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.
JR: You point is answered here,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
As indeed is stuff about the Mediaeval warm period ect ect ect
The changes to the GISS data were made after Hansen finally made the computer code that had been used for it’s analysis available to the public and a fairly obvious Y2K error was identified by a non NASA scientist. This had the temporary effect of changing the rankings of “the hottest years” so that 1934 surfaced as the hottest year.
It is noteable that GISS then changed all the data in their database without bothering to mention it. Anyone using the original data for scientific purposes would have carried on without knowing the change had been made. Not something GISS should be proud of.
This upset the Hansen applecart in that it was no longer possible to claim that 11 of the hottest years ever were in the last 13 years. The story then changed overnight so that now it became that the individual year to year changes were not in fact significant.
This is of course true, and had always been true, however the ‘story’ missed by the BBC (maybe because it didn’t fit the narrative)was precisely this – the overrated scare claim from Hansen and his supporters that the warming of the last few years is ‘unprecedented’ is not borne out by the scientific data.
Now that the actual numbers are falling they are rubbished as being insignificant changes, which is probably true. However you can be certain that if they were going the other way, they would be being screamed from the roof tops as evidence for AGW despite the fact that the variation is within the statistical variance.
It looks as if the surface temperature record, for what it’s worth, is actually showing that the mean global temperature has been static for the last 10 years.
PS The term “mean global temperature” is itself a can of worms and does not mean what you probably think it does.
It would perhaps be helpful if John and David avoided making ex cathedra statements about scientific issues that they do not understand.
JR: You point is answered here
That link is somewhat notorious and certainly not to be trusted as objective scientific reporting. I would not consider either Fred or Gavin to provide objective observations in this field.
John Reith
If there is a carbomb or some other attrocity the BBC article has a link to;
Iraq violence, in figures
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7036068.stm
It is a good thing that there is a link to a background article. The only thing is that this article is 2 months old. The figures for november and december are not mentioned. A monthly update is a minimum.
Maybe they can also mention the severe doubts about the lancet article.
Actually Arthur it’s a great place to start. It clearly sets out objections and the contra arguments to them when it comes to global warming. And if nothing else it puts “both sides of the argument”. I don’t particularly think that’s how science works… but people here can check it out first and if they disagree after that then fine, but we don’t have to clog up the board with the same points put to me again and again but by different people.
Once again there seems to be this idea that someone tells me what to say, or that I’d ignore research for the sake of a narrative. Just not true. Apart from being unable to go to Hong Kong for speculative trips. Sorry about that.
Dr David Whitehouse doesn’t exist in a vacuum, he and I go way back and I’d certainly consider him a friend. We’ve had an interesting conversation about all this and as he says in his article our current model that CO2 produced by us is warming the planet is right, we just don’t understand all the complexities of what’s going on. I don’t disagree with that either.
This isn’t some unshakeable “faith” I have, I will try and look at all the points raised, but only once not again and again. Interesting stuff like the reordering of America’s hottest years I am aware of and it WAS REPORTED BY THE BBC! But you won’t suddenly convince me with one piece of evidence the whole thing is some lefty sham because science doesn’t work like that.
It’s a slow process of evolution, especially with something as complex as climate. Even if it did all stop in the last ten years you have to ask why? And then ask could it start up again?
Of course what we do about all this is politics… and frankly that’s wide open for debate and knock yourself out on it.
One final caveat, Mel Phillips has no idea how science works or what she is talking about when it comes to global warming.
As for the behaviour of BBC staff and those of Fox. Is it just possible that in large organisations over time people do stupid things? If people believe where I work is some sort of hedonistic all day party I repeat my offer to come and visit. You will be sorely dissapointed (although we do have a proper Dalek in the public space at the moment!)
“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.”
If he fronted the most recent one, it must have been quite some time ago. He died in 2006 in his mid-80s but I don’t think he had been on TV for a good few years before that.
… he says in his article our current model that CO2 produced by us is warming the planet is right, we just don’t understand all the complexities of what’s going on…
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 9:22 pm | #
No, David – you’re being devious, he didn’t say that.
He did say (verbatim) :-
… So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data…
I guess you must be one of those to whom “it’s heresy”.
Not a good position for a supposedly open minded scientist – let alone a public servant.
“As indeed is stuff about the Mediaeval warm period ect ect ect
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 8:54 pm ”
Nasty cough you’ve got there Greggers.
“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.”
The action is down the “Brass Handles” pub in Salford,but don’t wave your microphone around in there.
Dr David Gregory
“Mel Phillips has no idea how science works or what she is talking about when it comes to global warming. ”
Melanie is reporting on the opinions of, er, scientists who are raising legitimate questions about AGW. Expect more of the same.
It’s as if you believe that Mel’s opinion differs from your own and must wrong, even if it is tallies with that of respected scientists.
David: any real scientist would take delight in debating these ideas with people of all walks of life, and not attempt to belittle their background.
I can only surmise that your scientific career has been an unremarkable one.
I think I’ve finally worked it out:
The hole in the ozone layer was allowing greenhouse gases to escape, thus neutralising global warming. Now that the hole has closed up, global warming will continue, frying us all.
I’m going to take this hypothesis to the BBC and apply for a position as a science writer. It should make me as least as qualified to write about science as Justin Webb and Matt Frei are to write about America or Jeremy Bowen and Orla Guerin are to write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As long as I make it clear that I’m a devotee of MMGW, I’m sure I’ll get the job.
The doomsday scenario of GW is simply a computer projection.This fits in with the doomsday cults which have best mankind,sorry personkind,for millennia .
Many do not seem happy unless they are running around screaning the “Sky is falling”.
What about the advantages of global warming? Lower heating costs in the industrial climes,a reduced death rate from hypothermia,previously uncultivated areas bearing crops? Endless possibilities.
Yes,we are going to get the other doomsday projection, arise in the sea level.But why apocalyptic,why not just the the levels they were at in say the medieval warming period?
As for science,anyone who has read the history of science knows what bollocks it has been at times.Give it a few decades and we will be looking back and saying,”They believed that”?
I was thinking of this part from David’s article
“Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.”
I think that is a very good point.
Melanie Phillips simply ceases on whatever the current (often) interesting idea is about Climate change and pronounces that’s the full stop and she is right. Science just doesn’t work like that.
I’ve tried to politely set out how I work and I’m sorry if people chose to think I’m not up to the job or have an agenda. Fair enough.
But endlessly going through the same points over and over again isn’t really debate and it just clogs up the blog. The great thing about this debate is infact plenty of the data and science are freely available online (well most of it…) and so everyone can chip in. But a quick google, or an understanding that some new point won’t topple things but is more likely to lead people to change/go back to models and refine ideas… well you might even find it interesting.
Open minds are always useful scientific tools.
Pete: ect ect: No cough, very old Popbitch joke.
Just out of interest does anyone here feel as strongly about the “truths” of cancer research?
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 11:01 pm |
Just out of interest does anyone here feel as strongly about the “truths” of cancer research?
Yes, but only when the movement behind all of it is an aggregate of neo-marxists who want to legislate us all back to being disease-ridden subsistence farmers, and the pandering unelected elite who do their dirty work because they’ll still get to lead their unaccountable, mostly unelected, parasitic lives when the rest of us are queuing for our grain rations and trying not to commit thought crimes.
Can anyone explain:
a) why was there global cooling between 1940s and 1970s while CO2 kept rising?
b) when mentioning MMGW why do they always bang about polar regions where there is no industry and no CO2 emissions and if the mixing with warmer regions is so good how come the polar regions are so much cooler?
Cringeworthy sentimentality in the reporting of recent events in Kenya on the news just now.
Open minds are always useful scientific tools
Indeed, couldn’t agree more and I strongly suspect that neither Fred Singer nor Gavin Schmidt have such open minds. Both seem to be ‘believers’ in the sense that they persist in their view’s regardless of the evidence. My gripe about the BBC and indeed my concern about most of your own pronouncements on this issue is that you seem to have a closed mind on the issue.
he says in his article our current model that CO2 produced by us is warming the planet is right, we just don’t understand all the complexities of what’s going on
The trouble with this statement is that the complexities are so great that they seriously undermine the certainty of the AGW theory.
We know that the planet has been (and may still be) in a warming phase as we pass through (and possibly reach the end of) the Holocene interglacial period. We also know that the ‘greenhouse effect’ is real, based on sound scientific principles and the reason why the planet is inhabitable by human beings.
We know that Carbon Dioxide is a low concentration but reasonably active greenhouse gas (much more so than water vapour but much less than methane)and its concentration in the atmosphere as measured at Mauna Loa has shown a steady increase since measurements started.
