Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
The Indie would never have existed but for the Thatcher reforms of trade union law, and it owes its existence to her more than to any other individual. Yet they’ve not got a good word for her, the ingrates.
If it can’t hack it in a free market for ideas, it’s no great loss.
David Gregory (BBC):
“Stephanie, you know your stuff. But I think most scientists would say this fact is a classic case of “cherry picking” the data. Something both sides of the discussion need to be careful about.”
Really?
What about this report on carbon dioxide rise over just two years reported at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3732274.stm
or this one on UK carbon emissions over just two years reported at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4861800.stm
or this one where a “smoking gun” was detected on the basis of a climate model which replicated (not very well) the ocean warming for 10 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm but didn’t replicate at all the sea level changes for the previous 30 years let alone be “unprecedented in a thousand years”? http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=593
And then there’s the Hockey Stick, a classic case of automated cherrypicking that you can’t bring yourself to even report the findings of a Congressional Committee and the report of a highly distinguished statistical team to be simply “Bad Science”?
The BBC’s reporting is replete with cherrypicking and spurious reporting of half-truths, quarter truths and untruths.
Do you think we are all as stupid as that to not even spot the distortions?
in a summer where TV fakery so dominated the news many will have been inclined to think the worse when they heard of the police’s unhappiness. Much credit must go to Channel 4 for standing up for itself and to Paul Goodman, the shadow minister for Community Cohesion, who pursued this issue relentlessly.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/361517/a-victory-for-press-freedom-that-leaves-west-midlands-police-in-the-dock.thtml
Dear David Gregory,
Thankyou for the compliment to my very limited knowledge base. First let me agree with you on the “cherry picking’ statement,from Data collection to proccessing to information disemination, this is open to abuse from the start as both sides will want the data to represent their desired outcome! For instance, the IPCC wants/needs to find evidence of a CO2 induced global warming influence? so they have used skewed data sets and correlation methods which they are very secretive about, ask yourself why? When you see graphs on global average temperature modulation, you will notice that the pro AGW groups use the ones where the yearly data ends in 2000, why? The IPCC changed their data collection/correlation systems after this because the real average temperatures did not reflect the outcome they were hoping for! So the IPCC moved the goalposts to suit their required outcome. The IPCC uses a positive correction(gives mean temp avgs) to its data sets, this gives an inaccurate result.
Let me give you a simple example of dishonest data giving the wrong conclusion, the average British family consists of 2.5 children?(example only) how did they arrive at the .5? in real life there is no such thing as ‘half a child is there? so do you round the .5 up or down? OR do you adjust the data set to show a round number? You seem to me to be a highly intelligent person with a quick mind, so can you see my point?
Yours faithfully SC
John Reith | 20.11.07 – 11:11 am
Shifting the goal posts each time.
Gaza is no longer the ‘most densely populated place on Earth’ or even ‘one of them’.
Gaza City is not the ‘most densely populated city on Earth’ or even by reasonable definition one of them.
Beach Camp (Shati) i.e 747,000 square metres out of 365 sq kilometres is very crowded. By my limited maths that means slightly over 9 Palestinians per square metre! Sort of suggests Singapore style high rises doesn’t it? Even if some of the buildings are two or three stories in height that’s still quite a squeeze.
Reality is that the number you have chosen is the number of ‘registered refugees’ i.e. those collecting rations, assistance, etc. While UNWRA and others are still doling out cash it’s not surprising that people who have moved out, still live in the camp; dead people still live in the camp and fantasy people who never lived still live in the camp.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/L3l8pGVc.jpg‘ title=’Pictures from Shati Camp’
If you (and the BBC) were really honest you would be asking why ‘overcrowded’ camps still exist in Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Syria, etc when no one is stopping their removal, instead of worrying about my living conditions.
The BBC is obliged to report the truth, however pedantic that may be.
The UNWRA owes its existance to the palestinian refugee problem and that alone should give you an insight as to just why the problem has never been resolved?
