Almost a year ago, a French economist went on that country’s CNEWS TV, and said he thought that global warming was “a lie and a scam”; a form of “totalitarianism”.

Now, 11 months later, the TV channel has been fined 20,000 euros for not challenging him.

A sign of things to come here? Not that it is imaginable that Australia's Leftist free-to-air-because-nobody-would-pay-for-it TV wouldn't immediately attack anyone who said the same thing about their ‘religion’ here; and they are just a mouthpiece for government propaganda. And we have that very expensive, foreign-born eCommissioner eagerly looking to rake in fines for the government, menacing social media and everyone else at every opportunity she gets.

https://www.joannenova.com.au/

European Commission are a bunch of wolves in sheeps clothing.
Totalitarian NAZIs owned by the U.S.

The west is going down the drain.
The sooner we get off that sinking ship and make our own way in the world the better.

Democracy has become too polarised with foreign / global issues and identity politics.

Democracy is an unaffordable frivolity & only serves to destabilise Nations mainly by America !

ttbn,

Jo Nova’s claim that the French government fined a TV news channel for allowing a climate “sceptic” to speak unchallenged is misleading. Similarly, your use of the word "dogma" here is incorrect.

The fine imposed by Arcom, France's media regulator, on CNews was about ensuring regulatory compliance, not suppressing free speech. French broadcasters are required to present controversial issues fairly and ensure that different viewpoints are represented, preventing the public from being misled.

The fine wasn't for expressing scepticism but for the lack of balance and rigour in the broadcast. Arcom found that the program didn't challenge or provide counterarguments to Philippe Herlin's statements, which contradicted the scientific evidence on climate change. This lack of balance violated regulations designed to ensure viewers receive accurate and comprehensive information.

Nova’s assertion that the main issue was the TV crew’s failure to correct Herlin’s statements misses the point. Media regulations in France and many other countries require broadcasters to provide balanced views, especially on scientifically established topics like climate change. This isn't about suppressing dissent but ensuring the audience gets a complete picture, including scientific perspectives.

The claim that Arcom endorses name-calling or social opprobrium as a balanced response is baseless. Arcom's role is to uphold journalistic standards and ensure accurate, balanced reporting. The fine was about maintaining factual correctness and responsible journalism, not supporting derogatory responses to climate deniers.

The suggestion that French TV has been one-sided without needing balance is a misrepresentation. French media operates under regulations requiring balanced reporting on controversial issues, just like in other democratic countries. Arcom's intervention aligns with its role in maintaining these standards.

The notion that journalists shouldn't promote "government-approved" science ignores their duty to report factual information. The scientific consensus on climate change is based on extensive research and peer-reviewed evidence from the global scientific community, not government approval.

How to scientifically establish the existence of the Loch Ness Monster:

1) Offer scientists promotions and extra research budgets if they claim that the monster exists.
2) Inform those scientists who refuse to acknowledge Nessie that if they continue that way, they will be sacked.
3) Issue generous research funds to scientists in all other disciplines who can connect the title of their work with Nessie.
4) Produce fake evidence of the monster.
5) If all else fails, produce scientific papers with forged signatures of the scientists who still refuse.
6) Fine individuals and companies who dare to deny Nessie's existence.
7) Send any remaining deniers to Siberian work camps.

Yuyutsu,

Your suggestion that the existence of the Loch Ness Monster could be scientifically established through coercion, bribery, forgery, and punishment is an absurd and baseless analogy that fundamentally misunderstands how scientific inquiry and consensus work.

1. Science is driven by evidence, not incentives. While funding can drive research, it doesn't change the requirement for verifiable evidence. Any scientist making a claim without solid evidence would face significant scrutiny and damage to their reputation.

2. This is not how the scientific community operates. Dismissing scientists for not supporting a specific claim would lead to widespread outrage and undermine the integrity of scientific institutions. Academic freedom and peer review ensure that evidence, not coercion, dictates scientific consensus.

3. Research funding is typically allocated based on merit, potential for scientific advancement, and societal benefit. Funding scientists to draw unrelated connections would be easily identified and discredited by the scientific community.

4. Scientific discoveries are validated through peer review, replication, and scrutiny by the global scientific community. Fake evidence would not withstand these rigorous processes and would be exposed, discrediting those involved.

5. Forging scientific papers is a serious offence that would lead to immediate dismissal, legal consequences, and professional ruin for anyone involved. The scientific community has mechanisms to detect and punish such fraud.

6. This is a fantastical scenario that ignores the principles of free speech and academic freedom. Scientific debates are resolved through evidence and reasoned argument, not financial penalties or coercion. I’ve already clarified this situation in Nova's misinformation piece. So this comes across now as heel digging.

7. This outlandish statement is a clear exaggeration meant to evoke totalitarian tactics, which have no place in the scientific process. Science relies on open discourse, critical thinking, and evidence-based conclusions, not on silencing dissent through draconian measures.

Scientific consensus, including that on climate change, is reached through extensive research, peer review, and the accumulation of evidence from multiple independent studies. It is built on transparency, reproducibility, and rigorous testing. The tactics described in the comment are antithetical to the principles of scientific inquiry and integrity.

Dear John,

Yes, science is driven by evidence, not incentives.
Which raises the question, how many of those that are employed to do science, indeed do science at all times.