We know that Carbon Dioxice levels have been higher than today in prehistory.
We do not know with any degree of certainty what the mean surface temperature of the planet was prior to the last century before instrumental records were kept, and prior to satellite measurements in the last decade or so the instrumental record is very unreliable.
We have to rely on paleoclimate studies of highly dubious validity to extrapolate on what the temperature back to 1400 actually was.
The AGW ‘hypothesis’ (science is settled better than the theory of gravity blah, blah blah)is based on the assumption that the climate (as measured by global mean temperature) has been stable (+/- 0.1 degree) from 1400 to around 1850 and then has rapidly risen at a uniform rate until 2007. This is correlated with Carbon Dioxide (correlation does not imply causation) QED the temperature rise is caused by human use of fossil fuels and using unvalidated Global Climate Models that the IPCC itself says have no predictive skill we extrapolate that the global temperature will rise by 1 to 6 degrees in 10 to 100 years leading to catastrophe.
David you keep saying that tiny bits of contrary data do not overturn the theory. I am sorry that is not how science works, if the theory cannot account for the anomalies then the theory is at best incomplete, and at worst is simply wrong. Note: Thats how Einstein moved from the Special theory of Relativity to the General Theory, there were unexplained anomolies)
There are increasing numbers of anomolies with the AGW theory in which the GCMs get continually ‘tuned’ to accomodate, but which the science does not accomodate (Explanation some complexities are not understood) Note that none of the GCMs can model the current climate from past centuries data. The current AGW theory, for example, does not yet deal with clouds, we are not even sure if they provide a positive feedback or a negative feedback loop although all the scientists agree that this is a crucial feature of the theory.
The actions of some of the scientists involved on both sides are frequently obstructive, unscientific, arrogant, hysterical and often down right childish.
What annoys me most is that this is of critical importance to our future. If the theory is right and we do nothing we have a serious problem of adaptation and possibly a catastrophe. If, on the other hand the theory is wrong but we take the sort of draconian action being proposed we will put mankind back into the 1700s for no valid reason.
Until 2000 the AGW theorists were broadly accepted, today there are an increasing number of potential holes in the theory and the data and assumptions on which it has been based. A rational scientific approach would be to utilise all the data to create a better theory. The current attitude typified by D’Arrigo “picking cherries is necessary to make a cherry pie” combined with ignoring or hiding uncomfortable data is not something that the scientific community should tolerate.
why was there global cooling between 1940s and 1970s while CO2 kept rising?
The hypothesis is that this was caused by the increase in particulate aerosols in the atmosphere caused by large scale fossil fuel burning before air pollution controls were introduced in the 1970s. Particulates are thought to cause a negative forcing on temperature, which is why major volvanic events lead to a cooling of the atmosphere.
If this hypothesis is true it ‘may’ be the reason for the current plateu in mean temperature since the industrialisation of China has been motoring since mid 1980s. However, the industrial revolution didn’t start in 1940 but at least 50 years before that. My own view is that the inflections in the trend lines are to abrupt to be due to a simplistic explantion such as aerosols although they may be part of the overall cause.
Some of the lads at ARRSE are not happy….
“For nigh on a year now (at least) the advert for BBC news has shown a guy holding a mobile phone while getting text message/WAP headlines and for that period of time the main headline has been
‘UK Soldiers beat Iraqi prisoners’
I have now made an official complaint, the reason is; Subliminally; ‘that’ headline for the 1 or 2 seconds that it appears on screen enforces a message that UK Soldiers beat prisoners and that it is ongoing. This particular headline refers to an incident some 2 years ago.”
Wonder why the BBC are so quick to change things when it is embarrassing for Labour etc but sooooooooooo slooooooooooooow in changing things like this?
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=85837#1714111
Whoops! Linky thingie went up bottoms
when mentioning MMGW why do they always bang about polar regions where there is no industry and no CO2 emissions and if the mixing with warmer regions is so good how come the polar regions are so much cooler
CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere and emissions from all sources get mixed in the overall atmospheric circulation. It takes a finite time and the system is very difficult to model since it is not, nor ever likely to be, at equilibrium.
Surface temperature on the planet is dependant on many things, but mainly on distance from the fireplace (the Sun) The poles are further from the Sun than the equator, winter is colder than summer.
One of the problems in this area is trying to understand what the Global Mean Temperature of the planet means and how you would go about measuring it. That has been simplified by using orbital satellite instrumentation, but until recently there has been a major discrepancy between the temperature as measured by satellite observation and those from ground stations
David Gregory
“Open minds are always useful scientific tools.”
How true – but there isn’t an open mind on AGW at the BBC. Your environmental front men Roger Harrabin and Richard Black trumpet their closed minds in this article. Arthur Dent (8.55 pm) describes the goal-post changing of the AGW catastrophists only too accurately. I have yet to hear any BBC analysis which treats the scientific criticism of the catastrophist argument with anything but contemptuous dismissal. The comic book approach on the BBC website is a typical exercise in attempting to treat scepticism as non-existent and the science and evidence of substantial ACC as being beyond dispute.
You and your colleagues on this thread are very good at criticising Melanie Phillips: a very convenient straw (wo)man with which to batter all sceptics. However, there is no appetite to deal with the fact – let alone mention on the general news services – that there are respectable and serious climate scientists who disagree on scientific not ideological grounds with the catastrophists. That “Global Warming Swindle” or any similar programme has not been made by the BBC should be a cause for shame. That Al Gore is not pilloried for the mountebank that he is by the BBC’s scientific correspondents is an abdication of any responsibility for presenting truthful and impartial commentary. That “award-winning” David Shukman can come on News 24 and say that the pre-Christmas high tides were “unprecedented” (typical catastrophist crap: I remember the 1953 floods even if Shukman wishes to wipe them from the BBC corporate memory) and imply that all weather-related disasters are features of anthropomorphic global warming is a disgrace.
Arthur Dent,
Thank you for informative post.That is what is needed instead of this Gadarene rush to revert to a preindustrial era.
As you say the stakes are too high,but worse there is too much money and political power involved.
On a micro level,the somewhat insane measures to recycle adopted by local councils.No refuse collection for three weeks but the no smoking enforcement officer has visited the small local shops twice.
Well done Arthur Dent et al – great thread.
I suspect David G will do one and disappear now, because I pointed him recently at some recent and peer-reviewed paper in JGR which showed a discrepancy between the sainted computer models and REAL-LIFE observations.. and surprise – silence!
Interesting site here (on top of climateaudit.com which appears to break a cracking story on AGW pretty much every day):
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
This was posted on the other thread,but it needs to be disseminated widely
“Consumers of electricity • i.e., all of us • who are now having to dig deeper to pay their electricity bills will mostly be unaware that, in addition to the swingeing increases announced yesterday, they are paying an increasing premium through their bills for the global warming fantasy.
The base line is the so-called Renewables Obligation, which is set to add at least £1 billion a year to our collective bills by 2010, simply to fund the scourge of industrial windmills that is blighting our countryside.
But, from the school of, “there is nothing so bad that the EU cannot make it worse”, we are set to pay another £6 billion through our energy bills for the equivalent of snake oil, otherwise known as the European Trading Scheme (ETS).
The utterly bizarre aspect of this scheme, as reported by The Independent is that the UK’s biggest “polluters” will reap this windfall. These include our electricity generators and they can make their money because the EU in its wisdom has given them 104 million tons of “carbon credits” and, despite having paid nothing for them, they are then allowed to charge their customers for the notional cost of these credits.”
Eureferendum.
It is obvious that politicians and businesses are going to panic into vast ,hugely expensive schemes which have every chance of beggering us.
This fellow from Dunstable is being arrested for ‘inciting racial hatred’ i.e. blogging about Islamic Extremism, which amongst other things has directly threatened his life on two occasions.
I wonder if BBC East are going to be reporting on it?
dah, sorry…
http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2008/01/british-police-have-been-charged-with.html
BBC Censors Bhutto Frost Interview (Bin Laden murdered)
and the bbc response:
The BBC has an agreement with al-Jazeera which enables both broadcasters to share certain news material including pictures and interviews. It was on this basis that we offered an extract of Sir David Frost’s interview with Benazir Bhutto to users of the BBC News website.
During the interview Ms Bhutto made an allegation that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. A claim which was unchallenged and so unexpected that it seemed most likely that she had mis-spoken.
Under time pressure the item producer responsible for publishing the video edited out the comment with the intention of avoiding confusion. On reflection this was clearly a mistake and should not have happened. There was no intention on our part to distort the meaning of the interview, and we will endeavour to replace the edited version currently available via the BBC News website with the original interview as broadcast by Al-Jazeera.
I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for what was an error of judgement and the confusion that this has caused.
Adam Batstone
Editor BBC News Website Audio Video
Just when you thought it was safe to turn on the light…
The breaking mercury light bulbs news story has been on the Beeb, with a woman (one Louise Molloy) from Greenpece answering fairly gentle questions about the risks from broken energy-saving bulbs in the home.
Among points raised, Ms Molloy said that Government guidelines were clear on the dangers (I must admit I didn’t know there were any, but I am reassured now) and she believed – sorry, knew – that the small amount of released mercury from broken energy-saving bulbs in your home was a lower risk than the large amounts of mercury released into the environment by coal-powered power stations. I was amused she didn’t see the “global” problem here… We get the mercury twice: first from the nasty power-stations and now right in our home in case we dodged the stuff outside. Great.
She also opined that there was no reason to doubt any manufacturer’s claims on the safety of low-energy light bulbs. Given Greenpeace’s continually aggressive attitude towards any claims made by industries that they disagree with, it’s interesting that these manufacturers shouldn’t be challenged by the likes of Greenpeace. But I really shouldn’t be surprised as her organisation has always been selective about its targets.
But what really irked me was the inbuilt BBC-bias. Yes, it’s time to pause while we run the MMGW flag up the pole for a round of state-sponsored saluting.
Ms Molloy was – naturally unchallenged by the smiling news anchor – allowed her short opinion piece at the end of the interview about how important it was that we embrace CFL technology here in the UK and indeed everywhere in the world in our bid to stop global warming. Perhaps it was a condition of her appearance as an authority on the matter that she be allowed, unopposed, to have her little statement at the end.
Well, she needn’t have worried. The Beeb aim to please.
Alan
I read your comments carefully and do not disagree with any of what you say. As I dont with virtually any one else’s. Except with this sites resident BBC payed shrills. I only wish you had read my comments with the same respect.
The BBC to me is not anti corporate. It is a corporation itself so how can it be?
It is not anti British establishment either. How can it be it is part of the British establishment?
What the BBC is, is highly selective as to the kinds of corporate activities is likes and dislikes.
Soros for example can do no wrong, especially if he conspires to get rid of a Conservative government but small business men for example are evil small minded conservatives, and worse then that often Conservative voters.
How about the BBC commenting on the influence of corporate banking giants like the Rockafellas and the Rothschilds for only too examples?
Perhaps it is because these two have been financing left wing/fascist radical organizations for many decades.
Could it have something to do with the fact that the BBC is as well. It does have its own current account which is always seriously in the red?
Because the British Rothschild’s are the Queens Bankers. The Austrian Rothschilds sponsored the creation of the fascist EU.
Our Queen God bless her, and her establishment has far more in common with the likes of Tony Blair Edward Heath and Gordon Brown then she ever had with the likes of Margaret Thatcher or John Major, for a very big reason.
At least think about my comments and do some research before denouncing what you seriously do not understand.
Because as you should know FASCISM is left wing not right wing, and has as much to do with liberty and freedom as a concentration camp does to race relations.
The BBC lies about CO2=MMGW until the cows come home, have cooked and eaten their dinner, and are soundly tucked up in bed.
We can all, I hope, plainly see this to be an absolute fact now. But do not believe me, do the research or just look out of the window.
So how can you or me trust anything the BBC does or says?
Which also now begs the question should we have ever trusted anything the BBC says or does EVER in the past?
My contention is we CAN NOT trust anything propagated from BBC and its co-conspirators in MSM whatsoever.
With the possible exception of the sporting results.
The BBCs output is seriously ALL elitist FASCIST ESTABLISHMENT PROPAGANDA from start to finish and has long since been so.
To the extent that it has also brainwashed its entire staff from birth. In the same way it has most of us as well.
The problem with brainwashed people is that they do not understand the level of this brainwashing. They think they still have minds of their own.
The only guides for salvation ordinary people have now or have ever had,
are our own practical experience. Love for our families and our god given common sense. Which are conservative principles.
Whether the media or the Conservative Party tell you this anymore or not.
Which are the 3 things the BBC has concentrated its efforts on destroying and undermining the most, for generations.
Understand this QUICKLY people, because it might just save your life one day.
You know, comments like the one above –
“The BBCs output is seriously ALL elitist FASCIST ESTABLISHMENT PROPAGANDA from start to finish and has long since been so.”
do little for the mainly sensible point of view that this blog posits. General comments about the alleged institutionalized bias of the BBC, or points about specific areas of bias are lost in the maelstrom of
a) The BBC is pro-homosexual because it follows the laws of the land in its recruitment policies
b) Can’t you all see, you Europeans are drowning in Muslim culture
c) Endless climate change babble
I used to enjoy reading this blog – it made me think, and challenged my views. Now it reads like LGF – and that’s not a good thing
Melanie Phillips simply ceases on whatever the current (often) interesting idea is about Climate change and pronounces that’s the full stop and she is right.
David Gregory (BBC) | 04.01.08 – 11:01 pm | #
Melanie Phillips brings ideas to a halt, does she?
I’ve read down this highly informative thread until I came to the comments by ‘Atlas shrugged’. Would the moderators please remove comments from this loon as they really do look nonsensical when compared with the points and arguments put by other contributors.
Now, on the untimely death of Kevin Greening, would JR or somebody from the BBC please ask the colleagues to correct the report on their website that KG “died peacefully in his sleep”? He died from a heart attack during a sex and drugs binge. Not nice, but true. If the BBC does not up-date accordingly, then the BBC is lying by omission: the licence fee in action, perhaps?
Absolutely. I’ve only been here a couple of months, but the effect has been to shift me towards supporting the BBC if posters as ill-informed/
obsessed/inarticulate/axe-grinding/bigoted as many are here are typical of its critics.
I also support the BBC. I either do that or I – get this! – can’t watch any broadcast television. Yeah, really. Seriously, I’m not joking…
‘Now it reads like LGF – and that’s not a good thing’
What do you object to: cycling, photography, coding, highlighting cases of Islamic Extremism, exposing Islamist propaganda being fed to and in turn being broadcast by the so-called Mainstream Media, or all of the above?
Atlas, I don’t know if you’re just a run-of-the-mill Truther or a BBC Moby commissioned (on our dime) to troll this site to discredit our legitimate grievance with Aunty. But here’s hoping the moderator goes back to deleting comments, even though my own often ended in the e-bin.
I used to enjoy reading this blog – it made me think, and challenged my views. Now it reads like LGF – and that’s not a good thing
Steve Jones | 05.01.08 – 8:49 am
That’s a similar sweeping statement to the one you object to by conspiracy theorist Atlas shrugged above.
There is something here to distinguish this blog from LGF. People here tend to steer clear of the kind of groupthink that LGF sometimes falls prey to in its comments section.
But I understand the anti-BBC anger that leads people to make sweeping statements. I’ve made a couple myself. And there certainly is a fascist, lefty persuasion throughout the BBC. However, in common with many others on this blog, I also give the BBC credit where it’s due.
The best thing about this site is the individuality and perceptive qualities of the contributors. To me, it embodies the finest aspects of the internet – the self-regulating mechanism that ensures that genuine errors along with lies and propaganda are exposed worldwide within minutes – no matter from which quarter they originate.
As a personal example, John Reith and our very own David Preiser exposed my erroneous belief that Balfour intended Palestine east of the Jordan to be included in the proposed Jewish national home, by putting the Balfour Declaration in context and pointing out the competing Arab claims to the land at the time. My background knowlege in this instance was inadequate and I have no problem with it being revealed as such. And I acknowledged my error in a comment or two.
We are after the truth here, no matter how painful it may be. And if we and others bash away long and hard enough at the BBC, it may in time begin to see the folly of its ways and start to practise impartial, informed journalism rather than the propaganda it mostly pumps out.
Environmentally-friendly appliance is bad for environment.
Who’d have thunk it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7172662.stm
“We are after the truth here, no matter how painful it may be. And if we and others bash away long and hard enough at the BBC, it may in time begin to see the folly of its ways and start to practise impartial, informed journalism rather than the propaganda it mostly pumps out.”
Bryan – well said!
Cheers, dave t.
Another environmentally-friendly appliance is bad for environment.
Who’d have rethunk it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7168275.stm
The funniest thing about today’s scare about the Mercury content of the compact fluorescent bulbs is its timing.
As Christopher Booker has pointed out on numerous occasions, the environmental lobby glossed over this obvious downside of the elimination of the traditional incandescent bulbs during the time that they were all pushing for government action on the issue.
Where was the BBC’s huge staff of diligent environmental investigators whan the legislation was first proposed?