All over the Arab world the Palestinians are being excluded,persecuted,killed and generaly treated badly! It is the Arabs/UNWRA who are keeping the refugee camps open because it suits their agenda to do so. The Palestinian ‘refugees’ are nothing more than a tool with which to bash Israel.
By any measure of real humanity the camps no not need to exist in any form! the Palestinians should have been absorebed into the Arab host Nations years ago!
deegee | 20.11.07 – 12:00 pm
Here’s Israeli politician Amram Mitzna (maybe you know him: local boy, ex-mayor?) writing in Haaretz on 23 May 2005:
A million-and-a-quarter Palestinians living in the most densely populated area in the world, and in terrible poverty…
A mistake perhaps. But an easy one to make, it seems. Even Israelis make it – and they only live next door.
And not ‘one of the most’, note. ‘The most…’
Bowen didn’t go that far.
But no-one claims Israeli politicians are supporters of Palestinian terror.
Double standards?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Laor
http://www.haaretz.com/
More BBC lies:
http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=1826152007
and another one: Israeli poet/novelist :
Yitzhak Laor, also writing in Haaretz 29 June 2005.
the destruction that have been imposed on the most densely populated place in the world ..
John Reith,
If you have to pull Laor out of the pot to support your biased opinion of the Gaza strip, then you must have a very weak case!
May I draw your attention to the fact that Israel is a democracy with a free press BUT that does not mean that you should take one opinion as true fact!
Were this a Palestinian author being critical of Palestinian terrorists then I very much doubt that he would be still alive to critise again!
There were these two Jews…..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7102519.stm
Stephanie – I am not sure I made my challenge clear.
Please can you show me the BBC narrative that says global temperatures will continue to rise.
John Reith | 20.11.07 – 12:30 pm |
You have proved that some Israeli politicians are intellectually lazy and don’t bother doing their homework.
Did you think that is an exclusive quality of British politicians?
Perhaps Mitzna and Laor were too busy listening to BBC World Service when they should have been checking their facts from a more responsible source?
Rueful Red
CAP farming subsidies – it appears that the only reason for the prominence of the report is to have a pop at the Royal Family. They don’t mention that the British taxpayers continue to pay net €1 bn + whereas the French continue to receive €1.3 bn +.
Mark Mardell is particularly exercised about the royal impact – he gets it on the front page of the news :
Mardell’s Euroblog
How the Queen could feel poorly after an EU health check
Only at the very end of his blog entry do you get at the real issue (and the source I believe for the whole story which the lefty journos have chosen the royals to make a point rather than the substantive one about how unfair the CAP is to the UK overall because this chap Jack runs a website that extracts FoI kind of information about farming subsidies and giving ‘Windsor’ as an example search string)
Jack’s not in favour of any subsidies unless they directly help the environment or the poor, and he would means-test EU money. He says, “It’s a bit odd the monarch gets income support from Brussels. This proposal from the commission is less ambitious than the one rejected last time by the UK and Germany. It doesn’t tackle the core injustice of the CAP, in that it favours industrial over pastoral, big over small, and four countries (France, Spain, Italy and Germany) over others, like Romania and Poland with big and poor rural populations.”
Jack used to work for Nick Brown (Lab) when he was MinAg.
Global warming ‘proof’ detected
By Richard Black
BBC News environment correspondent
The team says it has found “the smoking gun”
The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space, according to a new study by climate scientists in the US. Etc
The above is from one of John A’s links. Now, read this again:
“the earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space.” This is intended to indicate increased MMGW.
What if it were the other way round as it ‘should’ be according to this report? The Earth would be frozen, would it not?
Dear Sarah Jane,
OK, If its proof positive you want of the BBC narrative thats fine! Go to the BBC website and look under nature/science, read EACH article and look at the cartoons that are provided to show how CO2 causes AGW etc.
Sarah Jane you must read EACH article AND look at past reports on AGW and you WILL find obvious proof of the BBC set narrative of the AGW continous global temperature rise theories.
PS
You must read each and every article!
JR,
Quoting Israeli leftists who try to push their point of view across in order to (one assumes) change Israeli policies for the benefit of Palestinians is one thing. Another is to relentlessly demonise a country by outlining only the negative aspects, treating all Israelis as a monolithic entity while systematically ignoring the voices you’ve just quoted.
The latter is what Bowen does. And in either case, he’s supposed to be a fact-checking impartial journalist *cough* and get his assertions right regardless.
PS, Congrats to Dave T and much happiness.
“BBC reports scientist’s conclusions” is not a BBC narrative.
That’s all I’m saying. The BBC is not in the business of conducting research and formulating hypotheses based on that research. It just reports it.
Sarah Jane:
I pointed out that the BBC selectively reports some cherry-picked and alarmist studies and ignores the refutations and more mainstream studies.
It reports some scientists’ reports as if they were Holy Writ. It reports blatently alarmist and scientifically preposterous studies without any comment or feedback being allowed.
I think you should stop apologizing and start analysing
Islamic humour and Yer having a laugh BBC.
Does Islam have a sense of humour?
Muslims are often depicted as people who can’t take a joke. But as a stand-up comedy tour showcasing Islamic talent arrives in the UK, is that fair?
……………………
Azhar Usman is one of three Muslim comedians who are helping to challenge the stereotype as part of a touring stand-up show. Called Allah Made Me Funny the travelling show returns to the UK this week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7102519.stm
So according to the BBC Muslims are misrepresented when it comes to humour.
And they use ‘Allah Made Me Funny’ as one of their examples of how wrong we are.
Here is something about the above comedy groups recent tour of the UK they don’t inform the great unwashed;
University ban on Muslim comedy attacked
MUSLIM comedians have been banned from performing at a Scottish university in a move described as “ridiculous and undemocratic”. Glasgow Caledonian University backed out of hosting Allah Made Me Funny: The Official Muslim Comedy Tour this month after complaints from its Muslim students’ association. Oceanic, which organised the tour, was told by the university that the society felt the act was derogatory to the religion.
http://news.scotsman.com/glasgow.cfm?id=1801732007
Islamic humour and Yer having a laugh BBC.
John Reith
I see you appear to share the BBC’s visceral, trademark loathing for Israel. Good. That simplifies things.
Given that you arrogate to yourself (one suspects with official approval) the role of defending the BBC, right or wrong, perhaps you can tell me why the BBC spent hundreds of thousands of license-payers money censoring its own commissioned report which proves the corporation is riddled with a bias that can only be construed as anti-semitic.
I am not Jewish by the way, but yes, I do support Israel’s right to exist. Something Bowen and the BBC clearly do not.
pounce – you missed this bit:
“And as with most stereotypes, there is a kernel of truth. In some Islamic societies entertainment – music, film and comedy – are forbidden. ”
The article makes several other points like that.
But I agree that a link to that Scotsman article wouldn’t be out of place, even if it was just in the ‘Related Links’ section. It might even be funny.
Dear Sarah Jane,
The BBC publishes only the scientific reports that reinforce the AGW narrative and when it does represent another view it debunks/deconstructs it on site.
Look and listen to the evidence of the BBCs AGW agenda, it is plain and in your face propaganda of the worst sort!
One sided and highly selective in every aspect, it can only be a set narrative.
“if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then theres a very good chance it IS a DUCK”.
I do not expect you to believe me BUT I do expect you to look at the evidence before your very eyes!
Stephanie – I’ll it leave to David to re-explain what the position on this is. He is far more qualified and knowledgeable on the subject than I am.
My own view is that I don’t doubt the Corporation accurately reports the balance of scientific opinion. That is the only agenda, and if there is a narrative, it is the one that reflects the balance of scientific opinion and not one of the BBC’s construction.
However, it may not report as much of the argument against as certain sections of the audience would like to hear. As an audience member I might even include myself in that.
This presents an interesting challenge.
Allan @ Oslo
Surely if the earth absorbs more than it gives out, it’s heating up?
If the equation was equal, then the temperature would stay the same.
Of course we don’t know the whole rationale of assumptions behind this claim without digging deep into tech documents.
Dr R | 20.11.07 – 1:25 pm
I see you appear to share the BBC’s visceral, trademark loathing for Israel.
I expect you see pink elephants climbing up the wall too.
Physician, heal thyself.
I am not Jewish by the way, but yes, I do support Israel’s right to exist.
Well, at least we have two things in common.
(Personally, I’d go further: I support Israel’s right to exist as ‘a Jewish State’ as opposed to some multi-culti affair. And I support the right of its people to live and trade in peace without the constant threat of being massacred, thrown into the sea or whatever by its neighbours.)
perhaps you can tell me why the BBC spent hundreds of thousands of license-payers money censoring its own commissioned report which proves the corporation is riddled with a bias that can only be construed as anti-semitic.
You are imagining things again.
But if it’s the Balen report you mean • I explained that here •
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3951577996295348067/
Stephanie Claque: I can promise I’ve never quacked in my life.
The chronic underfunding of the armed forces, you would think, would be a major issue for the BBC, but apparently not.
I think an interesting aspect of the BBC’s bias is the way Iraq has suddenly dropped off its radar since Mr. G. Brown (largely responisble for the parlous sate of equipment and medical care for our troops) became Prime Minister. A coincidence? I think not.
Sarah-Jane:
“My own view is that I don’t doubt the Corporation accurately reports the balance of scientific opinion. That is the only agenda, and if there is a narrative, it is the one that reflects the balance of scientific opinion and not one of the BBC’s construction.”
How would you know that the Corporation “accurately reports the balance of scientific opinion”? Because it says so?
I have corresponded with a lot of scientists right around the world on the subject of climate change and virtually none of them agrees that the BBC is balanced on the subject, and quite a few make the point that the BBC is partisan to the point of propaganda.
That you have bo doubt simply reflects your belief system. It bears no relation to the facts.I bet you didn’t even bother reading the links I’d put it, still less comprehended them.
David Gregory:
Any response to my points about cherry-picking or is it just embarassment?
Reith
I retract half my comments (and congratulate you for noting that they were, indeed, pinko elephants).
As usual you avoid the harsh question. As far as I can recall, all you have ever said about the notorious Balen Rerport was that “…there was no smoking gun”. Smoking gun???? You mean, something like “… this report concludes that the BBC believes Israel and its 5-6 million inhabitants should be wiped out…” Go on, tell us what a smoking gun would appear like. I am genuinely intrigued.
In any case, I asked your view of the BBC spending about half a million of our pounds (or, put another way, Jonathan Ross’s weekly expenses) in suppressing its own report, using the Freedom of Information Act as its legal ruse.
I presume, loyal apparatchik that you are, that you approve of this?
Funny, this little joyful gathering wasn’t reported anywhere on the Beeb.
http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/3714.htm
Muslim leaders AGAINST peace:
The delegates declared participation in the planned Annapolis peace conference haram, alleging that the U.S. initiative was aimed at eliminating Palestine.
And the usual rabble-rousing traitors :
In his speech, British MP Galloway praised the heroic fighters that Islam has raised and said, “Jerusalem was occupied by savage, dangerous criminals and terrorists. Why is it that some Arab countries are cooperating with these terrorists? Baghdad, like Jerusalem is occupied, and everyone must join the struggle to end the occupation.”
John A: I think I said that both sides should be aware of the perils of cherry picking, and that obviously goes for those reporting and the state of science as well. But there seem to be plenty of what ifs and caveats in all those BBC reports as is proper.
