False balance is an evergreen censorship tool in the climate censor’s armamentarium. A series of posts at Bishop Hill chronicle a remarkable sequence of events with Nigel Lawson founder of the GWPF falling to the false balance scythe.
The standard line on false balance goes something like this: there is a scientist/orthodoxy-approved spokesperson on one side and a crank on the other side, the audience cannot tell which is which. Both are presented on equal footing!
In reality, the picture almost never corresponds to the portrait. What is seen is an individual consigned (by chance or by choice) to the rather unfortunate position of standing by his or her own views versus an eminent scientist or activist with crank-like views on climate.
The audience cannot tell the difference.
Think about it: in what context would deprivation of fossil fuel use in Africa count as ‘mainstream’?
False balance is institutionalized ladder climbing for the climate agenda employing sceptics and cranks for leverage. ‘False balance’ is a small group of hardened activists turning silence and the disinterest of a large majority and the well-meaning engagement of a smaller informed minority against them both.