Not by Fire but by Ice


     Email Robert      l     Reviews     l      Order Not by Fire     l     Order Magnetic Reversals      l      Dissenters      l       Recent articles 

Discover What Killed the Dinosaurs . . . and Why it Could Soon Kill Us       

Shutting Down BBC Science Coverage That

Doesn't Show Consensus

Aims to silence global warming skeptics


                       page delimiter

1 Aug 11 - "BBC has fired the head of the Science news department, and will no longer print research that does not agree with global warming theory," says reader Winona Campbell.

"This has the backing of Paul Nurse of the Royal Society, Sir Mark Walport of Welcome Trust, and Alison Hastings of BBC Trust.

"You have many readers from all over the world who need to know this.

"This should be on" 

                                                           * * *

Winona is absolutely correct: The world should know about this censorship.

The BBC announcement was published under the rather innocuous title "BBC praised for science coverage," so that you wouldn't notice that it intends to limit dissenting opinions on global warming.

An independent review has found that BBC science coverage is of "high quality and significant quantity," the article gloats.

"But the report, by genetics professor Steve Jones, said the BBC 'must make a distinction between well-established fact and opinion'.

"Attempts at balance were giving 'free publicity to marginal opinions', the BBC Trust-published report said.

"It found that, where there was consensus on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of 'due weight' could lead to a 'false balance'.

Prof Jones went on to say that the BBC "still gives space" to global warming sceptics "to make statements that are not supported by the facts".

For years, said Jones, "the climate change deniers have been marginal to the scientific debate but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves".

"Equality of voice calls for a match of scientists, not with politicians or activists, but with those qualified to take a knowledgeable, albeit perhaps divergent view of research," he said.

In a rational world, this would be called censorship.

Or propaganda.

Or both.

How about intimidation? If your predecessor just got fired for not toeing the party line, what would that do to your objectivity?

Allowing only the "consensus" view would leave us still believing that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth.

Is the BBC not aware that almost all major gains in science have been made by those who broke with the consensus of the day?

See entire article:
Thanks to Winona Campbell for this link



Order Book I Q & A I Book Reviews I Plant Hardiness Zone Maps I Radio Interviews I Table of Contents I Excerpts I Author Photo I Pacemaker of the Ice Ages I Extent of Previous Glaciation I Crane Buried in Antarctic Ice Sheet I Ice Ages and Magnetic Reversals I It's Ocean Warming I E-Mail Robert at l Expanding Glaciers