Maurizio has a simple but effective compare and contrast post about BBC coverage of the weather in China. Follow that link and you’ll find links to much more.
Last year it was “Climate change ‘affecting’ China”; this year, not so much, obviously.
Just the standard climatic imbalance…
Bookmark the permalink.
David Gregory (BBC):
Ryan: No sorry, it’s you who are squirming. Show me something from the BBC where it directly says that a single weather event is caused by climate change.
David Gregory (BBC) | 01.02.08 – 11:29 am | #
I’ve taken the liberty of moving this on from the previous general thread ‘cos it seems relevant
David G
You keep insisting that the BBC never links single climate events to MMGW in the face of continual evidence to the contrary.
You’re like the Monty Python knight fighting on with his legs cut off!
Here’s a BBC press release from March 07:-
BBC World Press Releases
Climate change explored like never before
Sir David Attenborough’s landmark programmes Are We Changing Planet Earth? and Can We Save Planet Earth? provide a breath-taking insight into the worldwide consequences of climate change.
After the Asian tsunami and hurricane Katrina, scientists are beginning to look seriously at areas of the planet most under threat from climate change catastrophes. Cutting through the complex causal theories and predictions, Five Disasters Waiting To Happen asks where the next tragedy will strike, and what can be done to prepare for the worst-case climate change scenarios.
The sea level is rising due to melting glaciers as a result of climate change. This is due to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. In Rising Tide, the BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin, travels to the Bay of Bengal to find out how climate change could put millions more at risk.
Where’s the balance or serious scientific debate in that?
Shilling for “Climate Change” – it’s what we do.
Meanwhile Saudi Arabia has been blanketed with snow: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080111/96210251.html
Snow and ice caused shutdown of road leading to summit of Mount Haleakala, Maui: http://news.google.com.au/news/url?sa=t&ct=au/0-0&fp=47a386ecc76b94e1&ei=kx-jR4qlO4maqwOjtr2JDA&url=http%3A//www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20080130-2155-wst-hawaiisnow.html&cid=1127110355
Climate Change is Communism reborn.
Green is the new Red.
If you doubt it, just take a look at who is pushing it and why.
The BBC is just full of prats.
Asian tsunami and hurricane Katrina,
Tsunamis have occurred before in the region,Katrina was a common hurricane which are very common to that part of America.The latter was exacerbated by the complete incompetence of the New Orleans administration.The levees broke NO is below sea level.Nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with building a city in the wrong place.
Martin:
The BBC is just full of prats.
Martin | 01.02.08 – 2:28 pm | #
Martin your directness is a refreshing change from all the ‘ooh you dear are a horrible lefty with hairy armpits who spent too much time at greenham common blah blah blah’
BBC I’ve shat better LOL
The Asian tsunami was triggered by a geological / seismic event, not a climatic one.
The BBC: lazy, dishonest, or both?
The main reason for dismissing the BBC’s views on climate change and other issues is that it regards trash like Eastenders, Casualty, Flog It and Jonathan ‘w*nking question’ Ross as quality entertainment. Why should we suppose that the BBC’s judgement is any better when it comes to climate change?
If I want information on serious matters a mass manufacturer of downmarket TV and radio programmes is not the source that immediately spring to mind as the obvious place to look for it.
John Reith spins in his grave: I think you’ve missread the press release. I don’t think anyone has ever claimed tsunamis are caused by climate change!
What we have here is a worst-case climate change scenario show. It takes trends and then dramatises what will happen. Fair enough.
That’s differnt though to starting with a real event and turning it into a trend.
“Climate Change is Communism reborn.
Green is the new Red”
What an ignorant prat you are. Some of us who are concerned about climate change – myself included – believe in the free market, with appropriate regulation. Some of us – myself included – run small companies. I regard the Guardian’s publishers and most of its hacks and all of ‘New Labour’ (LOL) as mouth-foaming lunatic leftie authoritarian fascists.
