Here on B-BBC we regularly (and rightly) chastise the BBC for it’s assiduous cultivation of AGW, but by way of contrast, and in an attempt to be fair, this seems a decent item by Paul Hudson. Worth a read. However I wonder will this sense of better balance make it into the mainstream? Somehow, I doubt it. I feel that for too many in the BBC, the debate IS over.
THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER..
Bookmark the permalink.
What does seem… odd… is that this comes out just at a point when the Government releases a TV commercial (with attendant major PR) that says pretty much that the debate IS over.
What I’m getting, at best, is a sense of conflict brewing (maybe genuine, or maybe token to point at come Charter time).
Good for journalistic rigour (and ratings?) perhaps, but by being so tardy and with a background of ‘roll-over and accept the PR given’ by a bunch of English or Mass Comm grads masquerading as science correspondents, hardly serving the debate very well.
Or the possible need to lock some stuff down definitively before some major decisions get taken… mainly by pols with nothing to lose legacy issues, or who were at Oxbridge reading politics with those self-same media influencers with the backstage green room entry or private jet exclusive interview passes to Bono’s latest ‘awareness’ event.
As I mentioned on the other thread, it is encouraging to see that a proper weatherman with a first in geophysics and planetary physics has been recruited as a climate correspondent.
Yes, I saw your comment about this. You said it was balanced. It isn’t.
This is prima facie evidence that the BBC has had an institutional bias in favor of AGW as fact, debate closed. It starts out by admitting surprise that there is even a question about it. Then makes every effort to add layer upon layer of arguments from both sides, to create the illusion that there is not only a robust debate, but that the AGW side is still credible. Which it isn’t.
Once again reality forces the BBC to report something they were either suppressing, or were actually reporting innacurately. The debate is just now “hotting up”? This article is written from the position that it was essentially closed, and now there is suddenly new evidence that we must consider if we’re to really understand AGW properly.
Bias.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-climate-change/
But the BBC continues to use this term “climate change denier” as in “holocaust denier”. No one is a climate change denier but many people (including me) simply believe that climate change models used to predict climate change are far too simple and don’t include the effects that other factors such as the Sun’s activity, Earth orbit and wobble along with other natural events impact on the climate. We’ve been saying this for years.
The idea that simply suggesting there is a linear direct correlation between CO2 levels and planet temperature is just rubbish and anyone with a scientific background knows that.
The only ones who don’t are the wet liberal arts/media types who never understood science at school nor did they want to, but will happily believe crap pumped out by fat American politicians and camp male beeboids.
Martin — the problem is that people don’t know the difference between Carbon Monoxide, and Carbon DIOXIDE. the colourless, odorless gas also known as Dry Ice.
I blame the ignorance factories we have masquerading as schools.
Last year some mendacious “green” car insurance company produced ads in which a noxious looking BLACK CLOUD spewed from a car and chased people around. I kid you not.— while the santimonious VO droned on about CO2.
The unmistakeable visual lie was that this noxious gas was Carbon Dioxide.
I complained, of course, to the Advertising Standards on the grounds that it was a blatant attempt to mislead. It was false advertising, etc.
Got absolutley NOWHERE.
But both carbon dioxide AND carbon monoxide are colourless, odorless and tasteless gases. Of course, one is toxic and the other is not.
Using a black cloud may be misleading, but carbon monoxide is as invisible as carbon dioxide
I don’t think JB said it wasn’t? He was pointing out that CO2 is colourless and odourless. CO2 is an important life giving gas for the planet, it isn’t poisoning the planet at all.
It’s lefties pretending to know something about science that is the danger. Fat slugs like Al Bore having some crappy third rate film used as an educational tool in schools is a total joke.
Martin, thatks for the effort in pointing out the obvious point to my post.
Which is the mendacity of advertisng agencies who would claim that a lethal injection was good for you because it’s “green.”
To return to the base lie in using a black cloud to imply toxity in CO2, when in fact, the pollutant in exhaust fumes comes from Carbon MONOXIDE.
Carbon dioxide isn’t poisoning the planet and no-one with any scientific background is claiming it is.
It’s one of those things like water or sunshine that is essential for life, but in excess <i>may</i> be harmful.
Carbon dioxide isn’t poisoning the planet and no-one with any scientific background is claiming it is.
What planet are YOU living on?
