“Are you selfish – or are we bad journalists?” asks the BBC’s Mark Sandell on the World Have Your Say blog. “Whatever we do, whatever debate we come up with, we can’t seem to interest you in the issue of climate change.”
What a shame, eh?
(A related item – last week on the Conan O’Brien show Al Gore stated that “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees” [via John Derbyshire] . Do you think we might have heard a bit more about such an innumerate pronouncement if it had been made by a certain Republican VP candidate?)
(Update. The WHYS blog has bumped the original post – new link here.)
The BBC keeps admitting that the are advocates for social, political, and economic engineering. Any defenders of the indefensible want to explain how this is part of their remit and not biased?
As for Gore’s idiotic remark, where is Justin Webb to declare he’s unfit for public office because he denies science?
And on the same website: If it’s not racism, why do some Americans hate President Obama so much?
I don’t recall racism being a reason given for hating President Bush.
Obama is the lefts new ‘Kennedy’ he is a poster boy for the left and his many faults are hidden by the left dominated media, even the media to the right cannot attack Obama too harshly for fear of being smeared as racist, Omaha Obama has some good top cover while he bungles his way through the world making error after gross cock up.
The BBC are in love with Obama, they are head over heels in love with the blundering fool, no matter that the China visit made him look like what he is, out of his depth and flailing like a bloody fool helping and assisting his nations direct competitor screw the USA to the wall, the USA is freefalling and China is rising assisted by trillions of US dollars, how long before the US blue water fleet becomes outdated and the Chinese fleet overtakes it in size and power?
Mr Obama doesnt a have the first clue how to deal with China, the Chinese are pissing themselves at his inexperience and stupidity.
Gore is so ignorant of science it beggars belief. Only fools take this idiot seriously.
Cassie and others.
Just search on Youtube for “Obama gaffes”. The man is a buffoon, but don’t expect it to be on the BBC.
I deal a lot with the Chinese and you are right, they think Obama is a fool.
<i>Are you selfish – or are we bad journalists?</i>
You’re not a journalist. You’re an agenda-monkey that works for the execrable BBC. You’re degenerate scum. Go and flagellate yourself, moron.
The BBC and Mark Sandell and to be frank, large sections of the MSM live in their own little bubble outside of the real world. They just cannot see it can they that more people each day are coming to the conclusion that MMGW/climate change is a con. To answer your question Mark…yes you are bad journalists for failing to tell the public the truth. Or at the very least, allowing an alternative point of view to be heard. But the BBC doesnt like that do they. As you say, nobody is allowed to criticise Obama. Nobody who is white can possibly suffer rascism. BBC, in your own bubble your views are supreme. In the real world, people really think that oooh maybe the economy and jobs are more important than ‘climate change’
“Whatever we do, whatever debate we come up with, we can’t seem to interest you in the issue of climate change.”
“Debate”? – there lies the problem – its not a debate but propoganda.
How often does Steve McIntyre feature in the debate? Why is it that those who wish to challenge global warming are being hampered? Why is is that the climate does not do as it’s told by the IPCC? What about that ‘hokey’ stick? What is wrong with Al Gore’s debating skills and why? There are so many questions not tackled in this ‘open debate’ that it seems like pure propaganda.
BTW Climate change in everything is likely to turn people off, and the BBC knows how to put climate change into everything.
Here’s another gem from Al Gore:
“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
Has he been to China lately?
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
Quite, but the point is that pollution is “impurities in our air and water“, that’s the definition of it!
Along with his “the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees”, and his claims to have invented the Internet he has quite a record of “mis-speaking”, but somehow doesn’t get the same sort of derision aimed at him as when Bush put his foot in it.
“Are you selfish – or are we bad journalists?”
There’s a certain irony that linking there this am gets a 404 error – to something which just isn’t here! Fear not however, errors are to be expected
Bless.
If a shame, because to the second part of that question I might have replied: ‘do [polar] bears fall from the sky in daft wastes of ‘climate-scare’ awareness budgets over actually doing anything useful?’
Thanks for spotting that. They bumped the blog post, so I’ve added an update.
Ta for the relink. I have added a comment. Oddly different blog ‘system’. No idea if what I wrote will get posted. In case not, so it doesn’t get wasted:
‘Are you selfish – or are we bad journalists ?’ There’s a sense of ‘them & us’ that may go some way to informing the second half of the question. If folk are not buying into a message (and it is not like it isn’t being shared… a lot) that usually tends to suggest there is a problem with its content… or the way it is being shared. There is so much swirling around that it is unsurprising folk are still confused, even when many in high office do state, and are supported by many in the media that ‘the science is settled’. Then along comes something that might suggest it is not as settled as claimed before, often with deadlines that seem to pass with depressing frequency, only to be updated as things… ‘evolve’. Hence an understandable default to waiting and seeing seems hardly selfish, but possibly prescient. And there is the focus of what does get shared. Too often it is absolutist terms that merge negative climate change with the various potential causes… and it is hard to get past the boogey man generic ‘it’, to get a handle on what the actual proposed ‘solutions’ are, mean, what they will cost, achieve and how well all this has been structured to ensure the enviROI is positive. With contingencies. ‘Green’ is a broad church, and not everything that is demanded in its name need be ‘good’. One needs to prioritise, and honestly. I recently had opportunities, via Newsnight and the Guardian, to pose questions to the respective climate and energy pols from the two major parties. Sadly, not much detail was forthcoming on many key issues. 1/2
2/2
Here are some I posed, to find out what was, in the minds of these expert pols and their media supporters, areas of priority: Deforestation Shipping Population Autos (electric) Autos (hydrogen) Autos (LPG) Autos (oil dependent) Air travel Plastic bags Bottled water Immigration Renewables (tidal vs. wind vs. solar) Coal power Nuclear power Ethical Fashion Eating Pets Smart Grids Local micro-generation Boiler (and other efficiency-related job and green improving) scrappage TV size and power restriction bans Recycling for targets or box-ticks over viable recyclates Flooding defences Drain clearing Affordable housing Packaging Daylight saving There are plenty more. Some critical. Some irrelevant. Honestly, which have had a lot of heat around them that didn’t deserve it, and how many need much more illumination than they have had so far? Hence, maybe the questions for some media may better be: Is the critical issue still to: a) Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that negative climate change is totally at the door of man, and crush all not sharing this belief before tackling anything else. Or, now… b) Accept that man may be more than an insignificant fly spoiling what is shaping up as a dubious ointment, and come up with pragmatic, coherent, across-the-board, non-hypocritical policies of engagement that are conveyed (with pros and cons, sensible times rather than daft deadlines and £ numbers where possible) via honest, best-we-can-guess, still informative, non-dogmatic comms efforts that do not pander to extreme dogma and depend pretty much solely on fright, guilt, nanny, pedestal, finger wag and/or fine? Especially from those who seem to think they are too busy, smart or important for what they say others need to do as such needing to apply to their own actions? I’d vote the latter. And once I start to trust in the non-hypocritical objectivity of the messengers more, I might again be more moved to engage with the messages they seem still baffled are not being received as broadcast (especially when, too often, it is in ‘only’ mode. Back to the answer to the second half of the question).
Current developments, especially in the face of the latest CRU revelations, seems to suggest the rather over-confident ‘science is settled’ justifications for pushing through any old thing in the name of ‘climate’ are on rather shaky foundations, upon which are also perched even shakier journalistic conceits.