This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
A copy of an e-mail I sent to the 'Today' Programme this morning:
Re your last item with Fred Pearce and Lord Stern. Yet again the BBC does what it's critics say it does - discuss the subject from only one side - the Pro AWG side. When will the BBC properley represent the alternative view that at least a third of the worlds serious (and I mean serious) scientists adhere to?
I am a member of the public, (with a physics degree) who, after considering the evidence as best I can as an outsider, does not believe in man made global warming. When will views like mine, ever be expressed on the BBC? I can answer John Humphries question, 'why have the climate scientists been so secretive?'
Given the sudden focus on pay, expenses and pensions - and it would seem that politicians are babes in arms compared to the civil servants with their 6-7 year redundancy packages, inflation proof final salary pensions and salaries far in excess of the PMs, and given that the BBC is one step further removed from government, we already know that its high earners can earn literally millions. Whether the "talent" (a euphemism I'm sure) partake of the pension funds even though employed on contract, I couldn't say and I am sure it is one of those questions the Beeb would like to avoid just as they have reconsidered publish all salary details....
The bottom line is that whether anyone believes in AGW or not is entirely irrelevant. The whole point is that there is money to be made from carbon trading, wind farms and the like and from all sorts of "Green" schemes/scams such as the WWF Rainforest scam. The Beeb, as we know from earlier postings, has a sizeable proportion of its pension fund heavily dependent on the success of these a schemes/scams (either spelling will do it appears) and hence a vested interest in propping up the AGW hoax irrespective of any inherent truth or falsity.
I am therefore sorry to tell you that Canute had a better chance of holding back the tide than you do of having a sensible reply to your email, much less any change in Beeb Policy.
The only way out is not to challenge AGW theory or to tackle the climate scientists, but to invent a new scam even more attractive than the AGW scams. That way the money will divert from AGW to the South Sea Bubble, peanut farms or adopt a panda schemes and thus you will have won, if you wanted to see an end to AGW schams but lost of what you wanted was sensible use of your tax money.
Excellent question - well put!
Another ordinary member of the public (2 Engineering Degrees)