In an ideal world, all scientists would be pure brahmins who work entirely out of desire to discover God's secrets, viewing their work as a form of worship and maintaining ethical standards accordingly.

Likewise, trade-unions would work only for the work-conditions of the workers they serve and parliamentarians only on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent.

But in the world we actually live in, scientists are human and are not immune to any human weaknesses. Like anyone else, they have families to feed and mortgages to pay, like anyone else they have laziness, prejudice, greed, envy, anger, lust, false pride, delusions and dark secrets to hide, like nearly anyone else they can be swayed by money, power and sex.

I know because I was both born into this academic class and employed by it, I have seen it all, how scientists are coerced by their superiors to accept research funds from three different parties simultaneously for the same research, without them knowing of each other, then to write slightly different reports for each, how bereft of adequate assistant staff and having to write all these reports, they have little time left for the actual research and are then told to skew the few results they have so they quickly fit in by the deadline. I have often seen how unpleasant experimental results are chucked in the bin and experiments repeated until by the grace of the lord of statistics the results look better.

[continued...]

[...continued]

One thing scientists commonly dislike are peer-reviewing other's proposed papers.
They consider it a waste of time because that is not directly related to their specific line of research, so they try to finish that unpleasant duty as quickly as possible. Few would openly admit that they know practically nothing about the subject or have not understood a word, even fewer would take their time to open books and study whatever is necessary to understand the proposed papers. None would call the police over the suspected forgery by a colleague. Sometimes one of the five respondents might give a negative mark or difficult "please explain"s, but when that happens the author can just send the same paper to another journal.

Adding names to the author-list on scientific papers without the knowledge of the listed scientists, who might not agree with the contents of the paper, does happen. This can be covered up and justified, say by a casual innocent-looking E-mail asking a colleague vaguely, "would you mind being listed as an author on my next paper?", getting a polite reply, "why not, if it is going to be good", then adding their name a year later once they completely forgot all about that early exchange. Let's also face it - many scientists wear the number of their publications as a badge of honour and are not keen to challenge and have that number reduced. While I never cared for that number myself, as an employee I had to reluctantly agree for my name to be added to many papers, including those I did not like, including some I did not find so honest.

It is not easy to go against the stream and established hysteria, especially when one's livelihood depends on their popularity. I hesitated myself before deciding to bother and comment on this controversial topic.

Yuyustu,

Your response is laden with anecdotal claims and broad generalisations, the aim of which can only be to discredit the integrity of the scientific community in the absence of any solid evidence. Your claims do not reflect reality. Science relies on evidence, peer-review, and transparency to ensure integrity.

The scientific method and peer-review process are designed to minimise human error and bias. The scientific community operates with checks and balances to ensure that evidence, not personal incentives, drives conclusions.

Scientists, like all professionals, are indeed human, but the scientific process is structured to account for this. Peer-review, replication studies, and transparency in methodology are all practices that help mitigate individual biases and ensure robust, reliable findings.

The claim that scientists are coerced by their superiors to accept research funds from multiple parties without specific evidence paints an exaggerated picture of widespread corruption. While ethical breaches can occur in any field, they are exceptions rather than the norm. Institutions have ethics boards, and funding disclosures are a standard part of publishing research to prevent conflicts of interest.

Concerns about selective reporting are valid, but the scientific community has mechanisms to address this, such as preregistration of studies and data sharing requirements. Moreover, reputable journals require full data sets and methodology details, making it difficult to hide unfavourable results.

Peer-review is a fundamental part of the scientific process. While it can be time-consuming, it is taken seriously because it maintains the quality and credibility of scientific literature. Peer-reviewers are typically experts in their fields who understand the importance of this duty.

Authorship ethics are taken seriously, and institutions have policies to address issues of unethical authorship. Incidents of unethical authorship are investigated and lead to retractions and sanctions. The practice of adding names to author lists without knowledge is unethical and not representative of standard scientific conduct.

The scientific community values evidence-based dissent and debate. Many scientists have built successful careers challenging established ideas with robust evidence. The notion that livelihoods are purely dependent on popularity oversimplifies the complexities of scientific careers, which are built on rigorous research and peer recognition.

Dear John,

There is no conflict between us - you are speaking of how the practice of science ought to be, about an ideal, and I write of what I actually saw, heard and experienced in person within the scientific community.

You are correct in saying that I have no solid evidence - I did not keep records and some of those I referred to are no longer with us, the others I no longer have nor wish to have contact with. Having been retired for years, all I have with me now is my own memory.

Yuyustu,

I am not just speaking of an ideal or how science ought to be, but of how it is. While your personal experiences within the scientific community are worth considering, they represent anecdotal evidence. The broader reality of the scientific community is governed by systematic processes designed to minimise human error and bias, and it does a very good job of this.

Your lack of record keeping is not the cause of your lack of solid evidence. You lack solid evidence because there is no evidence of the widespread corruption you suggest is plaguing the scientific community and scientific process. Even if you could substantiate your claims by providing me with records, it would say nothing for the vast majority of situations where the process works, and works very well.

Dear John,

I understand, because I was also born into that scientific elite, the infallible cream of the cream. No point discussing matters of faith and class-loyalty.