“…it is fairly obvious that the ‘science’ of climate change may in fact be more about big, big money, politics, ego and corruption.”
It may be.
But then, if there is no evidence to refute the claim that the climate is changing and, furthermore, that it is anthropological climate change, then we cannot expect the BBC to put into question a claim without conflicting evidence.
“Second, it is the job of the interviewer to assemble evidence from authoritative sources which best challenge the position of the interviewee.”
This is where we come to Andrew Neil and the quote that Alan posts directly from the BBC website – except that it has been edited by Alan without any notification whatsoever.
Here’s the bit I’m referring to [the deleted text in bold]:
“Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.
This was neatly summed up in a Guardian blog by Dana Nuccitelli, who works for a multi-billion dollar US environmental business (Tetra Tech) and writes prodigiously about global warming and related matters from a very distinct perspective.
He finished by saying: “[Andrew] Neil focussed only on the bits of evidence that seemed to support his position”.
This is partly right. We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a “position”.
So, here we have a journalist (Andrew Neil) and a politician (Ed Davey) talking about scientific stats. Great! We might as well get Hacker the dog on to talk about climate change.
I’m surprised Alan hasn’t brought up the BBC’s pro-evolutionary theory bias – David Attenborough is a FRAUDSTER! There is some very ‘compelling’ evidence against that Darwinian theory! And there’s LOADS of evidence to suggest the science of paleontology is totally flawed! There is NO WAY the Earth is 4.5BN years old. At best, it is only 10,000 years of age.
Don’t believe me? Look at the facts: