Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, comment made by Chris Packham, 21 April 2024
Posted by Ed on April 27, 2024, 2:34 pm
Bloody Toady Young at it again.
Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, comment made by Chris Packham 26 April 2024
Summary of complaint We received complaints from people unhappy Laura didn’t challenge a comment made by panel member Chris Packham regarding the Daily Sceptic.
Our response During a discussion with the panel about various issues including climate change, broadcaster and conservationist Chris Packham claimed that the Daily Sceptic, whose editor in chief is Toby Young, is “basically put together by a bunch of professionals with close affiliations to the fossil fuel industry.” We acknowledge we would ideally have asked him to present his evidence on this, but in a fast-moving live programme it’s not always possible to pick up on every point made by our guests. We’ve removed any posts on X with this part of the discussion.
Hope he's got something to substantiate this claim, I wasn't able to find anything after a brief search. Would hate to see it turn into one of those episodes where the one time someone publicly lashes out at these scumbags it turns out to be based on a falsehood, or can be made to look that way. You just know the denier crowd will be waiting to pounce on anything, and you'll never hear the end of it if the accusation isn't absolutely rock solid.
Also, if Packham was hoping to persuade with his 'something called science' comment, I'm afraid that ship has sailed, particularly since covid and 'trust the science'. Too many have experienced it as a put-down for it to carry any weight any more, and now it's just a culture war signifier and rhetorical cudgel. Wish it wasn't so, but there we have it...
'I can’t help thinking Packham’s ‘devastating put-down’ would have been more effective if it had been true. The people who put together the Daily Sceptic, a news publishing site I’ve edited since 2020, have no connections to the fossil fuel industry.'
and the 'science' put-down gets short shrift as predicted:
'What about Packham’s claim that ‘something called science’ provides all the evidence we need that extreme weather events are caused by burning fossil fuels? There’s really no such thing as ‘the science’, as in a consensus viewpoint among scientists that’s so incontrovertible no serious debate is possible. All scientific theories are just hypotheses and, as such, subject to challenge. Indeed, if it were illegitimate to challenge these theories, progress in science wouldn’t be possible. To pretend that the science of what causes extreme weather is ‘settled’ when it’s the subject of ongoing dispute suggests that Packham and his pals aren’t capable of having a proper grown-up discussion.'
Have to agree, and it's annoying that Packham's attempted dismissal makes Young sound like the sensible one. Of course, his role is to emphasise any 'dispute' where it suits his particular agenda in order to purposefully unsettle the debate and skew the political discussion away from policies that would negatively impact free market capitalism. However, as Norm Finkelstein says of holocaust deniers (in 'Burn that Bridge'), they can unwittingly provide a service because the one-eyed dedication they devote to uncovering flaws in the historical narrative can occasionally further understanding. So shutting them down can be counterproductive and a good faith examination of the issue is probably the best way forward. It's not like the schools or media have done a good job of educating the public about climate science to the point where they would be able to see most of the 'sceptic' arguments for the shambles they are. Why not take the opportunity to pull their pants down in public? Or if what they say contains some truth, then take that on board.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
Science is, was, should be, the final arbiter of what is happening. It needs to be well conducted, and based on scientific principles, proper analysis and recognised mathematical precepts, of course And there is such a thing as consensus It's how we make our way forward. Is consensus always right? Of course not, but I'd prefer a scientific consensus any day to a political or economic one.
These contrary arguments are often not part of any scientific or honest enquiry but are loaded and biased rebuttals based on creating doubt and inaction from self-interested parties. They come as preformed opinions based on emotion, libertarian ideologies and not measurement or science. So the claim that "all scientific theories are just hypotheses "- well that is wrong to start with, the fact that the writer doesn't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis rather undermines his own thesis and he/she shouldn't be taken seriously. . .
Here's one internet resource explaining the difference, and it is important
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and must be testable and falsifiable.
