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.
Ryan
Just because a person is paranoid does not mean somebody is NOT trying to take over the world, or that they are on drugs.
Because someone, some organization, or some very powerful unaccountable group of political and corporate elites have virtually already taken over the world.
To my knowledge the BBC has never claimed that the twin towers were demolished by the American government.
Possibly because no one is quite sure who did. One things for certain it was NOT who we have been told it was. If you look into any of the evidence this absolute fact is obvious, to say the least.
The BBC however does not speculate. The best it does is follow the Mick Moore line, which is also deeply suspect.
There are powers in this world that not even American presidents can control. This has been the case since way before any of us were born.
You obviously have an internet connection. So instead of calling other people paranoid and drug addicts, look at the EVIDENCE yourself and then come to an informed opinion.
Any judge or lawyer would come to the same conclusion I have, in my opinion. Which is that the official line is basically complete bollocks.
The world does not run the way it does due to a series on uncontrollable cock-ups. It runs the way it does mainly because it is planned to run this way. This is not paranoia, it is a FACT of life and very often death as well. Most of the senior male members of my family were Free masons. So this is a FACT that I have been well aware of, since I was in short trousers.
If the world was really run by people like G Bush T Blair and G Brown.
Why do we have The TC The BG The UN The EU and The CFR? who are unelected and therefore accountable to no one, but a very small group of people that control them. That almost NO ordinary human beings have even heard of?
Alan | 04.01.08 – 2:38 pm |
The same journalists are not doing the reporting for both. And there is no passage of information, equipment etc.
They have to pay for material from BBC sources….on the same terms as anyone else.
JR
Iraq Body numbers
mea culpa! *strikes breast*
Well done Paul Reynolds for a reasonably balanced article which
doesn’t go as far as I would have preferred (says nothing about the extreme left wing links of Soros et al who sponsored the authors) BUT does cover most of the problems with it.
Therefore please have a virtual MacAllan on me! If, of course, you ever get up this way you can have a real one as the distillery is only 7 miles away!
Now if only we can get you to show that Al Gore is a lying low down lunatic….(note the use of alliteration there children…)
John Reith:
Andy | 04.01.08 – 2:03 pm
From my own observations coke turns people into raging assholes
We clearly move in very different social circles. I defer to your extensive experience of assholes…
John Reith | 04.01.08 – 2:12 pm | #
err.. but you work for the BBC
Now that it is confirmed that DJ Kevin Greening has died from a heart attack during a sex and drugs binge, will the BBC correct its original report about him having died “peacefully in his sleep”? Perhaps today’s JR could make him/herself useful and get things moving in Sleepy Hollow. Not in a judgmental manner, of course. Nobody wants the BBC to point out that lifestyles such as Greening’s are suicidal hedonism: the grown-ups are perfectly capable of making up their own minds from the facts.
On another matter, it appears that there are serious results-based challenges to the MMGW theory. Will the BBC offer any impartial report on these? Over to JR again.
John Reith and Ben,
BBC World may be a Ltd. concern, and with the various distribution and partner deals, doesn’t need to worry about anti-trust problems, but it is still beholden to the Charter, from Anne Barnard all the way down to you know who.
It is amazing – whenever I have close knowledge of the issues I am baffled by BBC’s approach.
I’ve lately been on several occasions to MIT Media Labs for work, and OLPC is known as prof. Negroponte’s ego trip, but BBC always finds a way to blame it on big bad corporations.
In fact OLPC XO is such a bad platform, that it is not even funny when compared with only slightly more costly Asus EEE.
Spot the differences:
http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9839806-37.html?tag=nefd.top
vs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7171201.stm
“LPC was always going to face an uphill battle when confronted with a mighty corporation like Intel”
— Rory Cellan-Jones, BBC technology correspondent.
Ah. The world is so simple…
Bad guys vs. the good guys…
I wonder if this BBC technology corespondent knows what the difference is between, say, a big endian and a little endian.
