Fake news, identity agendas and double standards

Yesterday, membership of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee was announced:

Previously, there were 11 members of the committee, and apparently there will be three more appointments, so the announcement seems to have been somewhat botched.

The identity politics brigade sprang into action following this announcement, see for example Cambridge physicist and Master of Churchill College, Athene Donald:

Her comment is untrue, since Labour MP Clive Lewis is not white. But despite two replies pointing out her error, Professor Donald has not deleted her fake-news tweet or even acknowledged her error. 28 people have so far retweeted her untruth, and 33 ‘liked’ it. Another tweet making the same false statement has over 700 likes. It appears that these days, identity politics and agendas take priority over factual accuracy.

In fact the issue is something of a storm in a teacup, since the chair of the committee Norman Lamb has made it clear that he thinks some of the three remaining places on the committee should go to women:

He has also pointed out that it is the parties themselves who appoint members to the committee, not the chairman, and has written a letter to the party whips concerning the remaining three appointments, encouraging them to appoint women. An interest snippet about Norman Lamb is that his father was Hubert Lamb, founder of CRU and one of the leaders of the 1970s ice age scare.

A second issue concerning the committee was the appointment of Labour MP Graham Stringer, well known to be a climate sceptic, who took part in one of the climategate enquiries, and is a trustee of the GWPF.

If you care, look at the tweets following that one to see me and Jonathan Jones take Adam Jacobs to pieces.

Another splendid example of the double standards of the ctrl-left was provided by Adam Rutherford, who is the presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Inside Science programme, and will apparently be discussing the issue with Norman Lamb in an upcoming programme.

So Rutherford wants diversity of gender on the panel (see his ’embedded tweet’), but not diversity of opinion. Even more ironically, Graham Stringer is the person Rutherford refers to on the panel with a chemistry degree, but now wants to get rid of.

Worse still, Rutherford encouraged his followers to write to their MP to complain about Stringer:

This is of course contrary to the BBC’s obligations regarding balance.

Athene Donald is whining about this story in the Guardian today. Again we see the inconsistency of complaining about the lack of gender diversity while also complaining about the diversity of opinion in regard to Stringer. I’m glad to see that things aren’t going well for her in the comments. There’s a similar article at the New Statesman.

Updates:

GWPF points out Rutherford’s hypocrisy – he signed a letter We cannot allow censorship and silencing of individuals, exactly what he is attempting to do to Graham Stringer.

Stew Green points out these guidelines for BBC employees using social media. “You shouldn’t state your political preferences or say anything that compromises your impartiality. Don’t sound off about things in an openly partisan way. Don’t be seduced by the informality of social media into bringing the BBC into disrepute.”

Conservative MP Vicky Ford has now been appointed to the committee.

64 thoughts on “Fake news, identity agendas and double standards

  1. While generally agreeing with your comments, I must object to your describing Hubert Lamb simply as “founder of CRU and one of the leaders of the 1970s ice age scare”. Though the first point is true and the second arguably true, they are, in the context and without qualification, disingenuous.

    Lamb was a fine scientist by any reckoning. Try e.g. reading his “Climate History and The Modern World”.

    Like

  2. Such is the stupendous persuasive power that a single climate sceptic wields that the greatest vigilance must be maintained to maintain the independence of the mighty Science and Technology Committee. The appointment of GS is an outrage. He is white, male and Labour which should exclude him outright.

    Actually GS is exactly the type of MP we need, showing great independence of thought and action. Sometimes this is beneficial (as during an inquiry into Climategate), but sometimes not (his denial of dyslexia).

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Tweets, as the climate inquisition will sadly learn, are forever.
    Their reactionary bigotry and shallow thinking will be on display for the deserved ridicule of future readers.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. There is a severe imbalance in the politics of minority representation. The idea goes thus – if we have 10 members there ought to be one from each group – someone black, someone muslim, someone disabled, etc. In the end there are too few spaces for all the different groups. So regardless that you might have 70% healthy, white male or female in the country you might have only one person representing them. In STEM subjects MPs are sorely under represented full stop so it follows on for those who are interested in a science and technology committee. It’s a scandal.