But the original point raised by Ms Claque has been well discussed all over the internet. If it isn’t mentioned much in the daily reporting of the BBC about climate change it isn’t because it’s an “inconvenient truth” (sorry) or because we are told not to mention it. It’s because it isn’t the smoking gun Ms Claque seems to think it is.
Sarah Jane: “…if there is a narrative, it is the one that reflects the balance of scientific opinion and not one of the BBC’s construction…”
If the BBC is committed to ‘radical impartiality’ there shouldn’t be any narrative, whether it reflects scientific opinion or not.
JR: “Anat is wrong to claim that most of the population are indigenous. Refugees outnumbered native Gazans from an early stage.”
Really? and how do you know this, by UNRWA numbers? It is high time somebody did a history of UNRWA, and how the number of refugees acknowledged by the UN DOUBLED between 1949 and 1951 reaching a figure of ca.900,000, despite the fact that the British census of 1945 had the total number of Arabs in Western Palestine as 1,300,000 with the main concentration being in the areas designated Arab state (for which reason they were designated Arab state), that is chiefly the West Bank and Gaza, which did not at that time come under Israeli control and from which there were no refugees.
The inhabitants of the refugee camps are indeed vicitims, but it was not Israel that wronged them. The culprit is the UN which, bowing to pressure of the Arab League, reached unrealistic numbers, with all those registered denied citizinship in their countries of residence BY UN APPROVAL AND SUPPORT, they and their offspring. For this is the practical meaning of the inherited refugee status: denial of citizenship in their place of residence, and all this by UN support!
No such inherited refugee status exists for any of the millions of other refugees worldwide since WW2 (who are not under UNRWA but under UNHCR, with different rules); in all other cases the host country is responsible for those born in its territory. This includes the Jewish refugees from Arab countries, victims of the same conflict, and whose number was nearly double the initial (and realistic) UN estimate of about 470,000 Arab refugees from Israel. Also, at the time Israel actually offered to accept an initial number of 100,000 back as a gesture of good will, in order to encourage the Arabs to accept the UN resolution in this matter. But they refused, because this would entail recoginition of Israel.
I’ll listen to the like of JR only on the day they take all this into account.
John A I did read the articles.
“But others say the evidence of just two years is inconclusive, and suspect that natural causes are likelier culprits. ”
“Not everyone agrees with these conclusions. One scientist who disagrees is William Kininmonth, a former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a member of Australia’s delegations at various rounds of United Nations climate treaty negotiations.
“The paper implies that it is possible to estimate quite accurately the global radiation imbalance,” he told BBC News; other researchers, he says, have “explained why it is not possible to measure the imbalance with an accuracy better than several watts per metre squared”.
I do not believe this research team has made a compelling case to suggest that their computer models are sufficiently realistic
William Kininmonth, Australian climate scientist
Like other “climate change sceptics”, Dr Kininmonth believes too much reliance is placed on computer models rather than hard data.”
? Perhaps you missed those balancing arguments?
‘Knowing’ something and believing that one’s colleagues are representing an argument as fullas they can within a set of constraints are not the same thing. That’s why I said ‘I dont doubt’ rather than ‘I know’.
As to my own views on the matter, position on the political spectrum etc as has been pointed out to the point of tedium you do not know, and your assumptions are incorrect.
Dr R I just had a quick refresh of the Balen Guide, which is the working document inspired by the Balen Report. Much of it is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/israel_and_the_palestinians/key_documents/6044090.stm
You’ll have to take my word for it, which of course you won’t, but its main thrust to me is around conveying facts and avoiding “the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements” when looking at causes of actions and attribution of motive. Particularly if you are not on the ground.
There seems to be roughly equal amounts of facts relating to the two sides.
My personal view is that the speculation surrounding the document is far more damaging than anything it might contain, and that is something of a McGuffin.
Sarah Jane
So why have they banned it?