BTW, OLPC XO BoM now stands at $188 dollars, so Negroponte wants US geeks to buy 1 for price of 2, so he can proceed with delivering it to 3rd world countries. Otherwise the project would already be dead.
Meanwhile Asus EEE (with 10 times better technology) already goes for $300.
But “socially-aware” project will always have the edge over free economy for the BBC.
No matter that it was Intel scientists that really brought high power computing to the masses, that BBC ignoramuses are using to write on this blog.
In 1971, Intel released 4004 with
2,300 transistors, with 10 μm silicon-gate PMOS technology and could execute approximately 92,000 instructions per second.
Today, for the same price (in real terms) of the original 4004, you now have a dual and quad Penryn with 45 nm gate size, with 820 million transistors running at 3GHz.
So lets see. Over 36 years, Intel decreased transistor size by a factor of 222, increase the complexity of the transistor logic by a factor of
8000, and clock speed by a factor of
32000.
BBC technology correspondent seems to be simply unaware of this fact to the point of almost being a Luddite.
BBC can lie about Middle East, it can lie about climate change, but what – now they are against technological progress on the altar of a delusional social program, driven by a prof on an ego-trip that cannot stand competition?
Again, just proves my point that BBC is nowadays infested by snobbish ignoramuses that only understand what they think is the social aspect of things.
David Gregory (BBC):
“I can’t think of any other public or private orgaisation where so many examples of this kind of behaviour would be left unchallenged.”
Fox News?
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 1:41 pm | #
Must’ve missed that, David – have you got links for all the Fox presenters who’ve been involved in dug fuelled deaths/murders/rapes?
Does the BBC not have a drugs and alcohol policy? Do they not do random testing of staff?
Or is it the usual case of a bunch of left wing Guardian reader who think that it’s OK to get drugged up at their Islington dinner parties, but don’t see how their actions are connected to some poor kid or a sink estate in inner London getting killed by drugs dealers?
with predictions that 2008 will be slightly cooler (although statistically the same)
Bias by omission Mr Gregory? I think you will find that the ostensible warming since 1998 has also been statistically insigniicant as well, but one wouldn’t expect this to be reported by the BBC, since it doesn’t fit the ‘narrative’..
There appears to have been a 10 year plateau in the mean surface temperature data, despite the inexorable rise in carbon dioxide emissions. In addition within this overall ‘static’ mean the southern hemisphere appears to be cooling whilst the northern hemisphere is showing a slight warming. This is unusual if the global CO2 is the root cause, which would imply a more uniform pattern rather than such a pronounced hemispherical discontinuity.
There are a number of problems with the surface instrumental recording system so one should be wary of making too much use of the information, especially when trends are being measured to 0.01 degrees. However, it may be because not only are there more sensors in the Northern Hemisphere than in the South but also that these are more likely to suffer from the Urban Heat Island effect
OLPC: 1 for the price of 2:
http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/index.php
“Does the BBC not have a drugs and alcohol policy? Do they not do random testing of staff?”
I should hope not given that somebody has to pay for it – namely me…
When corrected for what was basically a wraparound Y2K error, NASA climate change data now seems to indicate that 1934 and not 1998 was the hottest on record:
http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra081607_2.html
Dear John Reith,
Many thanks for the response and the plethora of links(very interesting)but I was asking about the TV programme and why it was pulled. Do you know why the BBC pulled the plug?
“Must’ve missed that, David – have you got links for all the Fox presenters who’ve been involved in dug fuelled deaths/murders/rapes?
John Reith spins in his grave”
Ah well the thing about Fox is all the accusations tend to melt away… But if you want sex and violence…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_Smith and of course good ol’ Papa Bear himeself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29#Andrea_Mackris_lawsuit
David Preiser (USA) | 04.01.08 – 4:26 pm | #
More specifically –
“All of BBC Worldwide’s commercial activities must adhere to four criteria as set out in the BBC’s new Royal Charter: they must fit with the BBC’s public purpose activities, must not jeopardise the BBC’s reputation or the value of the BBC brand, must exhibit commercial efficiency and must comply with the BBC’s Fair Trading guidelines.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2007/10_october/bbc.com.shtml
Funny, I googled for “bbc nasa error 1934”
http://www.google.com/search?q=bbc+nasa+error+1934&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I couldn’t find an article on the BBC mentioning this error (against the party line i guess), but the first two links are for Telegraph and Times:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2274346.ece
Why did they show up even though I included BBC in the search “bbc nasa error 1934″… This is a rhetorical question…
Arthur
Of course climate changes, thats what it does, but BBC alarmists paint sceptics as not believing that climate is changing. The crucial question is the cause of climate change – that it is due to human activity is becoming increasingly disputed.
That C02 levels cause a rise in temperature is also unproven. The graph Al Gore enjoyed pissing around with does show a pattern, but not one he would like – C02 levels lag global temperature by around 800 years. Would any scientifically-minded Beeboid care to explain that one? It’s perfectly feasible that the reverse is the case and that temperature influences C02 levels.
The earth’s climate is vast, as are the timescales over which it operates. This and factors like solar activity make the computer simulations based on partial data questionable.
Dear Roland T Gunner,
Thanks for the response, I remember the BBC used to do a whole programme fronted by Raymond Baxter?
I know it was axed but Im not sure why.
Dear David,
Thanks for the answers you gave but I regret that I cant do links yet(what a thicko?)
I keep meaning to learn but due to the pressure of work I dont seem able to put aside the time to do it.
When I get around to learning about links I ‘forsee’ plenty of swearing and frustration!(Ha Ha)
PS
Oops, I forgot about the security implications in naming the BBC reporter, sorry.
Andy,
“It’s perfectly feasible that the reverse is the case and that temperature influences C02 levels.”
Quite right,
CORRELATION IS NOT A PROOF OF CAUSALITY
1. It might be a reverse causality
2. A third factor might be impacting the first two
In fact the reverse causality when warming causes increase in CO2 levels is much better understood:
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm
“Former Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton said she remained optimistic after ending a surprise third.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7171719.stm
A surprise third?
As for your most recent example • what has this actually to do with the BBC? According to the Mail story, the dead woman was an actress appearing in dramas aired by both BBC and ITV…. i.e. not a BBC employee.
John Reith | 04.01.08 – 1:46 pm | #
What on earth are you on about JR?
The guy is a longstanding BBC presenter on half a dozen shows and he’s been arrested on suspicion of “supplying a class A drug and murder”.
Of course he may be innocent – but I’m sure you know as well as I do that the prerequisites for arrest in this country include …There must be sufficient grounds for the arresting officer to have formed a reasonable suspicion of the person’s guilt… and …The arresting officer must hold Genuine belief that the suspect was probably guilty of the offence….
what has this actually to do with the BBC?
If you have to ask that, I’ll begin to wonder if you’ve been at the Columbian Marching Powder yourself this afternoon.
Ben | 04.01.08 – 4:52 pm
Yes, and if you look further, you’ll find that the part about not jeopardizing the reputation or brand of the BBC means that they have to follow the same Trust protocols regarding editorial policy.
They have to follow the guidelines as laid out by Trust agreement, specifically:
Accuracy and Impartiality (Clause 44);
The Fairness Code (Clause 45);
as spelled out in the Trust’s protocol on the BBC’s commercial services.
“I think you will find that the ostensible warming since 1998 has also been statistically insigniicant as well, but one wouldn’t expect this to be reported by the BBC, since it doesn’t fit the ‘narrative’..”
Apparently the IPCC uses a decadal cycle to measure its averages.As soon as the 1998 blip fades from view the figures there is likely to be different.
Ah well the thing about Fox is all the accusations tend to melt away… But if you want sex and violence…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She…/ Shepherd_Smith and of course good ol’ Papa Bear himeself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bil…Mackris_lawsuit
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 4:49 pm | #
If all you can come up with against two druggie deaths and an alleged rape is a parking argument and a disputed harrassment allegation – I think you should stop digging David.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel again aren’t you?
