Biased BBC’s Alan reveals a bit of a killer blow for Richard Black here…..
Below is an article from ‘Nature’ science magazine that proves that the pro CO2 abolition groups are advancing a leftwing ideology and not science….it is cultural and political…
and what’s even better is that…..
Richard Black is caught out with his long held beliefs demolished, discredited and shot so full of holes that it wouldn’t hold a large lump of melting iceberg never mind water…..
RB: I’m not surprised at the level of UK scepticism as the main impacts of CC are decades away and in other places. The problem is poor science awareness. We need to improve science education so people properly understand climate science.
DA: A short-term disaster is needed to guarantee coverage as people aren’t good at processing information about there being no ice at the poles in 30 years. Or get David Attenborough as the front man because everyone trusts him.
RB: I agree that a short term disaster would be effective in persuading people.
(These are notes taken from a discussion meeting at Oxford University on 26th February 2010
Question and answer format featuring environmental correspondents Richard Black (BBC), Fiona Harvey (FT), David Adam (Guardian) and Ben Jackson (Sun) and chaired by Fiona Fox, director of the Science Media Centre.)
DA: I used to think sceptics were bad and mad but now the bad people (lobbyists for fossil fuel industries) had gone, leaving only the mad.
Black may, will have to reconsider his unfounded views after reading this report from the pro climate change ‘Nature’ magazine.
I have plucked out the most relevant and easily digested bits that still gives the full narrative. It is worthwhile reading the whole thing, though written with scientific terms it is perfectly understandable….I did need a dictionary to look up ‘Heuristic’!
My only disagreement is with its categorization of ‘rightwingers’ as people who are only self interested without the welfare of the community as a whole being their concern. Closing down industry and commerce means no money…..no jobs, no welfare, no schools, no housing, no food, no NHS…no nothing. I would say keeping the lights on and the machine ticking over was a community concern of great importance.
Also Sceptics may actually disagree with the ‘science’ on an evidence based principle….no scientist has yet proved ‘warming’ is caused by a rise in CO2 levels…the evidence so far is that CO2 levels rise only after the temperature rises….as admitted by UEA’s Phil Jones.
What does ‘Nature’ say:
Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled.
We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it.
Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.
[The normal explanation for scepticism is…..]
As members of the public do not know what scientists know, or think the way scientists think, they predictably fail to take climate change as seriously as scientists believe they should.
The alternative explanation can be referred to as the cultural cognition thesis (CCT). CCT posits that individuals, as a result of a complex of psychological mechanisms, tend to form perceptions of societal risks that cohere with values characteristic of groups with which they identify
People who subscribe to a hierarchical, individualistic world-view—one that ties authority to conspicuous social rankings and eschews collective interference with the decisions of individuals possessing such authority—tend to be sceptical of environmental risks. Such people intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such risks would license restrictions on commerce and industry, forms of behaviour that hierarchical individualists value. In contrast, people who hold an egalitarian, communitarian world-view—one favouring less regimented forms of social organization and greater collective attention to individual needs—tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, to which they attribute social inequity. They therefore find it congenial to believe those forms of behaviour are dangerous and worthy of restriction.
These findings were consistent, too, with previous ones showing that climate change has become highly politicized.
As the contribution that culture makes to disagreement grows as science literacy and numeracy increase, it is not plausible to view cultural cognition as a heuristic substitute for the knowledge or capacities that SCT views the public as lacking.
Our findings could be viewed as evidence of how remarkably well-equipped ordinary individuals are to discern which stances towards scientific information secure their personal interests.
For the ordinary individual, the most consequential effect of his beliefs about climate change is likely to be on his relations with his peers.
Given how much the ordinary individual depends on peers for support—material and emotional—and how little impact his beliefs have on the physical environment, he would probably be best off if he formed risk perceptions that minimized any danger of estrangement from his community.’
The below though is the possibly sinister and scary conclusion that ‘Nature’ comes to…..never mind trying to educate the public use friendly , trusted, respected members of the ‘community’ to advance the propaganda…..remember this:
‘Get David Attenborough as the front man because everyone trusts him.’
‘One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy of the risk-perception commons. A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict so long as the climate-change debate continues to feature cultural meanings that divide citizens of opposing world-views.
It does not follow, however, that nothing can be done to promote constructive and informed public deliberations. As citizens understandably tend to conform their beliefs about societal risk to beliefs that predominate among their peers, communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which accepting the best available science does not threaten any group’s values. Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance.’
In other words PR, spin, propaganda, call it what you will but they are advocating altering people’s beliefs by manipulation and ‘faith’ in the person or mechanism used to deliver the message alone…never mind the Truth.”
