It only gets harder to take climate scientists seriously.
If you don't believe there is a problem with the BBC's coverage of the issue and its editorial policy, and if you cannot challenge it when manifestly science has lost control of the debate, you're not 'communicating'. You're doing the opposite of communicating.
"The critical period is now" is not science.
It is political messaging.
Scientists have lost the ability to understand the difference.
It is political messaging.
Scientists have lost the ability to understand the difference.
"It's got to be the top of our agenda" is not climate science.
Climate science knows nothing about agendas, and what should be on them. It has nothing at all to say about them. Nothing.
"Scientists" let the attention go to their heads, however.
Climate science knows nothing about agendas, and what should be on them. It has nothing at all to say about them. Nothing.
"Scientists" let the attention go to their heads, however.
The same scientist was complaining yesterday about the criticism she receives on Twitter. She feels hard done by that she is on the news, has a public profile, has a position of influence.
Yet she makes many errors of judgement.
Yet she makes many errors of judgement.
The two things that the above thread are not about are:
1. "climate change is not real"
2. Hair.
Sceptics who post about hair should delete those tweets. Jane is right. There's MUCH more to be critical of than hair.
1. "climate change is not real"
2. Hair.
Sceptics who post about hair should delete those tweets. Jane is right. There's MUCH more to be critical of than hair.
So, leaving aside any more discussion of #2, on #1, this is the point...
It *does* *not* *matter*, even if the TV scientist is 100% correct about the science.
What matters is debate and criticism.
It matters that public science & news institutions eschew debate.
It *does* *not* *matter*, even if the TV scientist is 100% correct about the science.
What matters is debate and criticism.
It matters that public science & news institutions eschew debate.
If institutional science and broadcasting are intransigent, and can tolerate or permit no criticism or debate, then we cannot know that the TV scientist is right or wrong. We can know that wittingly or not, the TV scientist's messages are made in very bad faith.
It is that intransigence and bad faith which turns 'science' into political imperatives, and turns 'scientists' into fig leaves for malign political agendas.
This is how we know that it is wrong.
The ideological presupposition of the claim about what should be at the top of 'agendas' is that there exists an objective risk to human society, which can be detected, and estimated.
The ideological presupposition of the claim about what should be at the top of 'agendas' is that there exists an objective risk to human society, which can be detected, and estimated.
Here, for example, are charts taken from a "scientific" (it wasn't, but that's another story) attempt to measure those risks. The authors had to admit that the risks from these factors had diminished (except dengue). They said climate change would reverse them. 
But they depict extraordinary progress -- a rate unprecedented in human history.
Did this progress occur because of the weather/climate?
No. It occurred because of political agendas.
Did this progress occur because of the weather/climate?
No. It occurred because of political agendas.
The biggest risk to that progress is not weather or climate. The risk is agendas that believe the objective estimate of risk should inform the agenda, despite the plain facts of the matter. Even sea level rise threatens no meaningful risk to that progress.
Preoccupations with CO2, with warming, with hair colour all completely fail to understand the most important facts of the debate. They mirror the mistakes of climate alarmism, and will persuade nobody.