JR,
When I used to watch BBC World (until last year), virtually all correspondents for BBC World Service also appeared on BBC World and vice versa.
(e.g. Lyse Doucet)
Giving gigs to your fellow office buddies might in some circles be considered un-ethical or even unlawful.
I am having difficulties ever remembering a presentation on BBC World by say a CNN news corespondent, or for that matter an freelancer.
John Reith spins in his grave: About that alleged rape… seems to have gone away. Has a court date been set?
Shep and Bill are of course the beating heart of Fox News. Perhaps if the cases had gone to court we might have learnt what really happened. But I think ” aggravated battery with a motor vehicle” sounds like rather more than a “parking dispute.”
A surprise third?
tomski | 04.01.08 – 5:25 pm | #
………..f***ing big surprise for the Clinton supporters at White City who just assume that its her birthright.
Remember this, there are no democrats at the BBC. Only authoritarian socialists who believe in a governing elite to which they themselves think they belong.
Reagan (pbuh) challenged Gorbachev to “Tear down this wall”, our challenge must be to Tear Down The BBC.
And the sooner the better.
Alan | 04.01.08 – 4:58 pm
Alan you take the BBC to task for failing to report NASA’s adjustments of its figures and cite a Times article as evidence that the BBC should have covered it.
But have you actually read the Times article?
Most of it is devoted to explaining that the adjustments were extremely slight and had no practical significance.
Or put another way, that this is a NON-story, not worth reporting.
Here’s a taster –
{the error} had no impact at all on the rankings of the hottest years when looked at globally rather than in the US, which accounts for only 2 per cent of the Earth’s surface.
David Parker, of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said of the effect on global averages: “The effect is so small that you couldn’t see it on a graph. They were of the order of a thousandth of a degree. It really has no impact.”
Further adjustments were made to the US data this year to take into account new information and new interpretations of how it should be adjusted. This meant that 1934 took over from 1998 as the hottest year on record in the US, and 1921 moved into third place above 2006.
Reto Ruedy, of the Goddard Institute, said that the differences between 1934 and 1998 were so slight that it was likely that they would swap positions again as information is analysed anew.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2274346.ece
It has probably been mentioned but drugs are bad for your health or even a friends health.
I realise the BBC is only trying to adhere to its “Diversity Statement” reflecting the drug using demographic,but people,children’s television?
John Reith,
“Or put another way, that this is a NON-story, not worth reporting.”
Wow. You really don’t get it!
The fact that there are views that deem it not earth shattering to the global-warming theory doesn’t make it a non-story.
People are entitled to know that 1934 and not 1998 was the warmest year on record, don’t you think? Especially given all the attention given previously to 1998 being the warmest!
BBC’s choice to deem it not relevant is dubious considering your coverage of the story that “Indian man too small for thir condoms” story.
It is a selection bias, again.
Times and Telegraph reported it, and so did a lot of other prominent news sources.
The great BBC ask
What is driving oil prices so high?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7048600.stm
………….and manage to do an entire piece without reference to thier beloved Green or enviromental taxes.
Brilliant!
Alan: It was a story featured on 5 Live and on the Today programme too.
John Reith spins in his grave: Another one from Fox! http://gawker.com/news/newsgal-booted%21/rachel-marsden-escorted-from-fox-studios-264624.php
When I used to watch BBC World (until last year), virtually all correspondents for BBC World Service also appeared on BBC World and vice versa.
(e.g. Lyse Doucet)
As has already been pointed out, BBC World is charged the going rate (in line with Fair Trading guidelines etc) for Lyse Doucet’s time/services. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
If anyone is the beneficiary of this arrangement, it is the Foreign Office as they don’t have to pay for Lyse Doucet (to follow your example) to twiddle her thumbs when she’s not on air for WS as BBC World is picking up the tab for what would otherwise be her downtime.
Guys
Although, I am all for exposing BBC’s bias, I don’t see how allegations of rape of a BBC employee is relevant.
