The discussion attempts to balance the prolific media support for climate alarmist claims, with the negligible amount of exposure to claims of opposing scientific evidence available to the public.
I suggest that it failed to achieve any measurable impact because it failed to correct errors of scientific observations and conclusions.
The comments on the WUWT blog revealed much, one of which an opinion that supports my conclusion.
““It was not an evenly balanced show. The alarmists were not corrected for their constant exaggerations and flat out lies.”
I intend to say more, but will first action the reblog and later come back with my own comments.
Australian ABC
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Judith Curry (one of the guests): The ABC, Australia’s government owned media outlet, has dedicated an entire Science Show program, including a star cast of climate skeptics, to exploring why some politicians and academics dispute the alleged climate consensus.
Has ‘denying’ won?
Saturday 24 June 2017 12:05PM (view full episode)
The science is 150 years old and growing each day, yet it is still being rejected by politicians and some academics. We shall talk to a few of those who remain unconvinced by climate research and its conclusions: a former vice-chancellor, a renowned Princeton mathematician, a space scientist from WA who worked on the Apollo program, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and a climate researcher in America. Have they ever changed their minds on the topic? Do they perceive any risk at all? What do they think of…
View original post 560 more words
The GOLDEN RULE 