rationalskepticism.org

Larkus wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Alan B wrote:That's understandable. The BBC, like any other member of the media circus, hasn't got the science trained staff to really appreciate what the scientists are talking about.
So, since they are in the business of selling news, they opt-out of having to think, and instead they pander to the more 'news-worthy' loud-mouthed illiterati - especially those with money behind them.

But I would like to think better of the BBC.

Sorry, I gave the wrong impression there. I don't mean that Richard Black (the environmental journalist) is to blame, but rather that all his articles are followed by numerous BBC members - membership allows you to comment on articles - who are the most ardent reality-deniers I've ever seen.

Look down to the comments:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991

He has a serious following. It doesn't matter if he's writing about tuna stock depletion, these people will write dozens of comments on 'climate alarmism'.

I'd rather expect that many of them are paid to write comments in such venues, yunno, like a nickle a word or something. This is a well known fact of life on many US sites that run a positive line on climate change, they are sometimes overwhelmed with comment posts which are little more than Heartland Institute talking points, the same old blather.

There don't even need to be many of them. With the right software a few can appear as a crowd.

I recommend reading this (somewhat scary) article on DailyKOS: UPDATED: The HB Gary Email That Should Concern Us All

Excerpt from the article:

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

Well, there ya go, it's even worse than I thought. Liars and bullshitters and prevaricators everywhere in apparent multitudes that belie the facts of actual numbers.

I will say this, though, on liberal sites that cover climate change stories, we do often see quite good retorts by commoners (to these robotized denials) that show a good grasp of the science and the situation, so all is not lost.

Climate change needs a popular leader, or leaders, a role that Al Gore has played and Bill McKibbon has stepped up to on the XL pipeline issue, but we need a lot more of this. We need well known personalities to lead the charge. Gore has worn out his welcome and aside from McKibbon, I don't see many others accepting this challenge, and it is a huge challenge because the media is against you all the way. We do see the odd interview situation in which a climate scientist is pitted against some well known denier, but they are infrequent and are often made inconclusive by mealy mouthed interviewers.

I think the way Gore has been pilloried over the past decade scares off some of those who might otherwise rise to the occasion and prevents the pro-AGW movement from gaining the leadership it needs and needs badly. Perhaps we'll see some of this over the coming five years or so. I do expect the IPCC's AR5, slated for publication in early 2013, to be a bombshell, and it may well reignite the issue in a broader more meaningful way that might give rise to some new leaders.

We can hope.