
BBC shunned me for denying climate change - gibsonf1
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
======
alecco
A Daily Express article about a TV _botanist_ talking about _climate_
change... On HN? Sorry, no up.

~~~
yters
Why does someone have to be a climate scientist to analyze climate data?

Anyways, the points he makes do not seem loony, or at least not loony enough
to require BBC to shun him.

Finally, we have to do something about this automatic "controversial =
trolling" shutdown. Being rational and levelheaded does not mean avoiding
controversy. A good forum does not necessitate that nothing difficult is
discussed, but that when difficult subjects are discussed they are handled in
a constructive manner.

~~~
alecco
Because this isn't peer-reviewed research. There are many reasons for having
standard procedures to publish scientific work (theories.)

I love discussion, as long it isn't a time waster on basics. You don't peer
review on BBC or MSM. It creates a false debate confusing people. And Daily
Express is usually full of exaggerations and fallacies.

Also, I don't see very well the HN worthy angle. But that's just me.

~~~
yters
I think people upvote it b/c a number of people here consider global warming
skepticism to be one of those "things that can't be said" that pg mentioned in
an essay, and think this article is evidence supporting that view.

------
ars
When I see that you need laws and social pressure to force people to believe
something, then I start to have major doubts about that thing.

If something is real it speaks for itself and you don't need social pressure
to say so.

~~~
msie
"If something is real it speaks for itself..." There's a lot of physical
phenomena out there that doesn't speak for itself. It requires scientists to
speak for them.

~~~
ars
But the scientists simply present the info - they don't campaign for it.
That's the difference.

