BBC Wants Evidence of Climate Science Bias

Amtiskaw writes "Discussion of climate change is rife with claims and counter-claims of partisanship and bias. Some of the most serious of which being that the scientific community is smothering more skeptical research in the field. Now the BBC is asking for evidence of this self-censorship. From the article: 'Journals are meant to publish the best research irrespective of whether it accepts that the sky is blue, or finds it could really be green ... So the accusations that all is not well at the heart of climate science, and that censorship is rife in organisations which award research grants, the editorial boards of journals and the committees of the IPCC, should be examined seriously. Readers are asked to submit evidence of bias, which the the BBC will then investigate.'" Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of.

Comments

Lomborg is not a scientist

[Snaller]

His aim is politic. He thinks that you should save 10000 people now and not care what might happen 100 years from now, not understanding what happens now is affects what is to come. The fighting in Darfur is indirectly because of global warming since it has changed the rain patters there so they end up fighting over what little usable land is left.
He thinks its a question about money, overlooking that we must do something about this - even if we can't "afford" it, since we most certainly can't afford to do nothing.