Some of us – gasp – even have a science background.
Having said that, of course the BBC is presenting this topic in such an ignorant way as to be beyond embarassing: it is a science topic, innit? And of course the tsunami and Katrina had zilch to do with climate change.
Oh, and by the way: I think wind farms are totally stupid.
NearlyOxfordian,
It’s sometimes easy to see why Climate Change is a form of communism in disguise and people have a right to be skeptical of the climate change ‘consensus’.
Of course the climate is changing – that’s what it does. Among many climate change alarmists the temptation is to label sceptics as not believing the climate is changing – this is a straw man.
What many sceptics really want to know is the root cause of climate change. That climate change will be catastrophic is not proven. Neither is the claim that it is man-made.
There is little doubt that this climate change thing is conveniently used by some on the Left as an excuse to limit personal freedom and attack free market capitalism – a form of communism. As an example, monitoring personal carbon emission has ALREADY been trundled out as a use for ID cards.
What we have here is a worst-case climate change scenario show. It takes trends and then dramatises what will happen. Fair enough.
That’s differnt though to starting with a real event and turning it into a trend.
David Gregory (BBC) | 01.02.08 – 4:44 pm |
You’re quite wrong David – the truth is exactly the opposite, read your own press release again:-
after the Asian tsunami and hurricane Katrina….. “Five Disasters Waiting To Happen” asks where the next tragedy will strike, and what can be done to prepare for the worst-case climate change scenarios.
In other words – it doesn’t “take trends” at all. It takes the isolated, non-climate change related, disasters of the Tsunami and Katrina and tries to weave a “climate change” narrative from them.
How can you, as a scientist, defend such hysterical clap-trap?
“What we have here is a worst-case climate change scenario show.”
Bias made flesh! Where is the best case scenario show.
Questions such as are there advantages to global warming,does global cooling have worse consequences remain unasked by the BBC.
If Lord Reith were not already spinning in his grave,he would probably top himself.
“Of course the climate is changing – that’s what it does”
Talk about strawmen and banging on an open door … The term ‘climate change’ is simply a convenient abbreviation for ‘climate change on a very accelerated scale caused by human activity’. Do you want me to write it out in full every time, just for you, because otherwise you might think I am talking about the Triassic/Jurassic divide? Oh, OK, I will. On reflection, no, I won’t, because you are simply mischief-making. You know perfectly well what the term means.
Not proven, eh? Do you know what the status ‘proven’ means (or rather, doesn’t mean) in science?
A lot of damage cause by rising temperatures IS already documented, e.g. coral reefs. Running away from the evidence doesn’t make you a ‘sceptic’ but an ostrich.
Consensus … yes … The claim that climate change deniers face censorship and their views are suppressed is another bit of nonsense. The fact that they publish this claim all the time, everywhere, shows this.
There are plenty of hugely wealthy, hugely powerful industrial companies with a vested interest in denying climate change. Are you saying that they have all been muzzled by a few scientists with dodgy qualifications (as someone here described them earlier)? What a laugh.
“Bias made flesh! Where is the best case scenario show.”
You have never worked in risk management, have you?
“Questions such as are there advantages to global warming,does global cooling have worse consequences remain unasked by the BBC.”
And of course, conveniently ignoring the option of neither warming nor cooling …
Risk management is not the job of the BBC,the job of the BBC is to inform in an unbiased way.
“And of course, conveniently ignoring the option of neither warming nor cooling …”
The BBC does not consider the option of stasis as of course it should.
Nearly Oxfordian,
Perhaps you could name these “hugely wealthy,hugely powerful industrial companies”?
” a lot of damage cause by rising temperatures IS already documented, e.g. coral reefs.”
The idea that rising sea temperatures are destroying coral reefs has been debunked by a comprehensive and in depth survey on the great barrier reef(Australia), the cause of coral degradation has been shown to be caused by the presence and expansion of coastal cities and the ensuing sewage/industrial/agricultural pollution.
