Contributors to the BBC’s Climate Wars have complained to Offcom that the documentary misrepresented them, say the Telegraph and Independent. “The BBC very gravely misrepresented me and several others, as well as the science behind our argument,” Lord Monckton told the Indie. “It is a breach of its code of conduct.” Nothing new there, then. Still, I look forward to the Richard Black report to match this piece, should Offcom find against it.
Thanks to Peter in the comments.
O/T (Sorry)
On Radio 2, Jeremy Vine this lunchtime (about 1:45-ish) was covering the unveiling of the new ID cards.
The most pressing aspect to be discussed on this subject was, apparently: Does the new design sufficiently represent the UK and all its constituent “nations”?
No, really.
(Blogged.)
The BBC says it stands by its documentary(smear)?
Just goes to show how dishonest,biased,prejudiced,bigoted and arrogant the BBC have become!
Anyone who has had a reply to a complaint can see the absolute sneering arrogance seeping through every word.
Will OFCOM investigate? perhaps, but as they have been infiltrated by the same leftist scum that run the BBC, I expect a few phonecalls between the two and a whitewash months down the line.
The BBC seem to think its their job to stand on some kind of middle ground of their own choosing and create a false and dishonest consensus to justify their prejudice! Smearing and manipulating those who dare to oppose the BBC warped version of reality as they dispense judgements and punishments to those the BBC dislikes.
Only those people or organisations that share the BBC agenda get a free uncritical ride whereas those who displease the BBC suffer the concequences.
THE BBC: ANY VIEW IS WELCOME AS LONG AS ITS THE BBC VIEW, WE KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH DISSIDENTS!
udicrous upcoming PBS special “Heat”
See Press Release and Trailer for the October 21, 2008 2-hour PBS Frontline Special “Heat” here. Looks like it will really be laughable. Marc Morano sent the following note to one of the producers of the PBS special
Just wanted to let you my thoughts after viewing the trailer for the Frontline global warming special now posted online. What a comedy your Frontline special appears to be! Correspondent Martin Smith apparently outdoes himself with some really schlocky bad reporting. Tell him I wish him luck and am sure he will win “awards” from the usual bunch for this seemingly laughable special. Can you please forward him this email?
Your Frontline “Heat” trailer claims global warming is “most important issue of our time” and claims that global warming “is probably the most urgent problem facing the next president.” See Trailer for the October 21, 2008 2-hour PBS Frontline Special “Heat.”.
Smith is very comfortable in the roles as the warming fear advocate stating “But nothing matches climate change in scope and severity.” Oh really Mr. Smith? You can’t think of any other more “urgent” issues for a President to address? Surely you jest.
Is Mr. Smith not aware that Hurricanes are declining? That there are no long term increases in drought? See this report: Excerpt: There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms – There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters – There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record. But all of the above appear to be INCREASING in unverified climate models. See: here
Is Smith aware that sea level is failing to rise at any type of alarming rate? See this report: Scientists Counter Computer Model Sea Level Rise Fears See also: Global warming may not affect sea levels, study finds – Jan 11, 2008
It appears Frontline is completely ignorant of the latest science developments of 2007 and 2008? The latest peer-reviewed studies and prominent scientists continue to debunk man-made climate fears. See: `Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008
I enjoyed meeting Mr. Smith on September 7, 2007 at the Senate. He appeared at the time to be interested in actually understanding the complexities of the climate issue. But it now appears that Smith may be more suited to write a newsletter for Gore than attempt to do actual objective climate reporting. Granted, I may change my mind after viewing the full program, but it looks like balance, objectivity and yes – accuracy – are not being striven for in this latest PBS Frontline silliness.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
I am baffled why Christopher Mockton is complaining about the programme to Ofcom. My understanding is that the BBC trustees are sole judge and jury regarding the impartiality (or mostly otherwise) of BBC programmes.