I must say this really stopped me cold:
RB: I agree that a short term disaster would be effective in persuading people.
Beyond the connotations to actual impartiality and off mindset suggested by that phrasing, I suppose some comfort may be derived from him getting his wish, if not in the way intended.
Just about every aspect of this man’s advocacy, and that of his uniquely selective employers, has been a disaster… not just for the propaganda they have and are pushing, but any shred of credibility the BBC has for being anything other than an unaccountable PR machine that wouldn’t know objectivity in reporting if it tripped over it.
No wonder Mr. Black appears to have terminated his interactive early-closed blogs in favour of the broadcast-only twitter, with the added benefit of blocking out any who have the temerity to not share their ‘views’.
I wonder how many Beeboids think that ‘short term disasters’ at the hands of Muslims – such as 9/11, say, or Bali – should be treated as ‘effective in persuading people’?
+1
I really think he, his bosses and his cheerleaders should be asked to explain his thinking given the conclusions it suggests.
The BBC already has a less than stellar reputation in news-creation advocacy (Paul Mason to Stuart Hughes); this suggests an even darker proactive empathy if not direction… that we are compelled to fund.
Thanks for putting this up.
You can read across “Europe”, Devolution” “Republicanism” “Socialism”, and “State-funded license by compulsion” ;for “climate change”.
The cause is interchangeable, but the organising principle to create the necessary compliance through confusion is the same.
Won`t work though-but not for lack of State-backed funding ,and all propaganda and marketing theories being aimed at we dullards who refuse to go along with more Islam ;and more therapeutic/medicalising of social problems they`ve created.
Really glad to know the “Nature” of the beast we face…the same core of One World Issues as coalesced round by the Guardian, the BBC and the liberal elite that reinforce each other…like corpses they`re propping up at a bus stop.
So there you have it-eras of “objective” go where the evidence goes” scientific enquiry is to be binned ;for John Craven and Chris Packham/Monty Don instead.
A blind article of faith-this lot are in total denial and would rather we lose our kids, rather than pretend their last few years were a pack of lies and trough surfing on research grants; like the UEA(more like the UAE in its bigotry).
Still again-we now know-gloves are off.
And when we see the likes of Black and Adams…we know what their Common Purpose is…and we should shout it at any public event that they choose to show up at(as long as the glaciers don`t prevent them getting to it).
Black Dick?
A shallow cowardly sheister shill for Big Green and one of the many unsightly blemishes on the public face of the state broadcaster – a man who epitomises the BBC’s conceit, deceit and arrogance.
As far as Mister Black is concerned I don’t think I’m alone in wanting a large dish of schadenfreude with him in it.
This ghastly creep couldn’t be more discredited if he tried – his continued BBC employment is an affront to just about everybody who doesn’t live in his corrupt (in the rotten sense) bubble.
BLACK, never one to miss a chance for high-cost green propaganda (and he gets total free rein from D.G. Thompson), uses the flimsy excuse of the date of 1972 for more of the same.
Note: from Black’s propaganda below, that there’s another high-cost greenie jamboree in BRAZIL this month.
[Excerpt]:
“The next milestone is also in Rio – the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, nicknamed Rio+20 – which is scheduled to bring about 130 world leaders as well as ministers, diplomats, business moguls and an estimated 70,000 activists to Brazil later this month.”
-Expect BBC’s high-cost greenies to be in Brazil (polluting all the way), in numbers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18315205
70.000 activists jet off to Brazil. Carbon footprints anyone?
If they obviously don’t believe their own lies why do they demand obedience of everyone else? Smacks of a Common Purpose if you ask me.
Becasue when we are all living under the green jackboots, they’ll be wearing them.
No traction. They think they are part of the solution, not part of the problem. More carbon emissions in search of fewer carbon emissions, or whatever head-up-arse rationalisation suits them. Its a gravy train. Lots of gravy. Tell them the planet is fine, we are in no danger, and does not need saving, and they would be utterly bereft. It’s what shows them up for the freeloaders they are, certifiable from Planet Munchausen.
Of course, BBC-NUJ finds space to propagandise for 40 years of green lobbying, but relegates 68 years since this:
“June 6, 1944: Remembering D-Day”
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/06/06/june-6-1944-remembering-d-day/?tw_p=twt
RB: I agree that a short term disaster would be effective in persuading people.
even if necessary by attributing a disaster which is nothing to do with climate change, like a tsunami, to that cause.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079664/did-climate-change-cause-the-japanese-earthquake/
They are constantly telling us that man made climate change is a process and not an event. Now they want an ‘event’ in order to persuade us. These people are ideologically motivated. It’s nothing to do with science and more to do with politics. Ironically it’s their scientific credentials that don’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
If you want to fully undeerstand the UN agenda and the way it is underpinned by ‘climate change’, have a read of this:
http://thegwpf.org/international-news/5518-rio20-agenda-trillions-per-year-in-green-taxes-transfers-and-price-hikes.html
Scary, or what.