    I even think it explains the dud MPs we are increasingly seeing. Experts in PPE and little else of the real world. They only know how to snipe at each other over the floor of the house and can’t even put together a realistic manifesto or argue it in the public domain.

    There IS a shortage of women in technical posts but there is a shortage to pick from. There is shortage all the way back to GCSE level and beyond. Equality is however on its way because boys and men are slowly falling backwards, rather than girls and women moving into the harder subjects. Face palm.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “I am puzzled by your comment”

    We can agree that, these days, the very term CRU sends shivers down the spines of serious observers of the AGW “debate”: dodgy data, iffy Windsors hand-holding Phil Jones, Climategate, rigged “Inquiries” run by HoL detritus, the biz. We’ve all read our Montford.

    Few, however, pause to ask if ’twas always thus. The record strongly suggests it wasn’t though one wouldn’t know that from your description of its founder.

    Thanks for the pertinent links but I’d point out that neither of them support the notion that Lamb was “one of the leaders of the 1970s ice age scare”. The first, a pleasingly balanced CRU biog, notes that:

    ” . . . these led Hubert to develop early theories about a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age. He published his ideas in 1965 in a paper entitled, ‘The medieval warm epoch and its sequel’. He predicted a modest cold, more or less glacial, climate in four to seven thousand years, but later research caused him to change his opinion.” [Frustratingly, it doesn’t say how he changed his new opinion; I haven’t as yet checked.]

    The second, from the 8 Sep 1972 “Deseret News of Salt Lake City” (no kidding), cites Lamb as saying “The full impact of the new ice age will not be upon us for another 10,000 years”.

    Perhaps age makes me unduly sanguine but scenarios of ” modest cold” in four to 7,000 years and a full-blown ice age in 10,000 do not strike me as unduly scary. I don’t dispute that there WAS an ice-age scare in the 1970s driven but, as you know, it was driven by James Hansen and chums. I’ve seen no evidence to link it with Hubert Lamb.

    Like

  6. I suggest we concentrate on the Stringer aspect, since the obsessive gender and race babblers will always be with us. Objecting to the presence of a scientist on a scientific committee because he doesn’t agree – with what? – is astonishing. Especially when the subject is raised by a scientist with a media presence. Rutherford has a programme on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow 14th September at 1630 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036f7w2 and Athene Donald has a blog at http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedonald/ Let’s see if she brings the subject up there.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Twitter seems forever
    .. but make sure you take screenshots of interactions with DramaGreens.
    Rutherford painted himself into a corner with first tweet about 2 science grads
    So then tried to reset by retweeting his position this time only mentioning the denier bit not science grad bit.

    Like

  8. Didn’t see Rutherford organise any campaigns each time politicians who are financially connected to corps directly benefitting from Green SUBSIDIES and privileges, became members of another committee the climate Change Committe.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Geoff, OK, agreed, though I do feel that the identity politics idiocy has got much worse recently.

    As well as the Guardian, she has another article at the Times Higher
    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/science-and-technology-select-committee-devoid-women-devoid-legitimacy
    saying much the same thing. Comments are allowed there.

    It’s now been announced that MP Vicky Ford will be on the committee, so maybe Prof Donald can stop flogging her dead horse now.

    Like

  10. I posted a comment at the Times Higher:

    The principles of the diversity brigade seem to be rather flexible.
    If there weren’t any women it would apparently be “devoid of legitimacy”; One could ask why, as many people have under Prof Donald’s Guardian article. (By the way, it’s now been announced that Vicky Ford is on the committee).
    But when it comes to any diversity in terms of opinion, Prof Donald seems to be against it – see her sneering remarks about Graham Stringer.

    Edit – Geoff has put a comment too:

    Your statement that Lord Lawson and “his” Global Warming Policy Foundation are “climate-change-denying” is not true. Lord Lawson, as he points out every time he is questioned on the subject, does not deny the reality of climate change, but simply questions its magnitude and potential effects, and the same goes for Graham Stringer, whose disagreements with the “consensus” are scientific disagreements. It is extremely disappointing to see distinguished scientists repeating this error.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Which flavour of ‘denier’ is Graham Stringer? I think he has said that he is part of the Cook 97% consensus, but so is almost everyone (despite the Cookies’ continued denial about that). Is he perhaps someone who thinks that humans play a part in climate change but aren’t the main cause?

