“..The media accepts the idea of specializations and accords greater respect to those with greater expertise.
With one exception: climate science.
When it comes to this academic discipline – it seems that if you have a zoology doctorate on sexual selection in pheasants (this is true) -
- editors will seek your contrarian view more avidly than if you have qualifications in climate science – and a lifetime’s professional expertise.
The press is littered with climate “heretics” with academic backgrounds in history – the classics – or literature.
Not climate science.
I recently watched a debate between a climate scientist and that pheasant-expert turned-journalist – who also had an unfortunate background in banking.
(He was chairman of the bank Northern Rock up to its ignominious collapse in 2007, and was accused in Parliament of “harming the reputation” of British banking. Whoops.)
An audience member asked: “Please could you explain how it is that you are ‘right’ while all climate scientists are wrong?”
He could not.
I almost felt sorry for him..”
(cont..)
go to source/story>>>