An interesting article over on the Register entitled “What’s Auntie for ,Exactly ?” ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/20/woudhuysen_bbc_impartiality/
I find it interesting (and heartening) that the bread and butter topics of this blog now seem to becoming mainstream.
Dear David Gregory,
Firstly my last name is CLAGUE and secondly I never mentioned a “smoking gun” in my posts did I?
Right, lets get down to the issues shall we?
What I see from the BBC is biased and one sided reporting of a complex issue that has many variables and unknowns and differing opinions between respected scientists.
I can see that the BBC is following a political agenda with a partisan outlook that allows only one side any airtime. Now you may believe that the skeptics are wrong and misguided and your corporation may decide that the scientific debate is over BUT wishing for something doesnt make it so does it?
Let me ask you a question, what do know of the ‘heat island effect’? Now lets suppose that you were to find out that this information had not been included in the IPCC average temperature calculations, this would look bad for the IPCCs integrity and trustworthiness and you wanted to do a story on it, would your critical story make it past the editorial censor?
PS
I never called you a duck as I have the greatest respect for you.
PPS
You remind me of that radio Moscow presenter of the late 70s/early80s who used to spout the Soviet propaganda BUT you could tell that he did not believe what he was saying but he was forced to tow the party line. I felt for the guy and knew in my heart that he knew the truth even as he told the ststes lies!
Dr R It may be that the reason given is actually genuine.
Namely, so it doesn’t create a precedent for having to share every such report.
My personal view is that all documentation of any organisation receiving tax, er, public money under the force of law should be in the open – except where to do so would create security issues.
I think this is a pretty unusual viewpoint though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7103268.stm Not one mention of the smoking ban? Seriously?
S-J
On such a contentious, divisive and potentially awkward issue? You’re kidding, right?
I know you don’t believe that. You know you don’t believe that. Anyone reading this will know you don’t believe that.
Curious.
You know SJ, it’s almost like the BBC just can’t stop itself when it comes to Israel. I wasn’t even aware of this until a very dear Jewish friend pointed it out to me: since then I see everywhere – like a nasty, visible wound. What I cannot for the life of me work out is why. Why decent people so wish to deligitimise Israel. It is frankly incomprehensible and your elegant, tendentious reply makes it even more so.
Have you addressed this question yourself? Have you, Mr Reith?
Dr R I’ve posted this before but I think the Corporation has dug a nastly little hole for itself with The Balen Report. I think it should get it out.
Of course that’s because I think it does not contain ‘a smoking gun’ about anti-Israli bias.
If it did, I and I would imagine a lot of people here would have to consider seriously what had gone wrong, because my personal views on Israel’s right to a peaceful existence are similar as Reith’s.
When I say ‘what had gone wrong’ above I mean what had gone wrong such that I could think and mean one thing, but the collective action of the Corporation was in contradiction to that.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
The link below is from the Guardian Talk forums.
The Israel/Palestinian debates give a clear idea of the views and the attitudes of those for and against.
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX/Guardian%20Talk/International/?14@177.rgvde9eoBIR@
Just read some of the more vitriolic anti-Israel rants and realise they come from the so called liberals.
I wonder how many of them work for the BBC.
David Gregory:
“John A: I think I said that both sides should be aware of the perils of cherry picking, and that obviously goes for those reporting and the state of science as well. But there seem to be plenty of what ifs and caveats in all those BBC reports as is proper.”
I think its just tedious to try to prise a BBC person from a supposed Olympian position that he does not occupy.
So I’ll try again.
Richard Black produced this statement as an excuse for why the BBC failed to report the Congressional Hearings into the Hockey Stick or the Wegman report thus:
“Nature’s refusal to publish a re-analysis by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) “hockey stick” graph has been so well documented elsewhere, not least in hearings instigated by US congressmen, that there is really nothing new to say.”
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm )
So what was the excuse for not reporting the Congressional Hearings or the Wegman Report? It was discussed elsewhere? Is that it?