Now that the government has completed the legislation, it was safe for the BBC to unearth this “new” scare, and then get some reliable, environmentally friendly, contributors to explain the implications.
Essentially, these will involve local authorities having to provide a special collection and disposal service for the old bulbs – more good news for the hard pressed Council Tax payers.
It was all so predictable.
(Sadly for the BBC, a toxicologist from Nottingham University wandered off-message and rather downplayed the potential health impact, thus weakening the overall message. I’m sure he won’t be invited back!)
Another discussion on the impending climate change catastrophe (disguised as an “analysis” of the effects of high oil prices) on Today this morning between sustainability loon John Elkington (a “Gore for Emperor” nutter) and, on the opposing side, a Greenpeace ecozealot. Very impartial. Believe it or not – and, of course you won’t hear this from the BBC – there is reason to believe that the world is not running out of oil.
At base “their methodology is to impute decline curves against currently proven reserves and declare that the game • and the argument • is over.”
Umbongo – from that report – this is the same gameplan that the climate change zealots use…..declare that the facts are right and that the argument is over.
Arthur: “I am sorry that is not how science works, if the theory cannot account for the anomalies then the theory is at best incomplete, and at worst is simply wrong.”
Well yes. Then you improve your theory and test it again. There’s a bunch of guys at CERN about to do that right now. That’s exactly how science works.
Woodentop: Sorry I missed those links if you want to repost I’ll take a look. But discrepancies between a model and the real world? Sounds like science in action to me.
Steve Jones: Personally I think you have a point. I think we’ve established some common ground here about climate change. We certainly understand each others points of view. As I’ve said before I’m always interested in research (although not if it’s in the form of movies, letters to newspapers or anything on Melanie Phillips’ blog.) Yes I have seen Dr Whitehouse’s article. Yes I do know about the re-ordering of America’s hottest years. etc etc
The sad truth is I just don’t have the time to respond to all this all the time in the kind of detail it quite rightly deserves. I’m really sorry about that, but it’s taken my Saturday morning to read through everything and check out various links and compose a post or two.
And surprising as it may seem I don’t get extra cash for posting here 😉 I think we all know where we stand for now.
Finally
Allan@Oslo:
“Melanie Phillips brings ideas to a halt, does she?” I rather thinks she thinks she does… and I quote “It’s over, guys. Reason, truth and real science are fighting back.”
Actually, out of genuine interest. How’s the winter in Oslo?
cokedupbeeboid:
no doubt she meant to say Daniel Pearl and perhaps Frost was asleep at the time and did not venture this correction.
However Omar Sheik seems perhaps to have taken the fall on behalf of the ISI for this brutsl murder,since KSM khalid Sheik mohamed) has since claimed he murdered Daniel.
Or perhaps when it comes to killing Americans and Jews , there is a queue of Jihadists competing to take the credit.
Since there has been no news of Omar’s execution after such a long period , it follows thst there is something suspect about the conviction.
To DG(BBC), it’s snowing right now. I hope that nobody infers anything about MMGW from this simple fact of winter weather.
To all those at the BBC: how’s the update to your report on the manner of Kevin Greening’s untimely death?
Well yes. Then you improve your theory and test it again
Indeed Mr Gregory, that is what you should do, but it is clearly not what many in the current Climate Science community do. In their world what you do is attack the provider of the data as a lunatic, “denier”, or in the pay of the oil companies, and then seek to deny the problem exists or imply that it is ‘insignificant’.
I am sure the other readers are getting tired of my posting on AGW, despite it being a fairly obvious example of closed mind attitudes in the BBC, so this is my last comment for the time being.
Arthur Dent
“I am sure the other readers are getting tired of my posting on AGW, despite it being a fairly obvious example of closed mind attitudes in the BBC, so this is my last comment for the time being.”
On the contrary, your postings consistently highlight the unscientific attitude of BBC reporters even (or particularly) those with a “scientific” background. Although the “drip drip drip” of fact and irrefutable evidence of bias has little effect on the BBC staff/defenders on this blog, I’m sure that it has an effect in the wider – non-BBC – world.
am sure the other readers are getting tired of my posting on AGW, despite it being a fairly obvious example of closed mind attitudes in the BBC, so this is my last comment for the time being.
Arthur Dent | 05.01.08 – 2:30 pm | #
Arthur
IMHO you’re by far the most lucid and knowledgeable poster here on AGW.
Please don’t give up.