    Someone like Stephen Metcalfe, for example? Until recently Metcalfe was the committee’s chairman and he’s still a member. Here he is earlier this year:

    I’m 100% behind the understanding and belief in climate change. There is not a scintilla of me that does not believe that climate change is exacerbated by man-made CO2 and we need to do all we can to reduce that.

    That ‘exacerbated’ is a helluva lot weaker than the actual headline scientific consensus position (with which I agree*). Any idea why Jacobs, Rutherford and the Twittersphere are so up in arms about Stringer’s membership of the committee but not Metcalfe’s?

    ===
    *When I try to say such things at ATTP’s, Willard deletes them. Some PoMo game or other, no doubt. What fun.

    Like

  12. On the guidelines for BBC employees and not being “seduced by the informality of social media into bringing the BBC into disrepute:”

    I don’t think Adam Rutherford is a BBC employee. His website gives very little information except the instruction to address all enquiries to his agent… (Do all scientists have agents now?) And any attempt to limit what he could say on Twitter would be a gross violation of the principle of freedom of speech, wouldn’t it?

    The point is that what he and Dame Athene say is false. Lots of other people say it too, but one is a top media Voice of Science and the other is a top scientist.

    It’s a bit more difficult to avoid replying at the Times Higher than at the Graun or on Twitter. The day some influential person deigns to explain to us what they mean by “climate change denier” is the day we get a tiny toe in the door and can start a rational discussion.

    Like

  13. The Science and Technology committee should be made up of scientists and technologists. Any other member would be speaking from a position of complete ignorance.

    Like

  14. PHILLIP BRATBY says: 13 Sep 17 at 6:32 pm
    The world is not divided into experts and non-experts
    we don’t expect the defence committee to be made up of only ex-soldiers.
    This committee on Science
    Now there are scientists like Wadhams whose “reallity” in their own field is way different from the REAL world.
    but even most experts demonstrate foolishness when they step slightly away from their own field.

    Like

  15. GEOFF CHAMBERS says: 13 Sep 17 at 6:19 pm
    On the guidelines
    Yes it does seem strange, cos on Twitter no category of BBC staff seem to take a blind bit of notice of it.
    What’s prime proof that idea that the BBC is biased to the right is a canard is the BBC has a LibMob culture and its easy to find staff tweeting AGAINSTt Brexit and Trump but there are non the other way.
    (The second proof of the canard is that the 236K signature comments on the abolish the L Fee petition almost always mention Leftwing bias)

    I was surprised when I found the rule on the website. I found two things
    #1 A mention that radio staff rules are similar to BBCnews staff rules
    ..and #2 the actual quoted rule on the BBCNews staff website.
    I presume other categories like staff on baking shows are free to be more political..
    Oh and when we brought it up on Twitter neither AR or NickyCampbell said “ah this rule doesn’t apply to me”
    One thing is I rarely see absolute pro Party Politics..like “vote Labour”
    though I think staff do retweet stuff like “Tories are evil”

    Should the rule exist ?
    There is an argument that once you have taken the BBC shilling you lose the right to have open political view.
    Certainly should apply to news staff like Campbell
    And not occasional COMMENTATOR staff like Quentin Letts (Righty) or Aaronovitch (LibMob)
    The easy way would be to have 2 classes – #1 The impartial, #2 The commentators
    And you’d as a BBC exec would take that overall commentator hours are not disproportionate ie Lefty one week , righty the next week
    Now Rutherford has to be category #1 cos he has privilege as one on the ONLY science presenters, it’s not like there’s a whole pack from Left to Right
    The old Home Planet prog should have been kept, cos it did have a panel of 5-6 people left to right, so it doesn’t matter what they tweet in their own time.

    Bottomline those people like Rutherford with a privileged platform should NOT be activists at the same time , even out of hours.

