It seems like a contradiction. But then, maybe not. It’s only a contradiction if using the premiss that the environmentalists only cares about the environment. Surprise! The do not. As everyone else they care about themselves, their careers, their prestige and political power. Sometimes even money. Knowing this makes it easier to understand their opposition against cheap clean energy.

Because, really clean and cheap energy would actually ruin everything for them (except the actual environment part of course). Their voices would be worth zero zip nil…null.

Recently this has become extremely evident.

Of course I’m thinking about the anti LENR crusade performed by Swedish public radio and their head of science; Ulrika Björksten.

Without any facts, and without looking at any of the measurements and other indices in favour of Rossi she has produced an, in excess 60 minutes, extremely biased radio show. The sources for her analysis are shallow and consists of an Italian style-blogger (self proclaimed science journalist) and some (not so random) Italian politicians with obvious (the mayor of Laciarella gained political power using the trials against Rossi) special interests that correlates with the agenda of the show. Also one or two Swedish scientists with similar environmental and status qou interests (research budgets in fission/hot fusion) are used.

This combined with Ulrika Björksten being a person who obviously likes to play games with the power of media for personal reasons makes the picture clear. She has done it before and is proud of it.

(using google translate for unbiased translation)

“But now I can also recognize , as it hopefully is barred by now , that I myself in the spirit of Sokal sneaked into a highly questionable review on a Swedish newspaper culture pages. Yes, I had seen the show , so it ‘s not about any falsification , but the text came to first and foremost because I had made a bet that it was enough to mimic culture writers stylistics to make it seem like I knew what I was talking for and receive text published.”

These opinions of hers are also interesting I think:

“The journalistic approach that would achieve objectivity by simply allowing two different voices with opposing views to be heard is deeply problematic when dealing with issues based on scientific knowledge . Whenever the voice is based on science and facts, while the others have no scientific basis for their claims to the image in the mass media can easily be misleading.”

“It’s a journalistic dilemma when almost all the expertise available within a special interest.”

As you can see above she does not support an unbiased coverage of scientific issues when it is covered by ”scientific knowledge”. But she also says that the the coverage should be based on facts. Finally she notes the dilemma occurs when some voices have a special interest.

My conclusions are obvious. Ulrika Björksten is pragmatic and likes to use the media in her crusade for her beliefs. She interpretes journalistic ethics on the fly and gives herself the right to ignore facts when they do not suit her and uses the “special interest” card as it pleases her. All available dirty tools are used when covering the Rossi story from a completely non-factual ad-hominem side and she does it in the name of some sort of common good, representing her political interests (misguided environmental).

Maybe she’s only a ”nyttig (useful) idiot”, as we call it in Sweden, or maybe she has a plan. I don’t know which one is the worst….

 ….update…

Found this qoute as well from an interview:

Are there any family resemblance between journalism and science?

– The similarity between the two fields is the effort to find out how things actually are, to examine and question the things that may seem obvious. To consider whether there may be another truth behind what is seen on the surface. I think there are very many similarities in the journalistic and scientific method 

What would you most like to win the gold shovel or the Nobel Prize in chemistry?

– Because I am a journalist of course I say the gold shovel.

Obviously, finding the truth and the Nobel Prize are only of minor interest and priority to her compared to the “prestigious” Gold Shovel… Makes you go, hmmmmm.