Or to put it differently:
Left’s obsession with few cases of alleged abuses by US troops in Iraq,
given the sheer number of them (1.6 million individuals that went through a tour of duty) is statistically insignificant.
The number of rapists in general population is for example much higher than in the US military.
Shep and Bill are of course the beating heart of Fox News. Perhaps if the cases had gone to court we might have learnt what really happened. But I think ” aggravated battery with a motor vehicle” sounds like rather more than a “parking dispute.”
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 5:52 pm | #
Should’ve googled a bit more diligently, David:-
Smith had driven onto the parking lot at the courthouse to find the only open parking space blocked by freelance journalist Maureen Walsh, who had placed a traffic cone in the spot. When Smith demanded that she remove the cone, Walsh reportedly refused and blocked the spot with her own body. Witnesses said that Smith then drove into the parking place anyway, knocking Walsh over. She was later treated for bruises on her legs, then called police
Not exactly in the BBC drugs/death/rape class – is it?
On the rape case shall we use your own phrase and say:-
“Ah well the thing about BBC is all the accusations tend to melt away”
Alan
People are entitled to know that 1934 and not 1998 was the warmest year on record, don’t you think?
Well, if I understand the Times story properly, the corrected figures mean that 1934 -not 1998 – was the warmest year in the US, but make no difference to the global rankings.
So whether one year or another was the warmest year on record in the US alone is as pretty much as irrelevant to the global warming story as , say, whichever was the warmest year on record in Belgium. Or have I misunderstood?
So whether one year or another was the warmest year on record in the US alone is as pretty much as irrelevant to the global warming story as , say, whichever was the warmest year on record in Belgium. Or have I misunderstood?
John Reith | 04.01.08 – 6:23 pm | #
I think I’m getting the hang of it, JR – in the context of global warming, it’s only the global records that matter.
Really?
What about the headline on your website yesterday:-
Last year was the second warmest on record in the UK, according to figures released by the Met Office.
The average mean temperature across the UK was 9.6C – slightly cooler than in 2006, but continuing the recent trend towards warmer temperatures
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7169690.stm
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 04.01.08 – 6:38 pm
Personally, I couldn’t be less interested in things to do with the weather.
Especially yesterday’s weather.
As for tomorrow’s weather – all I want to know is whether to take my umbrella or not.
But I’m aware I live in a country where it’s a national obsession and some people speak of little else, especially to strangers.
So, if the Met Office put out an annual round-up explaining why it was so sunny in the summer and why there were showers in April….I’d say okay, sure… go ahead and run it.
But when someday tells me that the fact that NASA once made a mistake so small that it couldn’t be seen on a graph, has no impact on the climate change big picture, and is likely to be reversed any day now anyway….I wouldn’t cry….’hold the front page’.
Would you?
BBC abandons younger viewers. Sorry kids there’s nothing down for you until you become sexually active or a drug user.
But when someday tells me that the fact that NASA once made a mistake so small that it couldn’t be seen on a graph, has no impact on the climate change big picture, and is likely to be reversed any day now anyway….I wouldn’t cry….’hold the front page’.
Would you?
John Reith | 04.01.08 – 6:48 pm | #
You’re missing the point JR.
These minor vagaries of year-to-year temperature have never been worth a mention – until the great MMGW “consensus”.
The US figures were broadcast by the MMGW fraternity to help prove their case. Now it’s been shown that that they don’t – they’re suddenly insignificant.
Yesterday’s BBC piece is exactly the same – parading a statistically insignificant variation as “proof” of the acccepted position.
In fact satellite measurements show no significant global warming since 1998, which is a much more meaningful statistic – but you won’t see it headlined by your colleagues because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Stephen Pollard on the beeb’s coverage of Iowa:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard/430086/there-is-only-one-race-for-the-us-presidency-says-the-bbc.thtml
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 04.01.08 – 7:09 pm
As I say, this isn’t my subject and I find it all jolly confusing.