    Like

  16. It seems the real issue here (for the criminally sane among us) is not the gender and/or racial profile of the committee members but their actual experience/training in science and technology, which appears to be rather lacking in most. But real issues don’t matter. To be legitimate, the Parliamentary Science & Technology Committee must have women and ethnic minorities among its membership; otherwise it is not representative. But not just any ethnic minorities and women – they simply must have the right ‘attitude’; hence, no goddamn climate deniers, whatever their gender or ethnicity, otherwise the membership is not representative of mainstream science [which is most important, naturally], despite the fact that the one ‘climate denier’ apparently has more of a scientific background than many of the others.

    Well, that’s that, “and now for something completely different”.

    Like

  17. Of course those BBC guidelines are for EDITORIAL staff
    To me it doesn’t matter how AR is paid, his job is editorial
    … since he clearly gets to choose who gets on his show and the limits of what they say.

    GreenDream is his pet topic ..at any opportunity he will air a “Climate Disaster” story or “Green-Energy is magic” story.

    Like

  18. STEWGREEN
    I’ve had a similar discussion with Barry Woods (and perhaps with you) over whether university academics like Adam Corner should campaign politically. For me, personal freedom trumps everything, (except perhaps in the case of specific policies, e.g. the surgeon who won’t perform abortions for political/religious reasons.)

    But the question here is whether he is a BBC employee, and I’m pretty sure that he isn’t, any more than Brian Cox is, or any other well known programme presenter.

    So what’s important is not whether what he says is against BBC rules, but the fact that it’s demonstratively false. Lord Lawson has denied over and over again being a climate change denier, so calling him one is tantamount to calling him a liar.

    Rutherford worked under Steve Jones, who wrote the infamous report on science reporting for the BBC Trust, which had to be withdrawn and rewritten to remove a reference to Lawson and Benny Peiser of the GWPF, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Rutherford has any particular bee in his bonnet about climate change. [though I note your latest comment about the Green Dream] It seems that he and Dame Athene are just repeating stuff that they’ve heard somewhere. This is a capital crime for a scientist.

    Like

  19. What is shouting “denier” about ?
    It’s about creating a false-narrative that the 2 sides are “Science vs Denier”
    It’s a PR trick
    – In reality the alarmists have religious certainty about the future : ‘that it’s established fact that continuing CO2 as usual will lead within decades to a scenario span of
    : huge catastrophe to huge huge catastrophe’
    They are not WITH science

    The skeptics position is we will stick with REAL established science : that is
    #1 The Past : we know alarmists’ past predictions have been wrong ..instead of big rises etc. we got barely detectable changes ..like ice ice still mostly as recent past.

    #2 The Future is : ‘I don’t know’ the scenario range being from : coming into an ice age to big feedbacks creating big warming.
    But the scenario also includes possible technological advances like new energy eg fusion/CCS
    So #3 there is no need to run around like headless chickens.

    The alarmists position is weak : there is no proven CO2 sensitivity, no established model of feedbacks etc.
    So they are reduced to platitudes.
    “Climate Change is real (by which they mean Catastrophic CC) and those who don’t share our dogma are deniers”

    AR et all are basically waving their pitchforks at Stringer & shouting “Witch ! Burn him ! Burn him !”

    Neutrals can see this.
    + see Alarmists have consistently failed to call-out people whose already past alarmist predictions did not come true.

    There is such a thing as Objective Truth, but that is usually about recent past.
    The future is a whole range of ‘I dont know ‘ and open scenarios.

    And the open minded should not surrender the driving to those religiously certain who think they have a Holy Map of the future even though it’s a destination they’ve never been there.

    … Another point is that they have faith in magic solutions like wind/solar power but never step forward with proper auditing cost benefit analyses.
    Alarmists are not on the side of real science and real maths. They are on the side of emotion.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. The case of anti-vacciners is different, cos they are the ones with the firm belief that has not proven true in recent past.
    is claim that ‘more vaccines= more autism’

    No in similar groups there have not proved more autism cases in vaccinated than unvaccinated.

