Horizon:Science under attack
Discussion
See the Climate thread for a clue to its direction, including this from Dellingpole!
BBC, unbiased? Never!
"But as is clear from the Horizon documentary Nurse had already made up his mind. That’s why about the only section he used out of at least three hours’ worth of footage is the one where he tosses what he clearly imagines is the killer question: Suppose you were ill with cancer would you wish to be treated by “consensus” medicine or something from the quack fringe?
As you’ll see in the programme, this took me rather by surprise. Nurse had come posing as an open-minded investigator eager to hear why Climategate had raised legitimate doubts about the reliability of the “consensus” on global warming. Instead, the man I met was a parti-pris bruiser so delighted with his own authority as a proper Nobel-prizewinning scientist that he knew what the truth was already. And to prove it, here was a brilliant analogy which would rubbish the evil climate deniers’ cause once and for all!"
BBC, unbiased? Never!
"But as is clear from the Horizon documentary Nurse had already made up his mind. That’s why about the only section he used out of at least three hours’ worth of footage is the one where he tosses what he clearly imagines is the killer question: Suppose you were ill with cancer would you wish to be treated by “consensus” medicine or something from the quack fringe?
As you’ll see in the programme, this took me rather by surprise. Nurse had come posing as an open-minded investigator eager to hear why Climategate had raised legitimate doubts about the reliability of the “consensus” on global warming. Instead, the man I met was a parti-pris bruiser so delighted with his own authority as a proper Nobel-prizewinning scientist that he knew what the truth was already. And to prove it, here was a brilliant analogy which would rubbish the evil climate deniers’ cause once and for all!"
Overly gushing TV reviewer on the Guardian website said:
"An invigorating polemic by Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel medicine laureate and recently anointed president of the Royal Society. This is Nurse's attempt to understand why, in a world built by science, so many beneficiaries of those advances promote denialist agendas about climate change, HIV, GM foods and vaccines. Nurse's amiable inquisitions of sceptics are models of enlightening disagreement, whether with qualified physicist (Fred Singer) or Happy Shopper Littlejohn (James Delingpole). Terrific stuff, from someone who should be on TV every night were he not doing something a bit more important."
FourWheelDrift said:
Overly gushing TV reviewer on the Guardian website said:
"An invigorating polemic by Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel medicine laureate and recently anointed president of the Royal Society. This is Nurse's attempt to understand why, in a world built by science, so many beneficiaries of those advances promote denialist agendas about climate change, HIV, GM foods and vaccines. Nurse's amiable inquisitions of sceptics are models of enlightening disagreement, whether with qualified physicist (Fred Singer) or Happy Shopper Littlejohn (James Delingpole). Terrific stuff, from someone who should be on TV every night were he not doing something a bit more important."
Synopsis: People don't trust science because the government only ever use it to beat us with bigger taxes. It's Horizon, it does take an hour to say that.
I wonder if they will mention the lack of real science content and science degree qualified people in the important positions in the BBC. The closest they can find are 2 comedians (Ben Miller, Dara O'Briain).
ETA: But Layer Cake on C5, so iPlayer Horizon later.
I wonder if they will mention the lack of real science content and science degree qualified people in the important positions in the BBC. The closest they can find are 2 comedians (Ben Miller, Dara O'Briain).
ETA: But Layer Cake on C5, so iPlayer Horizon later.
Edited by Zad on Monday 24th January 20:45
I can't take any more, I'm out!
I did see that he was going to mention people destroying GM crops, as if their tactics have anything in common with trying to encourage healthy debate about an unproven as yet theory.
However I did start to think, maybe we should take a leaf out of their books. Maybe we should be pulling wind turbines down and shooting subsidised solar panels! After all, it is our money that is being used to subsidise these fraudulent technologies!
for the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way encouraging acts of violence against white elephant technology!
I did see that he was going to mention people destroying GM crops, as if their tactics have anything in common with trying to encourage healthy debate about an unproven as yet theory.
However I did start to think, maybe we should take a leaf out of their books. Maybe we should be pulling wind turbines down and shooting subsidised solar panels! After all, it is our money that is being used to subsidise these fraudulent technologies!
for the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way encouraging acts of violence against white elephant technology!
