tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-811591306049850735.post8143934525538855624..comments2024-03-26T11:29:49.221-07:00Comments on Frack-Land: The role of experts vs interest groups when science-related issues are dicussed in the mediaDr JVhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14105249808644069495noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-811591306049850735.post-11451537245074119352013-10-06T04:06:20.421-07:002013-10-06T04:06:20.421-07:00The BBC's inclusion of non-specialists in the ...The BBC's inclusion of non-specialists in the climate debate is precisely designed to discredit any attack on the position the BBC have taken that climate science is "settled" and treated as if it were Newton's Laws of Motion. In fact it has proved to be a great disservice to proper scientific enquiry on the factors affecting climate, which still remains at a relatively rudimentary level of understanding, as the failure of climate models amply demonstrates. Modellers are now inventing deferrents and epicycles to try to cater for these failings.<br /><br />The concern is - or should be - that climate science has been hijacked for political ends, much as happened with Lysenkoism. Theories that do not fit the political agenda are discarded untested; experiments that disprove politically accepted theory are covered up and ignored; alternatives invented with no evidential foundation (e.g. heat reservoirs in the lower oceans). Just as with Lysenkoism, there are severe economic consequences from acting on this "science".<br /><br />It is precisely the politically driven agenda and the process of inadequate scientific education that lies behind the rubbishing of well established geoscience. <br /><br />Politics is a matter of opinion: science should be a matter of facts.It doesn't add up...noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-811591306049850735.post-14930579539254869932013-10-06T00:11:47.124-07:002013-10-06T00:11:47.124-07:00As if to make your point for you, the Guardian fee...As if to make your point for you, the Guardian feels it is unable to print any more sensational articles because they get trashed in the comments.<br /><br />So now they are publishing fairy stores as metaphors - see 'The end of the world is nigh… anyone out there interested?' (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/06/news-dad-communist-stewart-lee) by Stewart Lee, a 'comedian'.<br /><br />And comments aren't enabled.Soarerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06585548776444898953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-811591306049850735.post-941830303945158662013-10-06T00:01:18.021-07:002013-10-06T00:01:18.021-07:00Good post Dr JV - fair & balanced (unlike any ...Good post Dr JV - fair & balanced (unlike any Guardian article on the environment).<br /><br />I think there is a further point - the BBC in particular seems to define an expert as 'someone who knows more about a subject than anyone else in the room'. Being mostly liberal arts graduates, they are unable to understand the science itself or the scientific method. So they will get shouty people they already know (often journalists and ex-politicians) rather than rational scientists, as spokespeople.<br /><br />This means that the rational people on both sides generally are not represented, and extremists have the floor. This is not just on environmental issues, but on things like religion and politics too. For any religious debate, there may or may not be a token Humanist or Atheist. This gives the impressions that most people are religious, as several devout religious people will be present. The opposite is actually true - a very small percentage of people actually go to church, mosque, synagogue etc.<br /><br />Finally, it looks to me like the BBC, having been caught being over-sensational on AGW, is now looking for people to represent the sceptical side who are at the extreme end, so they make it look bad without representing the majority view at all.<br /><br />Of course the Guardian doesn't realsie that it is doing the same for the Climate Activist cause, by having all sorts of ignorance, as long as it is pro-CAGW, across its Comment is Free pages, and even in the 'News' section it self.Soarerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06585548776444898953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-811591306049850735.post-56038622597346751682013-10-04T12:48:47.396-07:002013-10-04T12:48:47.396-07:00I find it always helps. I gave up on the media ou...I find it always helps. I gave up on the media outlets years ago. Great for the highlights, less good for a reflection of reality. The problem is where can the ordinary person go for real facts and how do they know they can trust them? Indeed do they really care? I have a number of friends who believe what they see via various social media platforms, they are not bad people or stupid people, they just do not have access to more informed views.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-811591306049850735.post-86669707807309189472013-10-04T12:26:55.872-07:002013-10-04T12:26:55.872-07:00Hi Anonymous,
I've not missed that point. The ...Hi Anonymous,<br />I've not missed that point. The motivation behind this post was my shock at the sheer hypocrisy of the Guardian article, which got me on to thinking more generally about this issue. Perhaps I should have had a lie down and a nice cuppa before posting, rather than rushing straight to blogger to pour out my feelings....Dr JVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14105249808644069495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-811591306049850735.post-362695448054063662013-10-04T12:09:44.770-07:002013-10-04T12:09:44.770-07:00I think you miss a key point. Newspapers (and for...I think you miss a key point. Newspapers (and for that matter the TV news) publish or show what they think will sell best. They are not about balance of views or informing us about key issues. As for experts, I'm always a bit worried by self declared experts, I'd rather hear informed and rational opinion and have access to the facts. That will not come from the press.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com