    Climate alarmists simply coopted the word ‘denier’ for their own cause… A convenient PR ruse.

    Like

  21. STEWGREEN. I should have put a sarc tag. Obviously there are not enough MPs with scientific or technological backgrounds to form the committee. That is one problem we have; too many PPEs and others with useless relevance and not enough MPs with real world experience.

    Replace Jeremy with Piers and put him on the committee.

    Like

  22. I may be totally wrong and misinformed, but I do not know what all the fuss is about. I know very little about the makeup of the committee but I have few concerns about its scientific expertize. I would pick people with different skills than scientific prowess. The committee has several roles 1) to provide political oversight of the Government Office for Science (the wonderfully shortened GO-Science) which takes important scientific decisions (but hives off most funding decisions to Research Councils – that are theoretically free of political bias), 2) “to ensure that Government policy and decision-making are based on good scientific and engineering advice and evidence” although it is not clear exactly how it accomplishes this, except perhaps by 3) examining “the activities of departments where they have implications for, or made use of, science, engineering, technology and research”. Given this, it seems clear to me that good committee personnel are those with a broad knowledge of government activities, abilities to “interfere” without causing offence, an aptitude to consider technical advice or demand greater clarity, and so not necessarily a scientific background. The last person I would want on the committee would be a former specialist scientist, turned to party politics.

    I expect this particular committee will be especially important. I would think the phone lines to the Brexit offices to be red hot as we deal with the potential excision of the UK from the scientific mainland of Europe. Considered in this light, who do you want on the committee – ex scientists or political expeditors with a brief to protect science?

    Liked by 1 person

  23. An example of the media obsession with gender issues is the new £10 note featuring Jane Austen.

    On the BBC 7am news we were told that
    “For the previous 4 months there has been no UK bank note featuring a woman, apart from the Queen,”
    while the story at 8am was
    “It is the only UK bank note featuring a woman, apart from the Queen, though they are signed by a woman.”

    Like

  24. Having looked briefly at the short biographies of the named committee members on Wikipedia, I must say I’m not particularly impressed. With three exceptions committee members are relative lightweights with two only having months of parliamentary experience. The committee seems to be treated as a dumping ground for people to be given something inconsequential to do, in one case to get rid of a former rising star who unfortunately has different opinions to his party. Lets hope Messrs Stringer, Lamb and O’Brien (and perhaps others who I have falsely maligned by omission) can pull more than their weight.

    Like

  25. Decided to look at what the committee does in terms of written product and the government’ responses. Had to give up having spilled coffee all down myself in shock and disbelief. I started with the 1st Special Report – Science communication and engagement. I thought this might provide an innocuous and gentle beginning.
    After congratulating the committee for doing its job I was stopped short when I read the contents of the committee’s first recommendation:

    “There are encouraging signs of continuing improvement in the BBC’s already excellent science coverage. The position is less encouraging in the print and other media, which often have an agenda which allows inadequate place for opposing evidence. …..The Government should ensure that a robust redress mechanism is provided for when science is misreported.”

    I apologize if the first sentence caused as much distress as it did to me.
    Was Stringer asleep or outvoted?

    This is a whole can of worms.

    [Link added, PCM]

    Like

  26. Seems we might have been fooled into believing that the Science & Technology Committee was something to do with science and technology Alan. I made that mistake a while back when I thought the office of Prime Minister had something to do with leading the country.

    Like

  27. Science communication report:

    “The study found parent-child relationships played a particularly important role in shaping attitudes towards STEM subjects, but also a widespread association of science and scientists with being ‘brainy’, which put some off. Imperial College London have recommended greater diversity in popular and media representations of those ‘who do science’ to help overcome that barrier.”

    Now we know why Brian Cox is pushed so hard as a scientist by the media – you could never describe our Brian as a ‘brainy’ type.

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmsctech/162/162.pdf

    Like

  28. Vicci Ford – yet another newbi MP dumped into the Committee and illustrating the contempt both major political parties accord to science.

    Like

  29. Alan, apparently she studied Maths and Economics at Cambridge. That seems OK to me!

    Just two more digs at Rutherford. Sorry, I’ll stop soon.

