Auntie's Bloomers no. n+1...

[RenewableCandy]

Here's a letter someone (not me) wrote to the Beeb, the address is bbc_complaints_website@bbc.co.uk:

"Dear BBC

On the Today programme this morning I heard a brief snippet by Roger Harrabin on the newly published summary of what is known about climate change from two prestigious organisations: The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/R ... causes.pdf

Roger Harrabin ended his report by saying that not everyone would believe what these two bodies were saying. His last sentence undermined the rest of his brief item which explained that the Climate Change report was intended to make clear what is well-understood and what is still being investigated. This is not a matter for belief. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not to their own science. I quote the conclusion to the report below:

‘This document explains that there are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. It discusses the evidence that the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing rapidly, that climate change is occurring, and that most of the recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far. There remains a range of estimates of the magnitude and regional expression of future change, but increases in the extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and human activities and infrastructure are expected. ‘’

Of even more concern to me is that there is nothing currently on the BBC News website on this report. There was nothing in the Radio 4 World at One. Why not? Why does the BBC not consider it important to report on what two extremely prestigious bodies are saying about our changing climate? Have you already forgotten the ‘extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and human activities and infrastructure’ recently experienced in the UK. And please do not reply that we cannot attribute one particular event to climate change. Neither can we attribute one particular cigarette we smoked to lung cancer, but we know smoking is a the major contributory cause of the illness.

Sincerely

....."

[RenewableCandy]

Meanwhile the Beeb have been reporting that Friends of the Earth have Gone Nuclear. This came as something of a shock to their chief policy bod, who apparently heard it on the radio while shaving yesterday(?) morning.

[UndercoverElephant]

The complaint is silly, IMO.

Roger Harrabin ended his report by saying that not everyone would believe what these two bodies were saying. His last sentence undermined the rest of his brief item...

It is undeniable fact that not everyone will believe it, just like it is an undeniable fact that not everyone believes the Earth is several billion years old. That doesn't mean that "everybody is entitled to their own science." He didn't say "some people are justified in not believing it".

The existence of climate change denial is just as much an empirical fact as the existence of climate change. There is no point in denying this, and acknowledging the existence of climate change denial does not undermine science.

[RenewableCandy]

Yes, it is a fact that some people will not believe whatever, and for the daftest reasons. But stating that fact right as the "parting-shot" in an article has implications beyond the actual fact.

I mean, if they were writing about a breakthrough in navigation at sea, they wouldn't end the article with "..of course, not everyone believes the earth is round", would they, even though the existence of some flat-earth-ers is a genuine fact.