Sorry – ‘understand’ – just got back from my weekly Dutch lesson.
The really depressing thing about this is the way they elect themselves as spokespeople for the world of science. They are not. There are many eminent scientists who disagree fundamentally with the theory of AGW but their views never see the light of day in the MSM, so thank God for the internet in that respect.
What is more, they will never take on the sceptical scientists in open debate because they know their theories will be shown up for what they are – badly formulated and unproven, and their catstrophic warming predictions for what they have turned out to be – wrong. But still they keep repeating their propaganda and mantras, and the papers and television – especially the BBC via almost any programme you care to choose from ‘documentaries’ to The Archers – are only too happy to help.
he would probably be best off if he formed risk perceptions that minimized any danger of estrangement from his community.
Hence the directive from up top to shame and ostracize people who don’t believe in Warmism with terms like “denier”, and “opponents of the consensus”.
As for the desire for a disaster to teach the proles a valuable lesson, I was reminded of this from Katty Kay a couple years ago:
“I was wondering: we hear a lot after the financial crash about people taking a new look at business and looking at best practices and how can we avoid that kind of crash again, and a new form of capitalism: exactly what you write about in your book. But I wonder about how real that shift is and as we start to see the employment numbers grow here and as we start to see the stock market do better, whether actually corporations won’t just go back to their old ways and think: we’re going to be focused on the bottom line. And whether almost the crash has not been long enough for corporations to have a real adjustment here.”
The bias is institutional. There doesn’t need to be a memo handed around if they all think the same way already.
“Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups.”
Wtf???
I believe that people who speak in slogans also think in slogans and are therefore unfit to run a whelk stall.
There was a very revealing statement from an old radical and now green MEP, Daniel Cohen-Bendit. He said that climate change represented the lefts last chance to create a new world order and destroy capitalism.
Very revealing and fuck all to do with saving polar bears !
I remember that particular toerag being a pain in the arse during the Southall disturbances in 1978 – nasty piece of shit.
Having read through the article again, the ‘get David Attenborough to be the front man, because everyone trusts him’, caught my eye.
Remember the greatly respected Dr. David Bellamy ? Dropped and turned into a ‘non-person’ by the bbc – he was an outspoken climate change sceptic !!!!!!!
The climate changes all the time nothing to do with humans. If there is climate warming is most likely from all the hot air from the left.
This one contains some jaw-droppers too…
Unadulterated scientific information might lead people to the unapproved conclusions. We need less information, more spin and propaganda…
Official: the more scientifically illiterate you are, the more you believe in ‘climate change’
———————————
This form of reasoning can have a highly negative impact on collective decision making … it is very harmful to collective welfare for individuals in aggregate to form beliefs this way.
One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy … A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict …
It does not follow, however, that nothing can be done … Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance.
——————————
Notice the use of the word ‘collective’ – no independence of thought or dissent from the permitted line should be allowed. Choose the outcome, select the evidence to fit, then marshal public opinion to the required destination. Sinister.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100161868/official-the-more-scientifically-illiterate-you-are-the-more-you-believe-in-climate-change/
This blog’s reading of the Nature article really does cross the line into paranoid tilting at windmills. The researchers have identified that even highly educated individuals are more likely to base their stance on climate change on societal factors than they are on cold facts. This is a depressing finding, because it shows that a constituency of intelligent individuals is more likely to be swayed by their peer group than by facts. Given that a massive majority – well over 95% – of scientists believes that man-made climate change is a genuine phenomenon, it might follow that simple presentation of data might be sufficient to sway public opinion on the matter. What this paper shows, to the detriment of the Enlightenment project begun three hundred years ago, is that self-interested dogma appears to outweigh reason. In effect, it’s a gesture of surrender: we’ve proved the point but you still don’t believe us; what else can we do? The data is overwhelming, the consensus is overwhelming, and if you choose to cherry-pick the findings of the few dissenting voices rather than look at the evidence in toto, you’re all fools.
That “95% of scientists” is a lie. Please start again – go out and do some reading
and “cherry-picking” exactly describes the likes of Mann, Briffa, Jones et all – try reading up on the disgraceful way Briffa at UEA decided to ignore of the Russian tree-ring results. The papers by the Hockey Stick team are so incestuous, and so statistically flawed, that it could be argued that the whole global warming scam is rooted in one tree in Yamal !
There is plenty of literature on this subject, but try Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011, for starters: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/
More Red than Blue and White Jim Dandy Whitman Ron of Oslo are on a mission at bBC. Political blog mosh-pit diving. If you try the same game at the BBC or Guardian you just get eliminated. DV is very tolerant, and rightly so, but I can get the same PoV from Huffpo, I dont need Green Jehovas Witnesses here.
No. Buy this, read from cover to cover, and report back.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/
Try reading the post…..it states decisions about climate change are influenced by culture and politics….the so called ‘green agenda’ is more about Marx than saving the planet:
As Mike Hulme, AGW advocate, admits:
‘The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’. ‘
If we are all about to burn to a crisp just after drowning in glacier melt water why is it that China and India and Brazil et al are to be ‘allowed’ to continue to pump out vast quantities of CO2?
If things were that desperate, regardless of the desirability of ‘progress’ in those countries, wouldn’t it be better to be poor and alive than rich and dead? Clearly the decision to allow them to continue ‘polluting’ means things are not what we are being told.
It is politics and the anti-western ideology of the Left that is driving the green agenda.
Don`t regard myself as a fool RWB, so can I refer you to what our point is.
When the facts don`t fit-and scientific principles don`t coerce the herd into manufactured consent-then let`s offer courses in the “communication of science” as opposed to the science itself.
Basically science all becomes social science-mushy swamps of relativist opinion, much as Stephen Gately sang(no matter what they tell you-what you believe is true).
That phrenology, racial abuse of science-where science is bent to fit the prevailing winds of the State-leads to Mengele and the like…hence the fury.
And it`s not just global warming is it?…immigration, Islam, Plan B and European integration are also treated as truths to bind us into compliance…and if you really don`t see the “read across” then you`re the fool in this case.
Think you`d be surprised at the level of science on display with this blog, by the way-so stick to the facts, avoid the trite abuse and we shall see eh?
Here’s some nice cherries….suck on them…..
The Hansen/GISS (http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long
) team paper that says: “we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols”
Thus, assuming only that our estimates are approximately correct, we assert that the processes producing the non-CO2 GHGs have been the primary drive for climate change in the past century.
Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming.
We note that the CO2 growth rate increased little in the past 20 years, while much of the developing world had rapid economic growth.
Hansen wrote a paper blaming soot for the Arctic ice melt, calling it twice as effective as CO2……
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos:
Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The ‘‘efficacy’’ of this forcing is ¥2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.
Global Warming. Soot snow/ice albedo climate forcing is not included in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change evaluations. This forcing is unusually effective, causing twice as much global warming as a CO2 forcing of the same magnitude.
See WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/03/shocker-the-hansengiss-team-paper-that-says-we-argue-that-rapid-warming-in-recent-decades-has-been-driven-mainly-by-non-co2-greenhouse-gases/
Isn’t this paper just stating the obvious?
People believe what they want to believe and there is little to be gained in trying to force them to see ‘the truth’. You can smack people around the face with facts but if they don’t fit their world view then forget it.
The only effective ways to get people to change are by force (which is only true whilst the force is applied) or by deception (which runs the risk of being discovered). Argument rarely works on those who have already made up their minds.
Surely this has been known for millenia?
Get ready for Rio+20 – coming in just a few weeks. The BBC are no doubt gearing up to give their full unqualified support to this Marxist socio-political exercise in so-called ‘sustainability’ (the new catch-all watchword for discredited AGW).
If today’s ‘You and Yours’ on Radio 4 is anything to go by (‘The Future of Water’) then the BBC are starting to soften us all up for the return of ‘Agenda 21’ later this month – this morning’s programme was a shameless pro-AGW plug designed to scare ordinary people into using less water ‘as climate change takes hold’ (no suggestion at all that perhaps we might actually try building more reservoirs).
I just don’t think my utter contempt for the p*sspoor standards of what passes for ‘journalism’ at The Corporation these days can go any lower.
Yes, the lack of water in the South East has nothing to do with the rapidly rising population.
It’s been raininng hard for nearly a month here and I still can’t wash my car on pain of imprisonment … 🙁
Mismanagement of existing water resources is key
Simple geography teels us that we will never be a desert – we are a relatively small island on the edge of a huge ocean in a temperate zone with prevailing martime air masses dominating our weather
All we have seen in recent yeards with rainfall is natural variability – ‘the worst xxx since records began’ mean nothging when met records go back only a few centuries – what about the 4 billion years or so before that?
I have come to the conclusion that it is not lazy journalism. The BBC is completely signed up the AGM religion and its house priest is Mr Black