healthier, happier and richer

Ed King, editor of the excellent Responding to Climate Change website, is not happy with the BBC:

“This was the week when the BBC took the piss out of the biggest scientific peer reviewed study produced on climate change.

In the space of 28 minutes it managed – with some elan – to pour scorn on the work of thousands of scientists involved with the UN’s IPCC climate science reports in 2013 and 2014 and rubbish their work, without offering an opposing view.

It did this rather effectively, masking what was a sustained assault on mainstream science and its warnings of the potentially catastrophic impacts of soaring carbon emissions with a spot of humour.

(http://www.rtcc.org/2015/08/06/bbc-lost-at-sea-as-radio-4-mocks-climate-change-science/)

I may be wrong, and I certainly respect Ed’s opinion. But I think it is a mistake to react to a piss-take, even one by the BBC, too seriously. So I posted this comment on the RTCC site:

“I don’t think a series called ‘what’s the point of?’ will be expected by listeners to be balanced. And I think we should just respond in kind. So: what’s the point of the Global Warming Policy Foundation? To advise on risk management? The former chairman of Northern Rock knows all about that. To argue for social justice? The man who was Chancellor when Maggie introduced poll tax has discovered that concern rather late in life. To prevent exaggerated claims about climate impacts? Well, on the health effects we could believe the recent Lancet Commission report or ‘Dr.’ Benny Peiser (doctorate in sporting activities in ancient Greece).

I could go on, but I wouldn’t want to be accused on ‘alarmism’…”