And in regard to extreme weather events, these sceptics are slurring climate scientists, because I've yet to hear a single climate scientist who will definitely label any single event as "proof". Indeed my frustration is the other way round.
For instance the temperature extremes in Europe in the last few years are such that wouldn't occur naturally more than one in many thousands of years, they represent incredible statistical outliers of 3 or 4 or 5 standard deviation, 3 standard deviation is a 99.5% certainty, 4 SD is something like a 99,99% certainty. So a climate scientist could state with total confidence that this even was caused by global warming and he/she would only be wrong 0.01% of the time or once in ten thousand years.. Yet they will still prevaricate or hedge their opinion.
There's nothing in life except some well established physical rules that reach this level of assurancy. Doctors prescribe valuable medicines on the basis of 2 SD or 95% probability. To be insisting that you cannot make the claim of associating weather events with climate change because of these vanishingly small levels of uncertainty is ridiculous and we don't that the time to piss around any longer. So in my book Packham is making an acceptable and defendable point.
And if the Sceptics Society doesn't get some funding from the fossil fuel industry, well, it's probably the only contrarian outlet that doesn't and is itself only a small part of the much wider attack on climate science that has gone on for years, much of it funded by fossil fuel interests to the tune of tens of millions perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars. .
Nothing changes...just flatter people that They are "Independent minded" and you can get them to poison themselves wholesale and pay for it at the same time:
Bernays...developed an approach he dubbed “the engineering of consent.” He provided leaders the means to “control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it.” To do so, it was necessary to appeal not to the rational part of the mind, but the unconscious.
"Torches of Freedom" was a phrase used to encourage women's smoking by exploiting women's aspirations for a better life during the early twentieth century first-wave feminism in the United States. Cigarettes were described as symbols of emancipation and equality with men.... "
...Bernays’ publicity campaigns were the stuff of legend. To overcome “sales resistance” to cigarette smoking among women, Bernays staged a demonstration at the 1929 Easter parade, having fashionable young women flaunt their “torches of freedom.”
He promoted Lucky Strikes by convincing women that the forest green hue of the cigarette pack was among the most fashionable of colors. The success of this effort was manifested in innumerable window displays and fashion shows.
In the 1930s, he promoted cigarettes as both soothing to the throat and slimming to the waistline. But at home, Bernays was attempting to persuade his wife to kick the habit. When would find a pack of her Parliaments in their home, he would snap every one of them in half and throw them in the toilet. While promoting cigarettes as soothing and slimming, Bernays, it seems, was aware of some of the early studies linking smoking to cancer.
Fair points John, thanks for the explanation. Seems I gave Young too much credit, though I am fully aware of the motivation behind the 'sceptics' of 'creating doubt and inaction from self-interested parties', as you put it. Ken mentions the tobacco lobby, and I recently read 'Merchants of Doubt' by Oreskes & Conway which traces the fossil fuel funded anti-environmentalism to big tobacco's response to attempts to limit sales of cigarettes, using the same tactics and often masterminded by the same people. As one tobacco exec put it: 'Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.' - https://thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2017/doubt-is-our-product
Otherwise, it could well be that the Daily Sceptic has received fossil fuel money, directly or indirectly, and that is indeed routinely observed in organisations that spread doubt and denial about climate science. However Packham's claim was that 'professionals with close affiliations to the fossil fuel industry' founded the Daily Sceptic, for which I've not been able to find any evidence. I'm not against publicly shaming, exposing or even insulting people who do that kind of thing, but it should be based on fact not innuendo, otherwise it's counterproductive.
"Otherwise, it could well be that the Daily Sceptic has received fossil fuel money, directly or indirectly, and that is indeed routinely observed in organisations that spread doubt and denial about climate science."
-Or a bunch of Tory oppertunists saying all the "right" things: chasing the gig for all that fossil fuel dirty lucre.
on April 27, 2024, 2:34 pm