The BBC has a piece online today that looks at climate sceptics. As you'd expect from the BBC it's heavily weighted towards the IPCC side of things, but still managers to give a superficial impression of being fair. For example, there's a side bar that states:
Although there are only a small number of mainstream scientists who reject the established view on global warming, they are supported by a larger group of well resourced bloggers and citizen scientists who pore through climate literature and data looking for evidence of flaws in the hypothesis.
Aside from repeating the lie that there are only small number of 'mainstream scientists' who are in the sceptic camp, it also repeats the bigger lie about 'well resourced bloggers'. Come on, who's well resourced? Is it the sceptic camp or is it the alarmist camp funded by governments, trans-national bodies (like the UN, EU etc), big green and a host of environmentalist activist organisations. The disparity in resourcing is staggering - back in 2009 Australian blogger JoAnne Nova pegged the money spent on climate science as $79 billion (http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/) - yet the implication in the BBC story is that well-funded sceptics are attacking plucky little climate scientists.
But let's also focus on the last bit of that quote:
well resourced bloggers and citizen scientists who pore through climate literature and data looking for evidence of flaws in the hypothesis.
Excuse me, but isn't that what scientists do? Doesn't the scientific method depend on this process?
No comments:
Post a Comment