Even if the BBC has finally admitted that there is a – *gasp* – debate about AGW, they still report as fact that CO2 is dangerous, and discuss it with co-religionists.
Iceland looks to serve the world
While it has been below the radar until now, Verne Global thinks that with cloud computing on the rise, the carbon footprint of the digital world will soon become “unacceptably high”.
The whole thing is done from the position that CO2 emissions will ultimately be extremely dangerous, without bothering to explain how servers using energy actually creates a “carbon footprint”. We’re just supposed to take it for granted, similar to certain religious beliefs.
Iceland looks to serve the world
From those wonderful folks who brought YOU multiple BANK COLLAPSES
Let’s start by turning off all electricity in ICELAND.
That all started in America, back when Capitalism failed. But before anyone gets too excited about the Icelanders saving the world by building all these green server farms, they better ask the elves first.
According to a poll conducted in 2007, 54 percent of Icelanders don’t deny the existence of elves and 8 percent believe in them outright, although only 3 percent claim to have encountered one personally.
Will the BBC report this? You know, to put into context the mental capacity of the people we’re supposed to trust? I’d like to see Justin Webb declare that most Icelanders aren’t fit for public office because of these beliefs which deny science. Or is that BBC contempt reserved only for Christians?
Damian Thompson at the Telegraph noted that this is a subject the BBC might be hoping would slip through quietly. As it is, this ‘about turn’ webpage is presently the most viewed. :-E
Anyone who uses the words “sceptics” to portray one side of the argument and “scientists” to describe the other is still being biased .
would you say the same about evolution?
Given these two options which do you think should be the natural state for a scientist to adopt:
1. Skepticism
2. Consensus
Yes
Bob,
That’s a false analogy. The theory of evolution has been discussed and analysed by scientists for much longer than AGW, but like (nearly) everything else in science, it’s a theory that is constantly being tested, challenged and refined by the scientific community. The theory of AGW has been around since the 1970s, yet apparently “the science” – whatever that may be – is “in”. AGW is touted as a scientific “fact”. That’s bad science. All scientific theories are – or should be – constantly challenged and tested. But apparently AGW is the only scientific theory that does not need the same rigour applied to it as all the other theoris. Doesn’t that make you a bit suspicious?
Spot on, almost every year some new fossil is unearthed that helps to fill in some of the gaps in the chain of human evolution that the god bothereers claim is what makes the theory of evolution fall apart.
In REAL science there should be NO END TO THE DEBATE, all science is about challenging theories, we know that Newton’s laws are only true up to a point and break down at the quantum level. But that is backed up by experimental evidence.
Climate change science is based on wet liberals climbing onto buildings, smashing up Starbucks and claiming that Bonzo out of U2 knows about climate change.
it’s not a false analogy because John was solely talking about using the term scientists – i was being semantical
Jeremy Vine on R2 has been covering this. OK, so it was an AGW believer against two sceptical members of the public (so hardly balanced) but the fact that it was being acknowledged that the debate is not over is a big step for the BBC (and a welcome one). JV even noted that around 40% of people are admitted sceptics.
40%? I’d say that well over 50% of the population are sceptical that climate change is being affected by humans more than any other cause.
Most people just think it’s an excuse to rack up taxes.
Can someone please explain to me why only one Country in Africa (Kenya) is suffering a drought because of “Climate Change?”
Don’t lefties realise what prats they are stating this? So if Yorkshire has a drougt but the rest of the UK is 6 foot under water Yorkshire’s drought is caused by climatre change?
It’s all down to Climate Change. Much like The Lord, AGW sometimes works in mysterious ways. As if Kenya never had droughts like this historically, long before that nasty Industrial Revolution.
Just noticed that the original story on the BBC website was “updated” yesterday, does anybody have any idea what the update was, or where I might find out such information?
To answer my own question, it would appear that the update is the addition of the url which leads to a Blog article by the same author, which is worth a read. Much more worth reading however are the comments, which I am in the early stages of reading, most of which appear to have been posted by alarmists annoyed by the tone of the original article, one of which ends…….
“”Your blog here is almost as bad as the first, you are digging a very deep hole for yourself and you won’t be able to get out of it. Do the honorable thing and take down your blog, leave journalism to the journalists and stick to your regional weather reports.””
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/a-few-points-about-my-article.shtml#comments