I happen to think that ‘climate change is natural and cyclic and that human activity has almost no effect, futher I think that a scientific theory has been hijacked to support a leftist political aim, now does that make me an “idiot” or a “denier”? or both.
I have followed your highly combative tone with dismay and I feel that your ‘cleverer than thou’ attitude may discourage open debate?
Pehaps you might want to dispense with the insults and focus on the issues? I say this with the greatest respect to your “3 figure IQ”, I myself have a three figure IQ, its about three!(or is that the sum of my brain cells?) Ha Ha.
PS If you want to see a little counter AGW evidence, why not pop over to ‘greenie watch’ you may find lots of big words, but that wouldnt phase an intelect like yours I think.
im dreading the next time the IPCC meets, Al Beeb can be guaranteed to promote this socialist agenda a few weeks before it and after with pathetic scare stories
Must be horrible for certain beeboids who have dedicated 20 years of their life to a lie.
Nearly Oxfordian,
“Not proven, eh? Do you know what the status ‘proven’ means (or rather, doesn’t mean) in science?”
Yes, I do have a background in science. Does empirical evidence prove a theory? No it doesn’t. There are only two conclusions available from empirical evidence:
1. the theory or hypothesis is disproved;
2. the theory or hypothesis is not disproved.
2 is not the same as “proved”. In general, science cannot provide proof; only disproof.
If a theory is not disproved after many independent searches for evidence, then it may become a theorem. Oxfordian: dogmatic opinions are not science.
Whenever a newspaper or people like you say “it’s a scientific fact” or “it’s proved by science”, you know that they don’t understand science at all and are resorting to word jugglery to persuade others of a view they hold themselves.
For example, the theory of evolution or your beloved MMGW are neither of these at the moment because there are still gaps in the evidence which could provide exceptions.
However, thermodynamic laws have worked consistently and predictably over many millions of experiments and practical applications, and are able to be assumed as true.
How about this for a scientifically proven fact: the volume of your rants are in inverse proportion to your scientific success.
Cassandra, go boil your head. My IQ comment was ironical, in response to the reference to ‘stupid voters who read tabloids’. As to ‘combative’, I was immediately insulted and told that I must be a failed academic or failed intellectual, I forget which. Does this dismay you also?
If you can’t stand combative argument, go and read a Ladybird book.
Dear Mr annon,
I think that the Beeboids couldnt give a fart in a high wind for climate change, what they are exited about is the political and social changes that the insane ‘fight’ against climate would bring about! What we see is a leftist agenda hijacking a scientific theory and using it for a political agenda and you have to admit they have been very successful so far in using the Marxist book of dirty tricks to silence opposition.
In fact it is science and scientists alone who can destroy this cancer on our society?
Nearly Oxfordian: The IPCC does not do reseach. It mearly interprets the work done by others. The fact is there are many interpretations to observations and experiments. Science should alsways look for a way of backing up a theory through measurable experimentation that eliminates other possible causes.
Here is a quote from THEIR website
“…The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation…”
I’m very concerned that politicians and certain thick moronic stupid idiots (in the media (you know who you are Mr Harrabin)) suck this crap up without ever asking if there is a contradictory argument.
What would our legal system be like if just because the Police “thought” someone was guilty that was enough to hand down a sentance?
I’m always amazed by how quickly the left are quick to drop their “ideals” of fairness and truth just to get their way. Just like the left turn to violence when they don’t get their way as well.
My own personal opinion is that the climate is NOT changing rapidly, it’s just that the media obsesion with reporting every incident around the world as being caused by “climate change” is used to create a kind of fear.
However, I’m heartened that despite the scum at Westminster and those morons at the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent most people just don’t believe it.
The REAL debate that we should be having is HOW to create a cleaner safer world, but that is ignored because fat corrupt politicians and leftie media types who are more interested in their hate campaign against America and destroying our way of life.
