I have a post up at the Nottingham University/Leverhulme ‘Making Science Public’ blog, run by Warren Pearce.
What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms?
Andrew Neil’s interview with Ed Davey on the Sunday Politics show last week caused an eruption of comment. For sceptics, it was a refreshing change of scenery: a journalist at the BBC, a stronghold of environmental orthodoxy, challenging the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, an office which is rarely held to account. But perhaps because of this, it upset many of a greener hue.
Read more at http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/
It seems unfair that the interesting discussion about Ben’s article should have been at Bishop Hill and not here, especially concerning Mike Hulme’s support for Ben.
I put up a comment on the thread at Nottingham addressed to Mike Hulme, suggesting that since he found Ben’s article “spot on” and thought that it was “a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country” that the energy minister should cite the Cook/Nuccitelli 97% claim, perhaps he’d like to rectify the situation by making Ben’s points in an article at Guardian Environment or the Times Higher Education.