If you’re the guy that used to be Foxgoose, then you seem a straight-up kinda guy and so when you tell me that satellite measurements show no significant global warming since 1998, then I believe you.
But then I dimly recall reading somewhere something by someone equally as authoritative as your good self along the lines that 11 of the warmest years have been among the past thirteen years.
Can both statements be true?
I guess it could be so…. if, say 1998, were jolly high and every year since were just a bit less than 98 but much higher than the years before 98 ….
Assuming both statements to be true, which is the more ‘useful’ statement in understanding what’s going on? Is one merely a debating point, the other scientifically meaningful?
David Gregory……can you clear this one up for us?
“But then I dimly recall reading somewhere something by someone equally as authoritative as your good self along the lines that 11 of the warmest years have been among the past thirteen years.
Can both statements be true?
I guess it could be so…. if, say 1998, were jolly high and every year since were just a bit less than 98 but much higher than the years before 98 ….”
Because the IPCC uses a decadal sample which to 2008 include 1998,which also falls within the thirteen year period you mention.As you note 1998 was an anomaly regarding temperature.This will only decline in significance for the 2009 figures.
There are colossal economic and social implications in proposed government actions,all based on a computer model.
Don’t you think that in the light of the possible consequence of such actions the subject should be debated in a neutral fashion by the BBC?
JRSIHG
“… satellite measurements show no significant global warming since 1998, which is a much more meaningful statistic – but you won’t see it headlined by your colleagues because it doesn’t fit the narrative.”
Even if things did get warmer it is by no means unprecedented: there was a Medieval warm period circa 800-1200 AD. The Romans are well-documented as growing vineyards in the north of England. Greenland is so-called as it was once so fertile where it is now only permafrost.
Remember the seventies when the big scare from environmentalists/luddites was global cooling? They were wrong then and they’re wrong now.
JRSIHG
“In fact satellite measurements show no significant global warming since 1998, which is a much more meaningful statistic – but you won’t see it headlined by your colleagues because it doesn’t fit the narrative.”
Even if there was a warmer period on the way it is by no means unprecedented.
There was a Medieval warm period circa 800-1200 AD. The Romans are well-documented as being able to grow vineyards in the north of England. Greenland is so-called as it was once so fertile instead of now only being permafrost.
During the seventies the big scare was global cooling, the ice caps quickly advancing towards Northern Europe and North America. The environmentalists / luddites got it wrong then and they have it wrong now.
John Reith:
Cassandra
The last Farnborough air show (2006) appears to have been quite extensively covered by the BBC News Website. Not bad for a trade fair.
Yep – lots of press releases must have flown towards the BBC hacks’ laptops. Piece of cake journalism.
Also, notice how often the same picture gets used in your links? The one with those nasty missiles and captioned “Arms and aircraft on display at the show”. Wonder why that one got used so much?
Apologies for the double posting.
Assuming both statements to be true, which is the more ‘useful’ statement in understanding what’s going on? Is one merely a debating point, the other scientifically meaningful?
David Gregory……can you clear this one up for us?
John Reith | 04.01.08 – 7:27 pm | #
JR
Since you’re approaching this with an open mind – this is the clearest article I’ve read on global temperature over the last ten years:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
It’s from the “Old Trot” so it’s not part of a right wing conspiracy – in fact the author is an ex BBC science correspondent.
By the way I don’t believe you’re the original JR – too many little stylistic differences.
Since the BBC is spending our money training its staff not to cheat and deceive following Phonegate, perhaps in the light of the Nigel Wrench alleged rape, Andy Kershaw being convicted as an harasser and abuser of his ex-partner, Mark Speight being bailed for suspicion of murder and supplying cocaine and Kevin Greening’s Class A drug use, plus Richard Bacon and Johnnie Walker’s problems we should see this money diverted into getting their Arts staff’s lifestyle issues sorted out? Just a thought.
Looks like the BBC’s move to Salford could be big news for the drug dealers of the Northwest! Message to all Mancs – lock up your daughters (sons?) though.