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.
Work Unit Martin,
You know the Marxist creed:-
“From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs”
You have been designated as “from” and the liberal left have designated themselves as “to”.
If you only recognised the new feudalism,you would e far happier and productive.
“Give unto Gaia that which is Gaia’s and give unto Gregory that which is Gregory’s”.
Surely you have your own Euro Region Greggers,the BBC needs to get up to date.
Peter UK: Our regions are defined by our transmitters .
Newsnight told a small story over a big one
Charles Moore in The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/15/do1501.xml
Lurker In a Burqua:
“The researchers that Policy Exchange used to find the extreme literature were all Muslims – no one else could pass unnoticed in a potentially hostile environment.
Because their safety was and is threatened, the think-tank protects their anonymity. On air, Newsnight revealed where some of them were.
Yesterday an Islamist website repeated this and called for supporters to help hunt them down. The BBC has unintentionally exposed them to the risk of harm.
What these brave Muslims undeniably found was evidence of widespread, obnoxious material that is a risk to decent Muslims and to British social order.
The BBC chose, in effect, to side with their extreme opponents and to cover up the report, because of an obsession about a few pieces of paper.”
See, that?
“The BBC chose, in effect, to side with their extreme opponents and to cover up the report”
On and on it goes.
And yet still Reith, Gregory and all the BBC minions at Broadcasting Mosque bury their lefty heads in the sand so they can continue to collect their wages – extracted by force and fear from the over-worked under-paid un-represented masses.
Everyone who works at the Beeb and tows this pro Islamic line has blood on their hands.
If only there was more that could be done to bring the BBC quicker to the karmic fate it deserves.
Browsing the wikipedia entry for Al Beeb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbc
I notice the “Criticism” section at the end of the article is as mis-informed as it is out-dated.
I know how much BBC time is invested into polluting enteries in Wikipedia, but isn’t about time some of us here contributed to this section of wikipedia?
Would at least be interesting to see how long ammendments remain before BBC proxies start crawling all over it.
SJ | 14.12.07 – 8:47 am
Yes, one of the favourite tactics of the pro-Arab crowd is invert the story of David and Goliath to make it work against the Jews. The BBC has gleefully adopted this tactic:
The Qassams mostly needle the Israelis, like pinpricks in the ankles of a giant, taunting him to stamp back with his big, US-issue army boots.
The Katyushas are like poisoned arrows. They drive him mad.
The giant is kicking out, then landing punch after punch on long-suffering Lebanon.
That’s the alleged journalist, Nick Thorpe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/5181628.stm
John Reith is a little smoother in his anti-Israel propaganda. Your quote is a fine illustration of Reith’s bias by omission of facts – so typical of the BBC:
They certainly did not find the BBC was biased against Israel. In fact, they made recommendations to secure a fairer hearing for the Palestinians.
John Reith | 13.12.07 – 4:50 pm
In the same comment, Reith says, In October 2005 the BBC Governors commissioned the Independent Panel… Amazing that he sees no contradiction in an “independent” panel being commissioned by the very people it is meant to investigate.
However, there were sparks of sanity in the report, which Reith conveniently omits to mention. It found that the BBC “complaints” process was inadequate. And it acknowledged that the methodology to determine that the BBC was biased against the Palestinians was flawed in that it concentrated on the amount of time spent reporting on the Palestinian and Israeli sides respectively and not the content of the reports, e.g. more time spent on reporting Israeli deaths as opposed to Palestinian in the conflict.
However, the anti-Israel agenda of the panel prevailed and so they came to their ridiculous conclusion of pro-Israel bias on the part of the BBC. This gave Bowen and Nick Torpe and company the cover they needed to redouble their efforts to trash the Jewish state. It culminated in the radically anti-Israel coverage of the war.
Can the BBC beat that? Let’s hope not.
The telegraph item is excellent and really demonstrates the incompetence of BBC news gathering (Wood and trees confused) and its extreme partiality. An old complaint I know but if brave “undercover” BBC journos found the BNP issuing anti-semitic literature would the focus of the Newsnight story be on the authenticity of the receipts for the purchase of this material submitted with expenses claims? I think not.