Ed Fender said:
On the plus side, there's some Olympic level bulls
tting going on here. The split screen view of the "actual" weather systems and the alleged computer model- "look,look they're exactly the same!".
No they're bleeding not. Are you blind?
These people are completely bonkers.
"Look, there are swirly things up here and then swirly things down here!", the implication being that the model therefore accurately reflects reality. tting going on here. The split screen view of the "actual" weather systems and the alleged computer model- "look,look they're exactly the same!". No they're bleeding not. Are you blind?
These people are completely bonkers.
This from a Nobel Laureate?
Whichever side of the fence you sit on, that section alone is enough to completely dismiss this programme as adding anything to the debate.
Ed Fender said:
On the plus side, there's some Olympic level bullstting going on here. The split screen view of the "actual" weather systems and the alleged computer model- "look,look they're exactly the same!".
No they're bleeding not. Are you blind?
These people are completely bonkers.
Doesn't it seem a bit unfair for them to show how fantastic the models are with the split screen of real observation of weather systems and those (similar) from the model (NASA - ". . see how good the models are.") for a time/scenario when they matched well but not to mention the disparities when the models haven't shown the same view?tting going on here. The split screen view of the "actual" weather systems and the alleged computer model- "look,look they're exactly the same!". No they're bleeding not. Are you blind?
These people are completely bonkers.
So no mention of how far off their forecasts of winter temperatures, summer cyclone activity, precipitation etc. have often been. Presumably the model's screen wouldn't have shown the same as the reality then?
Then for him to leap in, gushing, about 'certainty' and then only to mildly correct himself with the line that it's not absolutely certain but the models and science mean they are getting closer to certainty.
Ironic that he dares say, "I think that some extreme sceptics choose what they want to believe and then cherry pick the data accordingly." when they just did the same. FFS
freecar said:
However I did start to think, maybe we should take a leaf out of their books. Maybe we should be pulling wind turbines down and shooting subsidised solar panels! After all, it is our money that is being used to subsidise these fraudulent technologies!
for the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way encouraging acts of violence against white elephant technology!
See, that's where I disagree. I fully endorse "alternative" sources of energy. Not due to MMGW, but simply because fossil fuels are limited and we do have a pollution problem as a result of using them.for the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way encouraging acts of violence against white elephant technology!
Famous Graham said:
freecar said:
However I did start to think, maybe we should take a leaf out of their books. Maybe we should be pulling wind turbines down and shooting subsidised solar panels! After all, it is our money that is being used to subsidise these fraudulent technologies!
for the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way encouraging acts of violence against white elephant technology!
See, that's where I disagree. I fully endorse "alternative" sources of energy. Not due to MMGW, but simply because fossil fuels are limited and we do have a pollution problem as a result of using them.for the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way encouraging acts of violence against white elephant technology!
Source: http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/ies_world_crude_oi...
Who is to say that technology won't increase our oil reserves at a faster rate than we use them? After all, as resources become scarcer and our demand for them increases, the prices increase expnonentially, as do the rewards for finding for finding them and the incentive to invest more in doing so.
Edited by youngsyr on Monday 24th January 22:03
Very disappointing all round.
I think the whole area of the public's distrust of acience and their embracing of non-science and pseudo-science would make a very good TV programme.
Unfortunately, all we got was a load of MMGW nonsense.
And whoever dreamt up the technique of talking to one one side of the camera should be shot. It looked liek he was talking to an invisible and silent interviewer. LOOK STRAIGHT AT THE CAMERA why don''t you. It was good enough for Jacob Bronowski. It should be good enough for him.
I think the whole area of the public's distrust of acience and their embracing of non-science and pseudo-science would make a very good TV programme.
Unfortunately, all we got was a load of MMGW nonsense.
And whoever dreamt up the technique of talking to one one side of the camera should be shot. It looked liek he was talking to an invisible and silent interviewer. LOOK STRAIGHT AT THE CAMERA why don''t you. It was good enough for Jacob Bronowski. It should be good enough for him.
Hmm. I didn't see the doco but I find it quite surprising how many people still think the science of climate change is dubious. It's accepted by pretty much all major scientific groups in the world now. I can't find much evidence against the IPCC research anyway, but if any of you getting angry about it have anything contrary I'd be interested to see it.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff