When climate change activist Jo Abbess didn’t like the fact that a BBC story suggested that global temperatures this year would be lower than in 2007 (based on a statement from the World Meteorological Organization), she decided she wanted it changed. She didn’t discuss it, she just threatened the analyst that wrote it:
It would be better if you did not quote the skeptics. Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth.
I would ask : Please reserve the main BBC Online channel for emerging truth.
Otherwise, I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated. And that would make you an unreliable reporter.
I am about to send your comments to others for their contribution, unless you request I do not. They are likely to want to post your comments on forums/fora, so please indicate if you do not want this to happen. You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the skeptics.
I can almost hear Mugsy saying "We wouldn’t want to see you get hurt, because accidents happen."
The BBC changed the story, proving of course that simple threats beat science anyday.And I guess he proved that he actually was insufficiently educated to be able to know when he had been psychologically manipulated.
When I was a kid I was taught that part of science was questioning your conclusions. Doesn’t that make all good scientists skeptics by definition?
Powered by Bleezer