The agenda of the BBC was (and is) clearly and deliberately to discredit a ‘right of centre think tank’ and to undermine any serious investigation of the madness in our Mosques. Plod is no better – the “Undercover Mosque” disgrace claerly shows that the leftist agenda is to ignore the issue and to actively suppress those who dare to suggest that we might have a problem.
It is about time the BBC got around to mucking out its’ intellectual augean stables and try to report the news rather than interpreting”issues” for me – I can work out the “issues” for myself.
I am getting really sick of the shameless and blatant bias of the BBC. It has a position and narrative for every “issue” from MMCC through to debating if I should be allowed to have salt on my boiled egg this morning.
Drivers to stage petrol protests
——————————–
The first revision of the BBC report seemed reasonably well written. I guess the night-shift have gone home, as it now contains a new section on you guessed it, green solutions and climate change. Why was this inserted into a news report about fuel price protests? Also note the removal of current fuel prices and how they relate to the rest of Europe. Why was this removed? Finally, there is criticism at the end of the night-shift version about the cost of public transport. Strange that it was also removed by whoever added the green solutions section, eh. I wonder if they used public transport getting to work…
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/84795/diff/0/1
Looks like the Conservatives are thinking about the delightful Al-Beeb!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3054253.ece
PeterUK:
Surely you have your own Euro Region Greggers,the BBC needs to get up to date.
PeterUK | Homepage | 15.12.07 – 1:15 am | #
As was pointed out once before, the “Euro regions” appear to be exactly he same as the “Economic Planning Regions” set up by the British Government in the early 1960s – and which thus long predate our entry into the Common Market/EC/EU. Their boundaries are generally traditional county boundaries.
But as DG points out the BBC follows neither “Euro” nor UK governemt boundaries.
Toady prog : ..those horrible Tories are saying there should be an alternative to the bbc. And moving swiftly on to something really important, we’ll go to our correspondent in India and spend five minutes talking about an Indian child’s deformities.
Did anyone catch the BBC News Saturday morning interview about the Bali CO2 conference? It had George ‘Guardianista’ Monbiot in the studio alongside an American guy. George spouted his usual nonsense, but then we all knew he would. The American guy actually talked quite a lot of sense, and correctly in my view, said the US’ position is not that it doesn’t want to contribute to reducing the threat of climate change, but it actually wants to do it in a different way to the EU – i.e. by developing new cheap clean technologies rather than hurt economic growth and our standard of living by cutting emissions, like the EU want – but not curbing India’s or China’s emissions… Which is completely nonsensical to me, but then the EU/UN is largely one large socialist organisation.
Anyway, my real issue with this peice is the way Mr Turnball (Beeboid presenter of news and chief autocue reader) tried to shout the American guy down when he tried to discuss a letter written and signed by over 100 eminant scientists questioning the IPCC’s stance (that catastrophic climate change was on its way) and that the science wasn’t settled. As far as Mr Turnball was concerned, this was herecy, and quickly shouted him down along with Muppet (sorry Monbiot) saying “no, no, no”. Where was the balance BBC?! Aren’t we allowed to hear two sides of the argument? As Turnball was shouting him down, the cute bit of stuff (I forget her name, but nice to look at) had to cut in with a forced question which was complete nonsense to change the subject.
A perfect example of the BBC’s complete lack of balance when it comes to discussing climate change.
David Gregory, you’re very good and patient to respond to us all, so I hesitate to take you to task again. However, I simply don’t buy this line: “I see my job as sticking to the science and reporting that.”
Surely your job – and by extension that of the other science correspondents – is to report on scientific stories, rather than simply ‘the science’. You are, after all, a journalist rather than an academic. For instance, I remember you agonising a while back about whether to report the views of park rangers who suspected climate change was affecting the breeding season for deer or some such. This clearly wasn’t science, but it was interesting, relevant to your beat and, I would have thought, newsworthy.
By extension, to suggest that the BBC’s failure on a national level to report the publicly stated views of a group of top scientists on an issue of worldwide importance is down to the fact that they are stated in a letter rather than a scientific paper seems ludicrous. The BBC is a national news organisation, not a scientific journal. As journalists the decision to cover a story involves simply asking ‘Is it news’. They can explain whether it’s science or not in the report.
The BBC and its hatred of good news from Iraq.
