JoNova

Robin Williams is supposedly one of Australia’s top science communicators. He, and the ABC, continue to support ad hominems, name-calling, and are running scared of a real scientific debate. Williams will not allow skeptics to explain their views on his show, except in comments on stories, and then apparently, even that was too much, and a raging thread (for the Science Show) mysteriously disappeared for days when it got too hot. BobFJ has been dedicated in tracking it, and keeping the pressure on the anti-science pronouncements of Williams et al. Here we have all the fun of the so called “Science” Show meeting the author of  Un-Skeptical-Science, with half-truths and irrelevancies broadcast across the continent thanks to the taxpayers of Australia. — JoNova

———————————–

Guest Post by  Bob Fernley-Jones (aka Bob_FJ)

In addition to regular readers of Jo Nova, those familiar with John Cook’s misleadingly titled website “Skeptical Science” may be shocked by what follows.  Some will also likely recall Jo’s article; Robyn Williams shreds the tenets of science.  It largely covered the awful Robyn Williams interview of Bob Ward of 2/Oct/2010, and resulted in strong ridicule of the ABC going viral around the world.   Well, lo and behold, Robyn Williams, presenter of “The Science Show”, remains in true form, and continues to defy the ABC’s Editorial Policies on impartiality etc.

The audio and transcript is available here, and at close on 19/May it had an unusually high 77 comments in rapid time, including many complaints.  In comparison, the other five uncontroversial stories on that same show only attracted 8 comments in total, and that infamous Bob Ward interview totaled 38 comments.  However, early on 20/May, all comments and the facility to make comments disappeared, just as things were hotting up.  Then, four days later, it all came back, without any explanation or apology, but the momentum of so many inconvenient comments seems to have stalled.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SHOW:

Robyn Williams says:

Authors John Cook and Haydn Washington analyse the approaches of those who deny climate science. Despite multiple lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion, deniers continue to deny. Cherry picking is one tactic. Another is the use of fake experts or scientists who are not climate scientists. The authors explore why, as the science firms, the public view, at least in Australia, is going the other way.

KEEPING IT SHORT;  EIGHT EXTRACTS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT:

1) Climategate:

Robyn Williams: …when we are talking about the East Anglia email scandal, there were three, possibly four enquiries, and each one found in favour of the scientists in terms of the scientific evidence. But that seems not to have stopped denying at all. John Cook: Yes, there has actually been eight independent investigations into it, and they have all found the same results. So it’s almost like climate science where we have multiple lines of evidence finding the same conclusion. But conspiracy theories are very popular amongst any group that wants to deny a scientific consensus.

Robyn Williams was probably referring to the three British “independent” committees and the Penn State University so-called enquiry.  I somehow feel that John Cook’s claim of eight such is an exaggeration. The so-called three or four have been very widely criticised for not asking the right questions, poor representation, (for instance, see this), and much more, too long to detail here.  [And do enquiries that don’t investigate the science, count? — JN] Mr Williams again expresses his clearly biased view by saying: “But that seems not to have stopped denying at all”.[No, we independent thinkers are not impressed by argument from authority, or with enquiries run by chairmen of windfarms investigating climate scientists, see this. — JN]

2) Silly analogies of heart surgery and tobacco, both mentioned above, are certainly popular in slagging the sceptics, but the following is a real gem for me:

Haydn Washington: Yes, as far as we know maybe chimpanzees deny things too because they carry around dead babies…

He claims to be an environmental scientist so should know that chimps are biologically close to humans, including emotional stuff.  Even dogs are observed to dream, and suffer badly from separation anxiety etc. Chimps clearly have not learnt societal “closure” mechanisms like us, such as burial ceremonies, so do they deny grief?  I think it is far more likely that the mother does not know how to handle what’s happened, but can surely recognise, not deny, that something ain’t right.  (but then I’m only a mechanical engineer).

[Comparing skeptics to chimps is just another way to dehumanize skeptical scientists, eh? — JN]

3) On the subject of how many sceptical scientists are there:

Keep reading  →