If that is the case, the complaint has no chance. The BBC Trustees – led in the editorial complaints department by Richard Tait, a BBC editor who worked there for 20 years – turn down 99% of complaints made, and are totally biased (and blinkered).
And the excellent Bishop Hill blog
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/8/bbc-backing-climate-change-alarmism-official.html
has unearthed very convincing evidence that the BBC editorial stance towards climate change, sanctioned at the very highest levels, is that it is definitely happening.
Theres another great vid on you tube about the BBCs bias toward New Labour….
Climate change is happening. Where there’s less agreement (albeit there’s something approaching concensus) is on the extent to which we’re impacting on it. Where’s there’s even less agreement is on what should be done.
whitewinelieral: climates change. That is what they do. Consensus (in the sense you mean) is a myth.
See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html
No one at the BBC seems to be able to read, which is curious given the number of arts graduates opining from its pulpit on this subject.
The BBC blurb describes their lecturer in geology at Plymouth University, presenter Mr. Stewart, as providing “the definitive history of climate change” Presumably he is eminently qualified.
For UK viewers, his third and final hour ‘Climate Wars’ is available here, for one more day, in all its apocalyptic ‘green’ propaganda: “the world’s getting warmer, and humans are to blame”, he announces, and his film opens on a hot sunny day in America, as ‘subtle’ proof of his conclusion:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dqcmw/
from: http://bishophill.squarespace.co…m- official.html
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].
please let us not hear any more rubbish about the bbc not having a view or position on anything
and let’s not pretend either that this is the only – and uncharacteristic – instance of a position being taken, just because it’s the only one publicly – if inadvertently – stated
Last night I watched a documentary on CBS about glacial activity in the Rockies.
About 20 miles south of Calgary is the small town of Okotots (Apparently Lakota Sioux for ‘Big Rock’) on roughly the same latitude as Chichester.
Standing on this humungous rock was a Brit geologist who explained that they could identify exactly where the rock came from, which was from Mount Edith Cavell near Jasper on the border with British Columbia.
The glacial melt about 11,000 years ago deposited the rock in ints current location.
He then went onto say that over the next couple of hundred years or so the glacier at nearby Athabasca would all but disappear.
Then on a more upbeat note he said,”But don’t worry, where we are standing now [Okotoks rock] will be under 2 kilometres of ice in 5000 years time.
“Oh so its a cyclical event then”, said the interviewer. “Oh yes” said the geologist.
Heartening to know that in 5,000 years time my house with its views of the Rockies will be under an ice sheet over a mile deep.
Just make sure you get out in time, TPO.
amimissingsomething | 26.09.08 – 10:19 pm
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].
Wait a minute, let me see if I understand this correctly. I’m prejudiced and a little slow, so maybe I’m mistaken. The BBC is saying that the evidence no longer justifies equal space. As if there ever was any equal space for it. How does the BBC define “equal space”, then? Once? Is everyone supposed to just pretend that they’ve been giving what they always call “climate sceptics” (pronounce that the US way and you’ll get the BBC attitude towards them) a fair hearing all along? And for the sake of argument I’m even pretending there’s no bias in the term “climate sceptic.”
Now it’s “opponents of the consensus”, which sounds way too Maoist for my comfort.
The last time anyone at the BBC gave equal time to climate change heresy was when David Gregory was debating it with people here.
It’s interesting that the BBC is now so convinced that climate change is happeneing and is being driven by human action, to such an extent that non-disenting voices cannot be heard. Still, in this week’s Economist, a letter written by Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, basically tells us the truth – how it really is. In his words,
“Since 1998 the world’s average surface temperature has exhibited no warming, according to all the main temperature records. The trend has been a combination of flatlining and cooling, with a marked plunge over the past year; many countries, including Australia, Canada, China and the United States, expereinced severe winters.”
He goes on, providing more evidence, of the sort never seen on the BBC. Somehow, me thinks he knows more about climate change than any Arts educated BBC ‘journalist’, and any Greenparty activist (like the awful Caroline Lucas – english lit phd) who basically know nothing about science.