Iraqi oil exceeds pre-war output
“Iraqi oil production is above the levels seen before the US-led invasion of the country in 2003, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7144774.stm
A good news story, and as the article points out, this is due in no small part to “…the improving security situation in Iraq, especially in the north of the country.”
Have a read of the story, it is quite a decent round up of the oil production situation, except for a couple of paragraphs (5 & 6) that just have nothing to do with the story at all:
“In southern Iraq, more than 85% of the residents of Basra believe British troops have had a negative effect on the Iraqi province since 2003, according to a BBC poll.
The survey for BBC Newsnight of nearly 1,000 people also suggests that 56% believe their presence has increased the overall level of militia violence. ”
I thought they looked a bit strange and out of place, almost as though someone had read the original story and decided it was much too up beat for a story on Iraq. So I checked News Sniffer, and indeed, the two paragraphs had been inserted between revision 3 and revision 4
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/84669/diff/3/4
I really despair of the BBC now, they have to insert their agenda into every story. They just can’t report the straight facts, which version 3 seemed to do quite well. No, a grubby editor has to get his/her BBC agenda in, no matter if the additional text has any relation to the story at all.
I’ve always found the newssniffer site to very interesting in giving a slightly wider picture of the various revisions.
If you look at the list of bbc only revisions, you’ll see that the majority (but to be fair, not ALL) of the stories with the most revisions are either “climate change”, Iraq or Afghanistan related. Other stories outside of these categories get the revision treatment less often.
I’m not too sure what this indicates. Maybe that there is some kind of ideological struggle going on in the Beeb news gulag?
If so, all is not yet lost for freedom of thought & ideas.
An open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations by 99 scientists on the subject of climate change. The whole letter is worth reading; here are some excerpts:
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
This is a key point. The IPCC Summaries are universally viewed as authoritative in the press, but they are political, not scientific, documents. More:
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
* Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
* The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
* Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The letter’s signatories include some of the world’s most eminent scientists, like mathematician/ physicist Freeman Dyson.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
via:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019284.php
Dr Gregory: comment please. Thanks.
IM most humble O
The BBC not content to set an agenda that controls every aspect of your personal life ie your personal relationship with your wife children employer etc ect ect ect.
Wants to control and manage OUR WHOLE PLANET.
Man is clever, relative to a monkey, but not that clever or powerful. He is also not at all numerous. Any other creature spread so thinly about the world in such tiny numbers should be classified as an endangered species already.
The Europeans white version of the human species is already endangered of as good as dieing out in certain places within 100 years. If the black race in Africa carries on dieing of aids at its current rate it will almost cease to be, well before 100 years.
But our ruling elites ideology propagated by the BBC, dictates that ordinary mankind is now surplus to requirements and now must either be relegated to no more then museum pieces or eradicated almost entirely.
Thus comes the theory of MMGW, propagated in our schools and colleges for generations. Not of course caused by our ruling elites, who are perfect in every way, like Al Gore and the BBC, but by us the ordinary people. Who to them are just now getting in the way of their limos and over crowding what they see as THEIR inheritance.
Shame on the BBC for going along with all this NAZI type PROPAGANDA as if it is the most important thing currently affecting the future of mankind. It is, but for completely the opposite reasons the BBC so dangerously and dishonestly often claim.
THE ONLY people that propagate MMGW, are people who are the ruling elite, people that think they should be a ruling elite, or people with no mind of their own left to think with.
David Gregory is clearly someone who is all 3 at the same time.
David Gregory: “Watcher: Fair enough. (And thanks for your kind comments) I’ll try and find something. You don’t live in the patch do you I could have you on!”
Thank you David. A soon as I move from Yorkshire to your transmitter region I will be sure to tune in to check you are offering a fair and balanced view. As we discussed 🙂
nice piece from john redwood,sorry if
old.
The good news is the conference is now over. Once the jet fuel has been burned to get these delegates home for Christmas, we will not have to watch or listen to more BBC people complaining of how late they are working, and telling us that the US is the only country out to wreck the planet. The truth is that if carbon does wreck the planet we are all doing it, not least all those BBC journalists burning the oil in the early hours to send us their distorted portrait of what is going on. The truth is that nothing important has happened at Bali. It will all look very different when they do it all again with a different US President. The so-called deal on technology sharing, presented as a victory, is just a few words on a piece of paper. The reality is different, as most of the technology is owned by private sector companies who will need incentives to share it.
read it all…
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2007/12/15/bali-nonsense-the-bbc-just-loves-eu-spin/
“Because their safety was and is threatened, the think-tank protects their anonymity. On air, Newsnight revealed where some of them were.
Yesterday an Islamist website repeated this and called for supporters to help hunt them down. The BBC has unintentionally exposed them to the risk of harm.”
What is this word “unintentionally” ?
Perhaps those endangered should seek legal advice,about time the BBC got its collar felt again.
“The BBC has unintentionally exposed them to the risk of harm”
Maybe, maybe not – but they certainly won’t do any undercover work against Islamic nutters (or anybody else following the religion of peace) in the future: that, I suspect, was the intention.
Apparently, the BBC seems to think collectively, in their scientific wisdom, that the most urgent problem in Bali is some alleged man-made climate change, and that the main problem is NOT something like this:
” Bali bombing 2005 ”
http://www.agit8.org/2005/10/10/bali-bombing-2005/
Perhaps one or two of the BBC reporters in Indonesia could have pursued an issue like this:
” Preachers to the converted ”
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286811
dave t:
An open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations by 99 scientists on the subject of climate change
…
Dr Gregory: comment please. Thanks.
dave t | 15.12.07 – 12:00 pm |
Not just Dr Gregory, BBC comment/story please. No surprise, the letter is not mentioned on the BBC web site. 99 eminent scientists, quoting peer reviewed science, but the BBC just ignores it. Doesn’t fit the agenda so it doesn’t get a mention. This is just the type of behaviour many of the posts on this thread have been complaining about.
The BBC has turned into an agenda driven pressure group, rather than an impartial news organisation.
I’m sorry David Gregory (BBC) but your answers on the question of the Wegman Report on the Hockey Stick are like the rest of the BBC’s output on climate science – trite, historically inaccurate and misleading.
To whit:
“Arthur Dent: Fair enough, but if I remember the Wegman report was not born of science but of politics. Wegman is a statistician, he was asked to look at the “hockeystick” graph from that point of view by some politicians.”
Rubbish. Wegman was specifically asked to look at the statistical provenance of the Hockey Stick and related constructions of past climate. And just in case David Gregory is positioning the Wegman Report as a political snow-job let me point out the following:
1. The NAS Panel convened under Gerald North (which the BBC did report on) was also convened under the auspices of questions and authorisation from the Republican chairman of a Congressional Committee.
2. Under oath, Wegman testified that he had never met Joe Barton or any other member of his Committee, had taken no money from Congress or anyone else to do the work, and at the 2000 presidential election had voted for Al Gore.
So there is nothing there to suggest political intent. The Wegman Report was about the underlying science, in particular the peculiar statistical methods pioneered by Mann, Bradley & Hughes (MBH) used to produce the Hockey Sticks for the Northern Hemisphere (1998 ) and the globe (1999) which was used heavily and extensively in the IPCC TAR.
“Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not the traditional way science works. And I still find his assertion that the science is flawed because paleoclimatologists know each other, well that’s just… odd. (Mind you he makes some very good points generally about statistics and a lack of interdisiplinarianism)”
The point that David Gregory (BBC) is making is superficial and misleading. What the Wegman team did, after exposing that that the Mann methodology was inexcuseably flawed was attempt to show why other subsequent reports which appeared to back the Hockey Stick were derived from a closed set of people who worked with each other and that the independence of peer review may well have been undermined by intellectual incestuousness and concomitant statistical naivety
“Honest truth? If I could have done the story, been up on Capitol Hill for the hearing, I would have done. But I think I’d have had to say something about the sort of talismanic obsession this graph has become.”
But David Gregory (BBC), if you did that then you’d have to inquire why Al Gore in his recklessly flawed documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” used the Mann Hockey Stick (overlaid rather badly with the urban-heat contaminated surface record) to reconstruct past temperatures.