    Firstly he didn’t seem to realise that “Mike’s Nature Trick” was published in Nature:

    He was an editor at Nature, though in a follow-up tweet he says he wasn’t an academic editor.

    And this morning he’s still claiming that he isn’t trying to silence Graham Stringer:

    No, he’s not in any way trying to silence him, he’s just encouraging his 45k followers to write to their MPs to get him chucked out of the committee.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. The STEM argument for having women on the committee is pretty thin, when I got into science at school I don’t recall even knowing about the existence of these committees, let alone knowing who was on them. Anyway, it was pretty boy Cox who got many females into physics … oops, am I being sexist?

    Like

  31. I suppose we could ask our 45k followers (well, maybe not quite that many) to write to the BBC and ask them to sack Rutherford. Not to silence him, of course.

    This might just turn out terribly counterproductive for Rutherford and his fellow climate enforcers. Telling MPs who they can and can’t choose has never been a good idea. Charles the First tried it and it ended badly.

    Meanwhile let’s see what he has to say on Radio 4 at 1630.

    Like

  32. So Paul, you don’t agree with me when I put a committee member’s knowledge and experience of how science and engineering might impact other parts of the UK parliament well above their academic specialization? At least 3 members have minimal experience (months). All symptomatic of the poor standing of science and technology in today’s parliament. Engineering -that’s for grubby northerners isn’t it?
    Bring back the “white heat of technology”

    Like

  33. It’s an interesting point Alan. Philip and Jaime think the committee members should have science qualifications. You think that doesn’t really matter as much as having parliamentary experience. I’m reasonably happy with a mix of scientists and non-scientists, newbies and old hands.

    Like

  34. Vicky Ford, taking a swipe at the opposition’s criticism of the lack of gender diversity in the Select Committee membership, seems to think that she has been appointed on merit:

    Her experience of the real world seems to be mainly in banking – hence the maths & economics degree. I can’t really see, apart from the fact that she is a woman, why in particular she should have been elected to the committee.

    Like

  35. It’s all so silly and transparently fake isn’t it Paul. Quite obvious that parliamentarians care very little for science and technology unless it serves politics and politicians and, to a lesser extent, society in general, the economy in particular.

    Like

  36. I do believe the Science and Technology Committee should necessarily be diverse nor made up of a cross-section of society. What it should be made up of is people who can understand the arguments presented to them by the experts and the policy-makers in order to hold the Government to account. If an expert comes before a committee offering platitudes, any member of the committee should be both willing and able to recognize it as such and call them out. It does not matter which political party they belong to, gender, faith group, sexual orientation or ideology they support. If they cannot recognize bullshit and call it out, they are clogging seats for those who can. Unfortunately, if this requirement was honestly upheld by the applicants, then select committees would have loads of vacant seats.
    The problem is nothing new. Back in the 1980s the columnist Bernard Levin (then an ardent Thatcherite) said in a column that if you lined up backbench Conservative MPs in a coconut shy and threw rocks at them it would be about 30 minutes before one of them knew what was happening. In our current era, in terms of climate policy, I would not be so party political.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. About Vicky Ford’s qualities
    She’s not a newby – MEP from 2009-17
    “From 2009-2014 she was a member of the European Parliament Industry, Research and Energy Committee and the Economic and Monetary Affairs committee. ”
    “2014–2017 she was Chair of the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) Committee..focusing on digital policy and unlocking trade opportunities for services and goods.”
    So she has experience in techy committees.
    BTW she studied at Cambridge , but no mention of her graduating.

    Like

  38. It’s a logical fallacy to say that you have to be an expert to be able to debunk an expert or hold them to account.
    eg Emperor’s small boy
    It’s just a question of finding flaws in arguments/evidence people present you with.
    I’d expect anyone experienced say a lawyer could do so in many fields they don’t have experience with.
    Indeed it would be vital that some members have naivety, cos there is a danger of groupthink.

    BTW David TC Davies would be a great asset as he shown to be logical person.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Don’t you think it odd that many female journalists ask the question – “why so few Women choose tech careers?” – but never answer the question of themselves?

