Julian Williams wrote:
Harrabin seems to have begun to see the light!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_ ... 178454.stm
If the great science academies can't find ways of including the best experts from the blogosphere in their deliberations they may find themselves badly left behind
Society to review climate message
The snipes continue in Harrabin land though:
"After years of accusing the fossil fuel lobby of using anti-scientific arguments to undermine climate policy, scientists are now themselves accused of being un-scientific." - Anyone who challenges the orthodoxy is in the fossil fuel lobby.
"Surveys show that many people don't believe the truths of scientific orthodoxy anymore and prefer to seek their "facts" in the blogosphere where it's easier to get insouciant endorsement of high-consumption western lifestyles." High consumption like jetting about the globe Roger? Mere "facts" compared to facts Government science bodies spew out? What he is describing is confirmation bias - why isn't he applying it to the sainted taxpayer funded "scientists" and "experts"?
"The Royal Society is paying a price for the era in which lobbyists were doing their utmost to unpick climate policies." Again Roger seems to insist that anyone who speaks counter to the accepted mantra must be a lobbyist for some higher power.
"It was widely acknowledged that climate sceptics wanted to continue the debate in order to delay action to curb emissions." - Big Oil again. Does it ever occur to him that sceptics might just think the science is wrong?
"There will be some who welcome a demolition of the bastions of authority. But for governments and many citizens, the world will be much poorer if they do not know who they can trust." Trust is more important than factual correctness.