See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2328 and especially http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2335
But the real reason for the talismanic use of the Hockey Stick was that it alone appeared to show that carbon dioxide rise led temperature rise, something that Gore referred to in his film and book:
“These global-warming skeptics – a group diminishing almost as rapidly as the mountain glaciers – launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1000 year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as the “hockey stick”, a graphic image representing the research of climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.”
But Al Gore was either misled as to the provenance of his reconstruction or deliberately lied about it, because the ice core record of “Dr Thompson” is not shown – its the Hockey Stick in disguise. You’d think that someone would have told him, like James Hansen who was the scientific advisor on the film – or maybe it was deliberate.
One of my little hobbies has been noting the strange persistance of the Hockey Stick well after the HS method has been shown to be wrong – its in James Lovelock’s schlockhorror book “The Revenge of Gaia” http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1237 as well as “The Rough Guide to Global Warming”, both published last year. It’s also been used by Lloyds of London http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1533 as evidence for future climate horror and as a justification for steep rises in insurance rates in the future.
We might get David Gregory (BBC) to apply his physics background to look at these things, but who knows where that might lead?
On this main BBC news page announcing the triumph in Bali (well the hotels made a fortune) there is not one lead on the side-bar to a site of a sceptical disposition. Greenpeace (who were dissatisfied with the outcome at Bali ie no AGW sceptics were hanged after the signing) can be accessed direct but not, unsurprisingly, Steve McIntyre
“Greenpeace (who were dissatisfied with the outcome at Bali ie no AGW sceptics were hanged after the signing) can be accessed direct”
insert the words…thanks to their funding by the European Union which means they can afford to fly to Bali as well as run websites and all the other things GOVERNMENTS do. Then again with the BBC being the broadcasting wing of the Labour Party….
Will someone please tell me when this “global warming” stuff is going to kick in? I’ve had to scrape ice off of my car windshield every morning for the past five days. Mind you I live in California, and not in the mountains or foothills either. We Californians don’t really like scraping ice off our windshields, to put it mildly.
“Wegman is a statistician, he was asked to look at the “hockeystick” graph from that point of view by some politicians.”
The whole farrago is statistics,simply the extrapolation of data by a computer model.
Considering the enormous and far reaching policies that are going to be based on a computer programme,is it not essential to investigate the possibility that this not another Year 2K debacle?
Reason Fights Back
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/402201/reason-fights-back.thtml
“It is only a matter of time before a new ‘consensus’ develops that that man-made global warming is a scam of the first magnitude.”
Not if the BBC continue to have their way it won’t.
Danger of mouth cancer from mobile phones
Heavy users at risk.
And now over to our studio in Birmingham.
….where Dr. David Gregory denies there is a link between cellphone use and cancer.
Bryan,
It is the science,it just isn’t there,he’s looked.
Thought this might be headline news or at least a story but not at the BBC website
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1297180,00.html
The Beeb celebrates 20 years of its favourite Palestinian terrorists:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7145718.stm
Ah. Bless.
thanks to their funding by the European Union
Fair do’s Greenpeace has refused to accept money from the NGO support fund to maintain their independence
Gaza crowds mark Hamas’s founding
A huge banner hung from a building near the scene of Saturday’s rally read: “We will not recognise Israel.”
Except the editor kindly illustrated the article with a photograph of said banner.
http://bayimg.com/OaIGBaAbD
It says, “We will not recognize what so-called Israel”.
It could be a subtle difference, not even recognising the name. If so, it’s not the worst bit of BBC reporting, I suppose. Just sloppy and lazy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/15/do1501.xml
Newsnight told a small story over a big one
SUSAN: Funnily enough on BBC News 24 some climate change pleb was being interviewed and claimed that the cold temperatures were a result of climate change! and that we must expect this as climate change does not just mean global warming!!! I kid you not (nice to see the loser lefties hedging their bets)
The same leftie then claimed that America would only take notice when a major storm hit them. He seemed really upset that thousands of Americans had not died in the recent hurricane season which of course was far less active than previous years.
Perhaps the climate change losers are getting worried that their scam might have been sussed?
How to kill the BBC.
From a Telegraph reader.
