Blimey, that’s a lot. 30 million miles further than the Sun. Commenter J.G. writes :
Fed up as I was with the constant bleating about man-made global warming we get on the BBC, I thought I would find out just what they are doing to help the planet. So I put in a FOI request asking about the air miles the BBC fly, the carbon that this produces, and how the BBC offsets this. Get ready for some amazing numbers (all relate to the last reporting year):
Total UK domestic flights: 17 million miles
Total European flights: 14 million miles
Other flights: 94 million miles
Total air miles: 125 million
Total cost: £15,147,000
TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS: 25,676,000 Kgs
TOTAL CO2 OFFSET: 0 kgs. Yes, 0 Kg.
The FOI document is here.
Can I draw your attention to the following telly program :
THURSDAY 08 MARCH
Documentary
The Great Global Warming Swindle
9:00pm – 10:35pm
Channel 4
Provocative documentary that sets out to challenge the widely accepted view that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for global warming. With arguments from leading scientists, the film points to recent research that solar radiation may be a more plausible factor in climate change, and suggests that reducing carbon emissions may not only have little impact on the environment, but may also have unintentional repercussions for third world development.
I’d really like it if enough people see this program that even the BBC is forced to acknowledge the complete lack of science in this whole global warming nonsense. Hey, I’m an optimist …
It used to be the case that a BBC programme featuring a debate about climate change would have the more traditional balance of 1 for/1 against. Recently however the amount of scientic evidence and weight of opinion is such that presenting the debate in this way would not represent a balanced view, given the weight of scientific opinion.
You dont find that every report about, for example a species becoming extinct includes a debate about the theory of evolution and Creationism with a representative from each side arguing the case.
Thats not to say the view that climate change is not happening or is not man made is not a ‘significant strand of thought or opinion’ and should not recieve coverage. It does. Just not the same amount. That would not be balanced.
It would be like having a debate about the BBC and giving equal weight to those who think its biased. (Only joking)
One can look objectively at the evidence an still come to a conclusion. Please dont link to sites with research etc showing that climate change is not man made, I accept some believe this.
just saw the C4 climate change swindle documentary. powerful stuff. it basically drove a coach and horses through the entire “climate change” hysteria and exposed it for what it really is.
one thing it certainly isnt , is that its science.
“given the weight of scientific opinion.”
watch that C4 documentary. there is no scientific evidence for MAN MADE climate change.
just stand back and ask yourself – how come scientists like say Richard Dawkins , for example, arent center stage on this issue? Why do we have the likes of a non-scientist like Al Gore taking center stage?
i’ll tell you why – because the science in inconclusive.
Pete
I don’t accept your argument that BBC shouldn’t balance out its output on climate change, whilst I do accept the more general point that there isn’t a requirement for it to air opposing views on every subject. My reasoning is as follows:
1. The green lobby has been pushing the consensus case for global warming for some time now and this has spread to the Government with Miliband stating that the case is closed. The problem for me is that mostly those making the consensus case are not scientists but PR people and lobbyists (I do not accept that King’s statement to that effect was from a scientific point of view but more a political one). The BBC has a duty to question this received opinion when it is a social marketing tool rather than accepted scientific fact or shorthand (by that I mean explains a more complex model).
2. The consensus opinion covers the supposition that global warming is man made; it does not cover how we should tackle the problem. While I have seen some proponents of technical solutions on the BBC, the majority of those offering to save the planet seem to only offer solutions that involve hardship for all, but especially for their selected betes noires. A significant number of the solutions are very flawed, EU emissions trading for example, yet there is very limited critical analysis.
3. The clear buy-in by the BBC of one side of the argument means that its critical judgement is impaired when editing its own broadcasts. There have just been too many examples of bad or unusual weather being put down to climate change, when even the scientists are saying that warming is only minimal at present.
The problem is that the BBC is treating us like children who can’t be exposed to the full argument in case we come to wrong conclusion. The problem is that we aren’t children but adults who have been trained by the media to be cynical about PR pronouncements from government and lobbying groups. The omission of a real debate is just making us more cynical.
*’Five Ways to save the World’ – BBC2 – technological solutions.
*Stern report doesnt really suggest hardship, small changes now can offset later effects.
* I find the climate ‘mafia’ infuriating, there have been some suggestions recently that it is the new religion! As annoying as they are , doesnt mean climate change et al isnt happening.
Some suggest its convenient, because it means the Gov can tax us all to the hilt, doesnt mean it aint happening.
BBC bought in to evolution over Creationism. Nothing said is not supporting by the evidence.
The BBC has a large and diverse audience, some of this science stuff is a bit confusing for some. It just depends where you go for youre info. National tv bulletins are gonna be different than Radio 4 programme?
Cheers