As an example, just look at the utter bollocks coming from the left over the proposed new power station in Kent. One lousy coal fired power station and the Greens are wetting their knickers like kids let loose in a sweet shop, yet the chinese bang out hundreds of dirty coal powered power stations every year and the left say not a word.
That’s why I despise and hate the left with every breath I have.
Dear Nearly Oxfordian,
Go boil my head? Er no thanks.
Ladybird books? Oooh that was cutting, im all upset now! My suggestion that you calm down a bit was just that, a suggestion. Has it occurred to you that I was being a little ironic? Oh well, never mind, you certainly put me in my place and it just goes to show, never question a person with a ‘3 figure IQ’!
“Cassandra, go boil your head.”
Not very green are you Nearly? Think of the emissions.
Daer Nearly Oxfordian,
I am sorry to hear that you were insulted in a previous thread, we do get posters who namecall and insult people for no reason other than they happen to disagree and I for one wish that were not the case. However, I feel sure that with your massive intellect and your 3 figure IQ you should be able to rise above the petty and childish insults and thrill us all with your deep wisdom and wit!
dangerous climate change is real, its here, its caused by man, its happening now and we need to act now if we want to have to slightest chance of preventing the most catastrophic effects of man made climate change
although that sounds like a text book example of propaganda, i heard it on Al Beeb so it must be true 🙂
Mr Anon,
Agrred,we just need to find out if we need to wear a T shirt or a pullover,perhaps carry an umbrella.
I do wish the climate change folk would be more specific.
A little climate spin?
In the London news at 1.30 pm on BBC1 today there was an item on the Thames Barrier in which the reporter said that it was demonstrating the effects of climate change. Apparently the number of times it has to be closed is increasing, specifically “it was closed 19 times in 2003”. This was alarming, but 2003 was five years ago, and there was no mention of any more recent data. Perhaps not surprisingly, it turns out that the years after 2003 are not quite so good for the story:
Barrier closures
2003 19
2004 2
2005 5
2006 1
2007 8
Source: The Environment Agency, via Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/environment/factcheck+the+thames+barrier+/1027347)
Further to the above, in the 3 o’clock news on BBC London 94.9, the newsreader asserted that the barrier “is now being used more than ever before”.
Cassandra, i agree with you.
With the exception of the governments chief scientific officer, who is bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility, so not free to speak his mind, i dont think i have ever seen a scientist on Al Beeb discussing global warming.
Peter, believers can not be specific as they have learned that the weather always contradicts them, so generalisation is the best policy. Hence the change or wording from global warming to climate change tp cover all situations
🙂
2p
In the meantime, the Thames Barrier is already feeling the effects of global warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5092218.stm
2p: I think you make a very good point. I’m not convinced that any increase in raising the barrier is a function of something to do with climate change as much as we now have much better tidal data and so can predict when we might need to raise the barrier with much more accuracy.
I’m not sure the Thames Barrier really tells us anything.
Except that big engineering projects are really cool.
Mr Anon,
I have noted “extreme weather events” creeping into the lexicon.From now on the frequency of these will be trotted out to prove…something.
2p, I also saw that report about the Thames Barrier, and also found it strange that the reporter used a statistic from 2003 and not 2007, this type of reporting is not acceptable.
I am glad to see that Mr Gregory also found fault with the item, it is refreshing when a BBC employee is prepared to question his/her employer when they get something wrong.
Not having a science degree means I cannot question Mr Gregory when he says that MMCC is impacting the climate, I also doubt that MMCC is a green conspiracy to make us all live in caves!, however, I am uncomfortable with the behaviour of many MMCC supporters in their attitude towards people who have a contrary view, everyone has the right to a view and by only allowing one view to be expressed the BBC allows itself to be open to accusations of bias, which is a pity.