Stop complaining about the BBC and take action. Destroy the nest of vipers by disposing of your televison receiver at the local council household waste site and then cancelling your television licence (in that order – unless you want to be caught by the BBC’s gestapo and add to the Government’s ‘crime detected’ figures). Go on everybody, do it. The Government will be brought to its knees in a matter of days as the electronics industry and commercial broadcasters demand an end to the licence fee. Then you, the consumer, demand manufacturers sell televisions incapable of receiving BBC broadcasts and demand the Communications Act 2003 be ammended so that these do not require a licence. Then we can all buy these new, unlicensed, televisions and watch only commercial broadcasts while the BBC ceases to exist. Do it quickly people before this Government introduces its television disposal licence fee.
Posted by N. O. Moretele on December 15, 2007 3:15 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316750,00.html
Err, it MIGHT be that there is a volcano and molten lava causing the icecaps in the North Pole to melt rather than just so called global warming….. Fox reports, WE decide. The BBC ignore anything that might undermine their precious little climate change business….
Still waiting for BBC experts to comment on the letter sent to the UN SecGen….
Will Al Gore Make Peace With Reality?
“Accepting his share of the Nobel Peace prize this week, Al Gore said that “. . . we have begun to wage war on the Earth itself. It is time to make peace with the planet.”
A new study published this week, however, provides more evidence that Mr. Gore is, in fact, at war with reality and that he would do well to make peace with the science.
Climate scientists reported in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology, published by Britain’s Royal Meteorological Society, that observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316749,00.html
OK that is three stories in one day that give me pause to consider that the BBC and others ARE telling porkies or omitting the other side of the argument yet again….. surely to the Good Lord in the interests of balance they should be reporting these sort of stories as well? Oh wait.
dave t,
Pity it isn’t in the Midlands,we could have had a first hand report.
BBC educational background.
Many things has been said about BBC left bias.
But I believe there exists another source of their untrustworthiness.
The educational background of many of BBC staff is liberal arts, humanities, etc.
Most other broadcasters have experts with background in everything ranging from decorated military service (i.e. retired generals on CNN, FOX, ABC, MSNBC, etc) to physicians (Sanjay Gupta of CNN).
Their reporting is simply much more intelligent than the latest-hype-of-the-left rantings of the poorly educated fools at BBC.
Here’s a complaint letter I sent to the online service to which I’ve yet to receive a response. David Gregory–any thoughts?
Regarding the report on “Difficult to Start Mid-East Talks”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7139808.stm ”
“Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have held their first formal session of peace talks since 2000, but reports say it was dominated by recriminations.”
An article of outrageous bias: Out of the gate the article contains nine paragraphs detailing Palestinian grievances on a single issue of settlement expansion. Then, buried deep in the article are two 2-line paragraphs voicing Israel’s complaints of fifteen rockets fired at civilian areas—Nine paragraphs for a non-life-threatening issue versus two for an issue which could easily have resulted in, and was intended to result in, civilian deaths. As if that imbalance is not enough, the BBC goes on to implicitly justify the rocket attacks on Israel by stating that they followed an incursion into Gaza by Israel in which six militants were killed. More imbalance. If you’re going to say that, why not give context that the incursion in Gaza was in reaction to earlier incessant rocket-firing into Israel intended to kill civilians? How is it balanced to sandwich a single Israeli concern of four lines between 2 items and ten paragraphs in which Palestinians are portrayed as the victims? Many other papers I read gave both concerns equal weight. Not the BBC. Impartiality? Please. This is a perfect example of the BBC violating its own mandate of impartiality. Please change the article to reflect a balanced reporting of events.
Skip:
Write back and tell them that you are an offended muslim.
Your complaint will probably get it’s own Panorama special for that.
“dave t:
Will Al Gore Make Peace With Reality?”
Shame that the report was part authored by S. Fred Singer though. Unfortunately it is widely regarded that agw climate sceptics have a bias whereas agw climate believers don’t. This is how the BBC see it as well.
Interesting article by Peter Hitchens in the Mail today. Funny that the BBC seem keen to get an opposing view for the future death of the Queen but seem unwilling to give ANY airtime to the opposing view on climate Change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=502506&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=224&in_check=N
Skip | 16.12.07 – 6:13 am,
Good luck with that. “Impartial” BBC, right, impeccably.
deegee | 15.12.07 – 11:42 pm
I was wondering why Israel is no longer “the Zionist entity.”