    Like

  40. Stewgreen. Judged in terms of her familiarity with the levers of power within the UK Parliament Vicky Ford is indeed a newbi. As an elected politician she definitely has form. Why aren’t her considerable banking and european experience being used more appropriately?

    Like

  41. Yes, thanks, next week. Probably Thursday though, not Monday


    Also, I’ve just noticed another botch-up by the committee.
    Yesterday they published three documents on the Government response to their earlier reports. In the pdf versions of these documents, see link in Alan’s 9.42 am, also here and here, the incomplete 8-member all-male committee is printed. I can’t believe they did this after all the fuss the day before.

    Like

  42. Paul,

    did you originate the “ctrl-left” play on words?

    A few months ago I said conservative Mac owners were sick of being invisible politically so they’d started their own cmd-option-right movement.

    Not as clever as yours.

    Anyway, everyone, girls aren’t going into STEM careers because they don’t have the constitution to handle jokes about why girls shouldn’t go into STEM careers.

    I know because feminists told me.

    Like

  43. Having just read Athene Donald’s latest I am not persuaded that she has any real idea about what the Committee does, nor I expect does she care. She has spent her time name dropping and complaining about lack of gender balance. I was part amused and part sickened by her objections to Stringer immediately followed by a request for balance.
    I’m seeing the value of a recall vote.

    Like

  44. Important development
    Times pg 2 : “BBC Presenter Rebuked ”
    Also Guardian (with the usual LibMob spin) “Presenter warned about his social media conduct”

    \\Paul Smith head of Editorial Standards said
    “Any BBC presenter freelance or otherwise , needs to consider how their outside comments may impact their work they do for the BBC”
    “in my view potentilly compromised the BBC’s impartiality on this issue”
    “I have met AR and his editor, and made these points clear to him”//
    ( Stringer has been on that committee 10 years)

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Beneath that Rutherford Tweet there are about 200 tweets supporting his first view
    This is an indication of their quality

    Like

  46. This case draws my attention to the rules on staff including within programmes their PERSONAL views on controversial topics
    Despite them Rutherford always rushes to push the latest Green/solar gimmick in his prog
    ..and gushes over controversial figures like Michael Mann, feeding him free kicks against his political opponents

    Like

  47. Helped you out there Stew. It needs a .jpg at the end to be recognised as an image by good old WordPress. I’ll delete your two dry runs on the other thread 🙂

    Like

  48. When did society in general start conflating scientism with the scientific method?

    Welcome to bizarro world where ontology is decided by a show of hands…

    Like

  49. Pingback: BBC reprimands Rutherford on impartiality | Climate Scepticism

  50. Confirmed : Rutherford just tweeted
    #bbcinsidescience 1630:
    a bit more #CassiniFinale;
    a bit of @normanlamb;
    a bit of cave acoustics;
    a bit of Crick/central dogma @matthewcobb

    Like

  51. If
    “It is not normally appropriate to write or present personal view programmes or content on…”controversial subjects” in any area”
    is official BBC policy, it is completely unworkable.
    Out goes anything involving expressed opinions – bye-bye Antiques Roadshow, farewell assessments by journalists of news matters, and as for any cutting edge science, forget it. Fantastic programmes about deliberately controversial reassessments of anything artistic would become a thing of the past. In fact anything with a bit of spice would be verboten.

    Like

  52. No Alan most things : like in the Antiques Roadshow are not controversial.

    There is a point, that is fair & impartial necessary ?
    eg Farage is a brilliant present but plays the game of “only fair not impartial”
    Hence he states his opinion, and is fine with letting the next caller assert a completely different view.

    But BBC old timers manage to do the ” fair not impartial” saying “I am not hear to give my opinion, please state yours”

    The SJW reporteres have 2 tricks
    #1 Pretend issues are not controversial
    assert that Climate Alarmism, hating Trump, hating Brexit, uncontrolled immigration are all holy known good-things
    #2 You just cherry pick an expert mate who’ll give the opinion you want, whilst gatekeeping against anyone else giving other views.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s