No, David, its the typical response of a propagandist who fails to report key events that overturn his central thesis.
If it is the privilege of the BBC to comment on news items, it is the FUNDAMENTAL responsibility of the BBC to report that news and not simply cut out news items that it cannot rebut, or does not fit its preconceived notions of how the world should be run.
It’s not called cherry-picking. It’s called blatent and repeated partisan censorship.
As I pointed out on my blog, the sudden recent interest in climate skeptics was a form of black propaganda to make them look like isolated cranks before the IPCC produced their latest slew of lurid soundbites that the world was about to end. Richard Black was unable to substantiate any of the claims made about climate skepticism so he resorted to smear by association.
I notice that in no report of the BBC so far has any analysis of what a 25, 50, 75 or 90% cut in “greenhouse emissions” would mean for people in the 1st world still less what it would do to the 3rd.
There has been no taking to task of the bizarro cranks writing in “The Green Room” calling for large cuts in the world population but never saying exactly how this would take place other than by Chinese style coercion, or even fantasizing about the world without human beings in it at all, all being done with what we older ones recognize as warmed-up Marxist economic theory.
There has been no discussion of what the Brown proposals on greenhouse emissions would mean to the UK’s long term prosperity, nor the fact that if we went back to the Stone Age right now, it would take 13 months of Chinese growth of emissions to replace the carbon dioxide we would have produced anyway.
There is no discussion of the environmental catastrophes that have occurred consistently in countries which have command or highly authoritatian economies.
There is no mention of the fact that although the Arctic has reported a large summer melt, over in Antarctica the major ice sheets are growing and the sea ice extent was the greatest since satellite measurements began in 1978.
There is no discussion of why it is that academics speaking well outside the narrow range of their own expertise can fulminate on world politics, economics and social policy without any reply or rebuttal from political scientists, economists, mathematicians and social historians ie, the people with the correct expertise.
In my view the BBC’s output is slanted to the point where its no longer funny to keep being forced to pay for this.
Hey ho, another Farming Today, another free ride for the vegan commedian in charge of defra. Difficult to see why he thinks farmers should foot the bill for animal health when its a government lab spreading foot and mouth and badgers are free to romp round the south west spreading TB unchecked.
How about putting an angry peasant up to ask the questions for a change ?
Mildly related to the beeboid fixed position on climate change :
I was out on saturday with the dog for about 4 hours. Didn’t see another soul and shot a nice fat Roe doe.
Zero food miles, minute carbon footprint, freedom food par excelance and enough meat to feed my family and the old widow next door for a week.
My forbears have lived this way for the odd millenia or two and if I was a Sami or from the rain forest, the beeboids would probably think it was wonderful. Here, all I’m likely to get is a couple of lines of condescending codd Mumersetshire as the token unreconstructed local in the archers.
Why is this the beeboid default position, why can’t they allow a non urban viewpoint to ever get an airing ?
IPCC-AR4 agreed that AGW (whatever that is) was probable at a minimum confidence of 90%. Some have reported that the Committee agreed on an even higher confidence level (between 95% and 99%), but that political pressure from big, future emitters, like China, forced them to adopt a lower number.
This is very revealing! So the significance level may have been changed by a factor of 10 (from 0.01 to 0.1). The mere fact that political pressure could alter the result of a computation of such major scientific import, and by so much, suggests that plenty of hand waving, subjective assumptions and “slack” parameters must have entered into the computations. After all, solid scientific and mathematical claims are not so easily subject to such political manipulation which would easily be detected. Thus, in reality, we can have no confidence even in the confidence interval.
Don’t forget that the Earth produces heat itself from the core. Is that factored in to the overall output of heat back into space? There’s not a lot we can do about that!
Dear john A,
Well said and well done! Although I dont expect the BBC ‘narrative deniers’ will reply to your post and I think they will make use of that well known mechanism, the AQA(awkward question avoidance)system if they do?