirmed. With accurate long-term measurements of TOA radiation, the analysis method suggested by this study provides a great potential in the estimations of middle-range climate sensitivity.
Chilean miners leave BBC too broke for live coverage of Cancún climate talks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog
Scrubbing Micro-Bubbles Clean Polluted Lake
http://news.discovery.com/tech/scrubbing-micro-bubbles-clean-polluted-lake.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1
Free Up Insane Amount of Disk Space in Ubuntu by Deleting Cached Package Files
Conky Ubuntu Lucid Theme - Among The Most Easy to Install Conky Theme in Ubuntu
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment