It has been extremely profitable lobbying against climate change and delaying action. see Naomi Oreskes "Merchants of Doubt". Unfortunately it's human nature - those that got fooled/brainwashed are unable to admit it to themselves irrespective of the evidence. "Science progresses one funeral at time"
Again anti-vaxxers have a long history - it plays to our fears
History of Anti-Vaccination Movements
Though many consider vaccination a top public health achievement of modern medicine, opposition to vaccination dates back to its introduction in the early 1800s.
historyofvaccines.org
Not any more - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/254/254.pdf
They were very guilty of "false balance", inviting a contrarian guest onto every program to give their view, irrespective of the weight of scientific opinion and then unable to challenge it.
False balance Submissions to our inquiry commented on a tendency for the media to approach climate science as an argument about two equally valid points of view, rather than discussion about scientific facts, and on the false balance of views being presented as a consequence. Professor Pidgeon questioned whether the “norm of ensuring balanced reporting [...] is appropriate where the scientific evidence is so overwhelming”.68When questioned about the balance of views in the media, Sir Mark Walport told us that climate change “is not a matter for opinion or belief. It is a matter of fact whether humans are altering the climate or not. There is a correct answer to this question”. 35. In his Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science commissioned by the BBC trust and published in July 2011, Professor Steve Jones, concluded with regard to science coverage: “in general, its output is of high quality”. 69 However, he also stated that the BBC “must accept that it is impossible to produce a balance between fact and opinion” and recommended that it take into account “the need to avoid giving undue attention to marginal opinion”. 70 Professor Jones highlighted the recent efforts made by the BBC to find a climate sceptic scientists to comment on the publication on the Physical Science Basis for IPCC Fifth Assessment Report as an example of false balance: The producers of the recent Today Programme piece on the new IPCC report tried, we are told, more than a dozen qualified climate scientists willing to give an opposing view but could not find a single one (a hint, perhaps, that there is indeed a scientific consensus on global warming). Instead, they gave equal time to a well-known expert and to Australian retired geologist with no background in the field: in my view a classic of “false balance”.
They did change policy, although the BBCs scientific competence hasn't really improved
I didn't - could you summarise what you think was his strongest argument
Last edited:
