BBC Horizon – Attack On Science

Well it looks like the BBC have learned very little this year and the response to this program should be interesting. There are more than enough journalists/ news editors around that are very aware of the issues that were glossed over and waved away..

The Professor spoke to Phil Jones, as the enquiries that he said had exonerated everybody, failed to ask a key questions… Could he have perhaps actually have asked Phil Jones.

Why did you ask colleagues to delete emails relating to the IPCC process? And, why did you feel the need to ask?

The program was a defence of ‘climate science’ very very thinly disguised as a general program about attacks on science generally, particulary loathesome was a casual use of deniars by a Nobel Prize winner.

Of course Professor Paul Nurse is completely unrelated to the many fields that make up ‘climate science’ so perhaps he naively thought all was well…

Next time James delingpole gives an interview to anybody with connections to the BBC, I suggest that makes an audio recording of the entire process for himself. A little trick to keep reporters honest one or 2 politicians could have warned him to use.

Why this Professor, could they not find any physicists?

This program may backfire in a spectacular fashion on the BBC…

Have the learnt nothing in the last year.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to BBC Horizon – Attack On Science

  1. Philip says:

    “Why this Professor, could they not find any physicists?”

    Presumably because of his role as the new president of the Royal Society… I had been quite hopeful that the program might offer some new insights, but in the event it seemed to be little more than an exercise in institutional dishonesty, although very skilfully done: placing unrelated comments on TSI and cosmic rays together for the audience to draw the wrong conclusions; putting up Delingpole – plus a brief comment from Fred Singer – as representative of the scientific case against alarmism; shamelessly bringing to bear the authority of Newton and Darwin; and so on. I suppose it is inevitable that the activists responsible for the Royal Society’s decline should have ensured that one of their own takes over at the helm – but what a pity nonetheless.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    They & the Government haven’t learn’t anything. They have become a laughing stock.

  3. N Cox says:

    This programme featured on SBS One on Australian TV 9 August 2011. I was anticipating an informative unbiased assessment of Global Warming / Climate Change with new facts and involvement of knowledgeable scientists in the field. What was on offer was something else – a lacklustre and flimsy superficial coverage simply bolstering the personal view of Professor Paul Nurse.

    The lack of any in-depth discussion or involvement by more than just a few select ‘representatives’ in some coffee shop, ice cream parlour of cluttered office diminished the professionalism and scientific approach. Indeed some of the programme was wasted in perusing original works of Newton and Darwin – totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Curiously Professor Nurse made sweeping statements about “the general consensus of scientists” without any factual support. His proposition that the Global Warming sceptics “cherry-pick” the data to suit their needs is the opposite of the truth. What I have seen through a period of time is the selective use of data by the Global Warming Alarmists and dismissal of anything else that doesn’t suit their ‘theorising’. Moreover the modelling they use is simply a fabrication based on arbitrary ‘feedback’ pertaining to Carbon Dioxide and warming which is not evidenced in real data over the last 10 years.

    Why is it that Carbon Dioxide levels have risen over the past 10 years, but there ahs been some global cooling over thge period? Prof. Paul Nurse chose to avoid such very pertinent questions. Also does NASA truly believe that Solar activity is not a key player in Climate Change on the Earth? Really?

    Personally I have always been interested in true Science and making scientific connections between causation and effect based on factual evidence. Science is about testing of hypothesis, not just consensus of a select few or superficial speculation. Prof. Paul Nurse would do well to remember that.

    Fortunately – for all of us – the real truth lies in the future to unfold. Maybe then we (incl Prof Nurse) can move forward with real science and real scientific study and discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>