Sorry Joe,but conspiracy
Nearly Oxfordian
Take a deep breath, count to ten & spend some time here;
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
“Gordon_Broon_Eats_Hez_Bawgies”
i thought Sir had banned that nickname (?)…has he relented?
regarding having a “3 figure IQ”, um, isn’t ‘average’ IQ by definition 100, so that having one makes one, possibly, no better (or worse!) than – average?!
i thnk i’ve got one too, by the way – couldn’t you tell?
ignore that above post of mine – totally irrelevant to bbc bias
sorry
Nearly Oxfordian
“I must be a failed academic or failed intellectual”
Another scientifically proven fact.
Nearly Oxfordian:
Why ‘combative’ argument? Why not just ‘argument’? What does the ‘combative’ prove?
To whoever it was that made the (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) request to name one huge, powerful, wealthy corporation with an anti-green bias and an organisation devoted to fighting real climate science:
Google for Exxon, that tiny cottage-based company, and its ‘think tank’.
If you really haven’t heard of Exxon, that’s one name. There are plenty more.
The damage to coral reef was not ‘debunked’ (a typical demagogic term); there are alternative explanations, sure, but they have not yet triumphed in the real world.
The point about ‘proving’ climate change, where you have ducked answering my point, was that no other scientific theory was ever ‘proven’. You are demanding this of one theory only. One may wonder why.
Chuffer: ask the people who thought that insulting me because of my chosen handle is a species of intelligent argument.
Anonymous: try to grow up, and leave your mummy’s computer alone.
“I am uncomfortable with the behaviour of many MMCC supporters in their attitude towards people who have a contrary view”
Perhaps you might also make this comment vis-a-vis many climate change doubters, whose mouth-foaming attacks on their opponents (‘retarded tree-huggers, enemies of human progress who want us to live in caves’) are pretty revealing on the mental state of those who make them. And guess who started this cycle of verbal violence.
hi nearly oxfordian
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1487741,00.html
Thanks.
18 police vans – our heroes!
Mr Annon,
I followed your link and I think that these ‘rent a mob’ scum got what they deserved!
Trying to break the law and then crying foul when things didnt go their way is laughable.
But that is the leftists stock in trade isnt it?
What we need is scientific reason and debate and research but what we get is ignorant thugs with a retarded revolutionary fixation.
People in general are sick to death of silly publicity seeking and infantile showboating, those traders unlike the protesters are creating wealth for the nation.
Nearly Oxfordian,
“and guess who started this cycle of verbal violence”
That would be the AGW believers I think.
You sure know how to play that ‘victim card’ (when it suits) perhaps you truly believe in the AGW/MMCC fairy story but that doesnt make it true.
Exxon? Oh dear, they are making and will make vast profits out of the insane AGW policies, do you hear that? RECORD PROFITS! they will be quids in if the cap and trade/carbon credit scams come to pass.
For someone who has such a thin skin you certainly like throwing about the insults. What is it? you can dish it out but you cant take it?
Cry me a river!
AGW protagonists never mention the cost of these grandiose projects.It is the same indifference that brought the collectivisation of the Kulaks
“That would be the AGW believers I think”
That is sheer ignorance, I think. Try to read some, you know, books before you post nonsense.
“You sure know how to play that ‘victim card'”
Nonsense. I pointed out a fact. I can take care of myself, and have never claimed to be a victim.
“perhaps you truly believe in the AGW/MMCC fairy story but that doesnt make it true”
Calling it a fairy story doesn’t change the facts, it merely makes you look silly.
“For someone who has such a thin skin you certainly like throwing about the insults. What is it? you can dish it out but you cant take it?”
More nonsense. It was your friends who started the insults, and now you are whining: “Mummy, he hit me back”.
I can take it, it’s you who can’t.
Hi Cassandra,
Have you seen this article by Al Beebs former global warming expert who has been demoted to an ” environment correspondent ” but still waffling his garbage ?
Mr Black craves world socialism in order to solve global warming
i Hope M15 have a file on this fella as he poses a bigger threat to our freedom and democracy than the king of moonbats monbiot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7187985.stm
🙂