, has submitted comments to the BBC in response to their current, doubtless passing, interest of sorts, in the arguments against reducing Western Civilization to subsistence farming as a means to avoid the fiery fate predicted by legions of global warming doom mongers.
Just in case his comments, for some predictable reason, don’t make it past the BBC’s censors, he’s posted them on his blog, BBC Black Propaganda #1 and BBC Black Propaganda #2 – interesting rebuttals worth a read.
Update (4pm): Coming up on 24 hours ago I submitted a comment in response to Steve Herrman, Editor of the BBC News website, and his post on the BBC Editors Blog, Climate Sceptics, yesterday. Lots of comments have appeared since then, but for some strange reason, mine, a perfectly reasonable, germane and on-topic comment, hasn’t. This is what I said:
Jeremy Paxman summed up the BBC approach quite succinctly:
“People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”,
Jeremy Paxman, Media Guardian, January 31st, 2007.
Scary stuff indeed! Perhaps Mr. Herrman or one of his minions would care to explain why this comment isn’t fit for publication on the BBC Editors Blog.
Black’s articles should be under the Politics, not the Environment section.
The BBC news last night: 3 minutes on the evil carrier bag industry.
Funny how they never mention that the move to DAB and digital TV, championed by the BBC, substantial increases power consumption in digital households.
Hypocrites
The Editor of the BBC Editors Blog has asked me to inform you that the reason your comment was not published was because it was never recieved.
This could either be because it wasn’t sent in the first place, or more likely because the BBC blogs have been experiencing technical difficulties over the past few days.
Yes Nick, that old chesnut.
or more likely because the BBC blogs have been experiencing technical difficulties over the past few days.
These “technical difficulties” do seem to crop up within al-Beeb’s IT infrastructure with amazing frequency. Methinks al-Beeb must be as incompetent at IT as they are at producing impartial news.
Where is the much advertised “radical impartiality” of the BBC when it comes to “global warming? Given that the BBC has become the Taliban’s broadcaster, why not with the climate sceptics who are competent scientists?
It’s difficult to read the Beeb’s climate output without coming to the conclusion that stories are included or excluded according to whether they conform to a particular narrative or not.
So therefore its disturbing to see Richard Black glibly say:
“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.”
So is this what the BBC is all about? If an event is covered elsewhere then the BBC feels no need to even report it?
What am I paying for?
Top story on all BBC news outlets today
Sceptics’ views – zero
Link to sceptical information from the BBC website news page – zero
Still, a nice trip to Bali in prospect
Is there ANYWHERE in the world they could have gone to that would have created greater environmental damage?
Antarctica?
Have they not hear of VTC?
I wonder if anyone has calculated the total mileage travelled by air to get all the delegates to Bali, of all places. If the conference had been held in say London or New York I suspect travel distances would have been reduced.
In addition how many media teams do you think will be in Bali, perhaps Mr Reith would spill the beans about the number of BBC staff planning to attend this meeting, their aggregate carbon footprint and what plans were discussed to minimise it, if anything?
Surely serious discussions must have been held, as the BBC is one of the most vociferous pubblicists for the catastrophe theory of AGW.
Like a bad science fiction movie: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2930589,00.html
“Proof of humans’ impact on warming the earth’s atmosphere is unequivocal, and the world faces a moral obligation to fight climate change, according to the final report by the United Nations’ leading climate council.
The worst-case scenario envisaged by the report was as terrifying as created in doomsday films, said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
“These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie,” he said. “But they are even more terrifying, because they are real.””
Real, like a computer model?
Like a runaway gravy train, there’s no way to stop this one from crushing all people who stand in the way, until it hits the buffers of reality.
Then we will have chaos as people decide that science is a faith proposition like all other religions, and like all other religious propositions can be disregarded if one wishes.
Arthur Dent:
“perhaps Mr Reith would spill the beans about the number of BBC staff planning to attend this meeting, their aggregate carbon footprint and what plans were discussed to minimise it, if anything?”
I think Al Beeb will just stick their noses in the air at this. After all, it’s not THEIR carbon footprint they are preaching about. It’s OURS.
Just as it is OUR racism, our sexism, our capitalism, etc that they are attempting to save us from.
Reg: There is some discussion about carbon offset for flights taken by the BBC. But as I understand it at the moment it isn’t something we are going to spend lisence fees on.
Reg: There is some discussion about carbon offset for flights taken by the BBC. But as I understand it at the moment it isn’t something we are going to spend lisence fees on.
Without sounding fatuous David, what are the BBC not going to spend telly tax on? Taking flights or talking about it? It’s hard to tell what with BBC excess and middle management being the way it is.
Even if they don’t spend OUR money doing the very thing they are telling US not to do, it makes it none the more acceptable, don’t you think?
I don’t buy for a second that the BBC have technical difficulties with their website.
I happen to work with a bunch of websites which receive user generated comments every minute of every day (not I dare say anywhere near that of the BBC, but we are talking very simple text > database systems here, if the end user sees a screen that tells them the comment was received, then the comment was received. End of.
To claim you don’t get them when your system shows that it’s submission was successful is a blatant lie;
No surprise the BBC considered carbon offsetting.
Carbon offsets = papal indulgences. And about as effective, too.
Mind you… the blatant corruption involved in dealing papal indulgences led to the church being sidelined in the business of government. We can but hope!
Incidentally, I wonder when the BBC will tell us about Mr Gore’s involvement in the carbon offsetting business?
Hi Nick. My comment was definitely sent – there’s no doubt about that.
Here’s what happened, from a user perspective: I tried to preview my comment twice – with it failing each time after a period of thinking time, ending up on a blank page – clearly a busy server or database on the other end.
I then went to the post office, and, when I got back some time later, submitted my comment, getting a confirmation screen saying my comment had been received and was now subject to approval by the author – a screen that leaves no room for doubt!
Like Shug N., I have some familiarity with the workings of these things, and must say it’s a pretty lame system that gives out a confirmation message before it has safely stored the very thing it is confirming receipt of.
Thank you though for checking it out and passing on the comments of Steve Herrman.
There is some discussion about carbon offset for flights taken by the BBC
Puleese, the BBC is surely not promoting carbon offset,for this. As any fule know offset is only acceptable to deal with irreducible emissions. The easiest way for the BBC to reduce its carbon footprint for the Bali conference is simply to send less people, not to try to offset the whole bloated gravy train.
If the organisation was efficient and cared about climate change it would be looking to minimise, its staff presence at Bali. Not to eliminate it, I agree that it’s an important and newsworthy meeting, but what attempt has been made to do this. I suspect nothing at all, but perhaps one of our resident BBC employees could demonstrate that this is wrong.
Andrew,
Much the most likely reason is that a Beeboid at the other end simply deleted it as an anti-BBC comment, with a single keystroke.
“woodentop:
No surprise the BBC considered carbon offsetting.”
Of course it isn’t, with the climate being so high on the agenda with most big corporations this was always going to have to be considered (for example, sky is ‘carbon neutral’). As far as I’m aware, the conclusion drawn was that offsetting doesn’t alter behaviour and is based on some pretty disputed data.
I’m sure you’ve already made up your mind, but there you go..
Ben, the argument should not be about something as crude and simplistic as ‘to offset’ or ‘not to offset’ the BBC as a rue believer in the AGW theory should be hell bent on minimising its current carbon footprint. If it isn’t tehn it is being hypocritical – do what I say not do what I do.
I see absolutely no evidence that the BBC is even looking at minimising its footprint. A simple and easily demonstrable way of doing so would be to reduce the number of reporters and other support staff on the ground at events such as the UNFCCC event in Bali to the minimum needed to report the proceedings adequately.
This would of course mean syndicating across the various BBC media outlets but for an organisation supposedly strapped for cash and wearing its climate change badge on its sleeve one might have thought some attempt at rational behaviour might be forthcoming.
Indeed most companies that I know are following this course of action which benefits the planet and saves on costs unless they are merely interested in the PR spin that can be derived by buying often dubious offset products so that they can fraudulently clain to be ‘carbon neutral’
Hi Arthur. I’m well aware that it’s not simply a case of offsetting versus not offsetting. I should have added that there is a policy of reducing the carbon footprint (and costs) of the BBC through the reduction in the use of transport. The amount of energy being wasted in buildings and production is also being cut. With regards to the numbers of support staff and reporters, I’m sure this does make up a massive proportion of emissions, but this is being addressed. One of the reasons for the cuts in news was because of the madness in having so many staff cover the same stories, which obviously doesn’t make sense (and we’ll see a change in this over the next couple of years).
Please don’t lump everyone in together and generalise too much about the BBC workforce. Contrary to popular B-BBC belief, there’s actually quite a broad range of opinion within.
This one isn’t about BBC Bias – its just about the mindset of those people who are priveleged enough to write articles on the BBC Website
http://things.auditblogs.com/2007/11/18/distorting-history-for-entertainment/
Oh and Ben:
“Contrary to popular B-BBC belief, there’s actually quite a broad range of opinion within.”
We must have a different concept of how “broad” that “range” actually is.
Ben, your answer was very interesting so I set out to find out exactly what commitments on greenhouse gas emissions have actually been made by the BBC. I find reading the latest Annual Report (2007)
In 2005 our emissions went up slightly. The reason for the rise was due to a change in electricity suppliers following a competitive procurement process where we tried to strike a balance between value for money and environmental considerations. We switched from one supplying renewable electricity to one providing low carbon electricity from CHP plant (Combined Heat and Power).
So in fact rather than improving emissions those from energy rose as a result of a planned decision within the corporation.
There is a ststement that As part of our environmental strategy review, due for completion later in 2007, we will set even tougher targets for reducing our carbon footprint. No details or even outlines as to how that might be being attempted.
Thus the only information available to the average license holder is an unverifiable statement that the BBC is trying to develop a strategy (very late compared to other major companies) together with a performance that is going in the opposite direction to what is expected.
It is not surprising for us to be somewhat cynical about the BBC attitude, especially when David Gregory suggests that the attitude to the BBC attendance at Bali might have been a passing thought that carbon offset might have been the answer.
The BBC has for several years been shouting, at every opportunity that ‘urgent action is absolutely necessary to combat climate change’ and castigating everyone in sight for not taking action. We now find that it is only just begining to develop a strategy to deal with its own emissions.
Andrew and others – if you would like an insight into the technical difficulties we have been having with our blogs then read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/robin_post_part_i_1.html
Disclaimer: the link is to a BBC blog that I am the editor of.
Nick Reynolds:
Technical difficulties are no explanation for the lefty selective moderation that goes on with your blogs and HYS Nick.
It’s human intervention, not technical error that’s responsible. Why do you insist on treating us like we have zips up the back of our heads?
“Then we will have chaos as people decide that science is a faith proposition like all other religions, and like all other religious propositions can be disregarded if one wishes.”
What you mean is that the biggest damage to scientific credibility [mainstream at least] would be when the AGW proponents are proven utterly wrong?
That if this is proven wrong science will suffer badly, because if this [AGW] is wrong, “what else did it [science] get wrong” will be asked?
I do not like the thought of that [damage to scientific credibility]…
It’s strange that “technical difficulties” always seem to happen on threads that deal with immigration or some atrocity committed by a member of the RoP.
Please don’t lump everyone in together and generalise too much about the BBC workforce. Contrary to popular B-BBC belief, there’s actually quite a broad range of opinion within.
Ben | 18.11.07 – 7:41 pm | #
🙂 They, or rather, most of the commentors will never ever believe this ben, there is far too much groupthink invested in it.
But then we would know all about that wouldn’t we 😉
Actually, I don’t find it hard to believe at all. I’ve got a couple of good friends at the BBC and neither could remotely be described as left-wing.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt in my mind that the BBC as an organisation adopts a default position which is left of centre because that’s the political bent of its (predominantly) youngish, city-based, university-educated, liberal employees.
I find it very telling that David Gregory, whose contributions are usually the most interesting of the BBC insiders who visit here, has a qualification relevant to the job he does and is (apologies David) neither young nor London-based.
In response to Arthur and – as luck would have it – Andrew (?), below is some more information on the BBC’s environmental policy.
As for the figures in 2005, I think it’s fair to say that environmental policy has risen up the agenda dramatically since then, for whatever reason.
“The BBC is committed to an environmental policy to minimise energy consumption; reduce harmful emissions, re-use, recover and reduce waste; use environmentally friendly transport and develop a corporate culture which takes green responsibilities seriously. We already use green ‘renewable’ electricity, covering 95 percent of UK operations. An ambitious energy efficiency programme will further reduce electricity consumption by at least 3 percent year on year over the next four to five years.
All new BBC buildings and refurbishments adhere to strict guidelines to minimise their environmental impact.
Contracts with London transport suppliers stipulate that 40 percent of their fleets use green/alternative fuel vehicles. We aim to increase this to 60 percent. Shuttle buses have reduced cab use and we have introduced a cab share scheme.”
Ben, your comment that We already use green ‘renewable’ electricity, covering 95 percent of UK operations doesn’t tie in with the statement in the 2007 BBC Annual Report noted earlier.
In 2005 our emissions went up slightly. The reason for the rise was due to a change in electricity suppliers following a competitive procurement process where we tried to strike a balance between value for money and environmental considerations. We switched from one supplying renewable electricity to one providing low carbon electricity from CHP plant (Combined Heat and Power).
I interpreted this statement, again in the most recent report, to imply that the BBC procurement depratment had moved back from ‘renewable’ energy to ‘low carbon’ on cost grounds.
Rob that’s quite an interesting comment. I am glad I wrote ‘most’.
The younger people you describe are not the people who set the ‘default position’, if such a thing exists. That would be ‘the Editors’ and the management, who even on Radio 1 or BBC 3 are rarely young ie under 35.
And yet if you talk to older, qualified Editors you get a sense of ‘they’, the invisible hand that interferes from on high.
But I think, hope, the Corporation is starting to wake up to the fact that maybe it should spend a bit less time worrying about what the PC ‘they’ think, and a bit more time worrying about what it’s mums and dads think.
There’s a podcast on the College of Journalism site of Evan Davies making exactly that kind of request to journalism management, people here would like it, if they could hear it…
Do provide a link then Sarah-Jane!
Andrew – I can’t it’s internal only, although it probably shouldn’t be IMO. I will do an transcript of the interesting bit at lunch. If I disappear, you know why 🙂
There is no “they” at the BBC there are only people.
In fact the BBC does spend a lot of time thinking about what “Mums and Dads” want – and indeed giving it to them (e.g. Radio 4, Radio 2, Jeremy Vine show, BBC ONE, Cranford, Top Gear). It’s just that the BBC never gets any credit for this on this blog.
It’s untrue that being young makes you somehow more PC. For example younger audiences are likely to be more pro capital punishment than the general population.
But I suspect that “Mums and Dads” are not as extreme in their views as biased bbc people, and may be more “liberal” in social attitudes than biased bbc people want them to be (e.g. tolerant of homosexuality and religious differences, against racism but worried about immigration)
See this comment;
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/6388600449232883387/#334166
Looks like I’m for it then 🙂
Biased-BBC people are generally as described hereafter:
“….tolerant of homosexuality and religious differences, against racism but worried about immigration.”
It certainly describes me but Nick Reynolds et al fail to recognise that one particular strand of ‘religious difference’ is not tolerant of me and even less tolerant of homosexuality. So would Nick Reynolds dare to describe islam as extreme or does he just describe me as extreme because he knows that I (nor any other ‘extreme’ biased-BBC-ers) won’t attempt to separate his head from his body?
” I find it very telling that David Gregory, whose contributions are usually the most interesting of the BBC insiders who visit here, has a qualification relevant to the job he does and is (apologies David) neither young nor London-based.
Rob Clark ”
I’m only 38! And I’ve worked in London too.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) | Homepage | 20.11.07 – 12:01 pm |
But I suspect that “Mums and Dads” are not as extreme in their views as biased bbc people, and may be more “liberal” in social attitudes than biased bbc people want them to be (e.g. tolerant of homosexuality and religious differences, against racism but worried about immigration)
That’s “liberal” as in Lib Dem? Yes, they are very ‘liberal’ where homosexuality is concerned aren’t they? That’s the ‘we don’t want one of them leading us’ type of ‘liberal’ is it? Then you may have a point.
If you are equating tolerance with ‘liberal’ then you couldn’t be more wrong. Not only are liberals less tolerant than most libertarians they can’t help themselves when it comes to prosletysing.
I think you’ll find most people on this board, with the possible exception of the occational foaming BNPer, are a damn sight more tolerant of people who don’t share their views and life styles than the BBC are.
Sarah-Jane, fair point on who sets the agenda (if there is one). What I want from the BBC is neutrality, as far as such a thing can be achieved • for example, even its most ardent admirers would, I think, be hard pressed to claim that the Labour and Conservative parties receive equal treatment.
Furthermore, the use of pejorative words and phrases and the tone of some of the reporting makes it clear, on occasion, which ‘side’ we should be on. This could easily be avoided if the will was there…
Nick, I can only extrapolate from my own personal experiences, but with 20+ years working in the media behind me I have no hesitation in saying that the vast majority of my colleagues have been to the left of my own views.
On the other hand, as the parent of two primary age children, I would say that most views espoused at the school gates are distinctly to the right of mine.
Obviously these are broad brushstrokes, but they are supported by the evidence that ‘rightish’ newspapers are about twice as popular as ‘leftish’ ones.
Large numbers of BBC staff tend to stay with the Corporation a long time (understandably as it is the pinnacle of journalism in many respects) and my personal belief is that some of them need to get out more and get a better feeling for what really concerns the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus • and equally what he doesn’t really give a stuff about.
David, I’m sorry to be the bearer of sad tidings, but 38 isn’t young in media land!
I know you have a PhD but even so I imagine you’ve been a working journo for around 10-12 years? That casts you as an old hand, I’m afraid.
The point I was trying to make about your location is that your current job brings you into contact with people who may have different interests and concerns than city-based young liberals.
Large numbers of BBC staff tend to stay with the Corporation a long time (understandably as it is the pinnacle of journalism in many respects) and my personal belief is that some of them need to get out more and get a better feeling for what really concerns the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus • and equally what he doesn’t really give a stuff about.
Rob Clark | 20.11.07 – 4:14 pm | #
I don’t have any truck with that. It may be the only thing that can save it.
Not being connected with receiving payment by consumer choice (but while consumers have a very real sense of having pay) is what IMO explains how commentators from all facets of the political spectrum can point to what in their mind are clear cases of ‘bias’.
That’s not to say there aren’t people here who dont care about audiences, the beeb is really trying hard to address the issue, but compulsion does create options that markets do not.
Arthur, sorry to be slow getting back. I’ve checked up and it is definitely low-carbon rather than renewable.