Even the BBC’s coverage of bias is biased when it comes to the climate change debate. This, posted today, is the BBC’s attempt to create “balance” in the debate about AGW. I haven’t the time now to go into detail about why this is a blatant, pathetic whitewash. I am sure others will in due course. But how about for starters, the words devoted to the AGW case are far more than those on the “sceptic” side? Why are the “sceptic” points so crudely put? And why are the vast majority of linked sites pro-AGW? Dozens of climate realist sites are missed out, including Bishop Hill and Harmless Sky – those that have done most to expose the gross BBC bias.
BIASED BIAS!!!.
Bookmark the permalink.
Anyone tell me how a puff for Lewis Hamilton getting “on board” a State sponsored initiative to encourage kids to drive early manages to make the news bulletins?(5.00pm tonight)
Surely the “challenging and the vulnerable young people” should not be subjected to peer pressure to drive at all-will somebody please think of the polar bears?
Hope the BBC allow me to get Amy Winehouse rolled out to promote my “drinking early management” project in the same style. Maybe Lewis and Amy might do a drink and driving joined up piece of research. Get `em young and raise that awareness!
Much better than getting them to read eh?
As long as they can read Hamiltons baseball cap-Vodafone-then that will be a GCSE pass by then. Hard not to read it-the camera was trained on it…any issue of product placement here I`m wondering!
Maybe someone can say why young Lewis might need a baseball cap when sitting in a car in a studio and in December-not to raise awareness was it?
The whole thing is presented from the Warmist perspective. Here are the “sceptic arguments”, and here’s why they’re wrong. “Commentators” versus “Scientists”. That’s the context, no way to deny it.
The Guardian’s “coalition of denial” (!) piece is even worse – here
To take one example- apparently the “view that climate change is caused by natural processes such as solar activity has been disproved by scientists.” – DISPROVED eh?
Can someone, anyone, tell me when this happened?
Natural processes causing climate change? What a crazy idea. I wonder what Ben “Bad Science” Goldacre makes of that.
A few weeks ago the consensus on this site was that the mainstream press refused to even discuss the idea that global warming isn’t as serious as is commonly portrayed. Yet now most papers, not to mention the BBC, have given plenty of column inches and airtime to deniers/sceptics/(insert phrase here). And yet you still complain….
You’re presenting a false premise, misrepresenting the facts. It has already been clearly proven that the BBC did have an official opinion on Warmism – viz Pg. 40 of the Trust report, as well as endless amounts of reporting from the BBC about Warmism as fact and their usage of terms with negative connotations for those against.
Now that reality has forced their hand, they’re mentioning the skeptical views, but from the perspective that those views are wrong. The mere fact that they are now giving air time to “opponents of the consensus” doesn’t make us hypocrits. The consensus on this site, as you put it, is that the BBC is biased in favor of Warmism. The failure of the BBC to honestly address the opposing views is consistent, as is the consensus on this site. Don’t let the trees obscure your view of the forest.
It’s interesting; I’m curious as to why the BBC is your only target of this ‘bias’? If the things you say are true, then every newspaper I’ve read, every TV news I’ve seen in the last decade is “biased in favour of warmism”. But why the BBC? Why pick that one target? Is it really that you dislike the idea of a state broadcaster full stop?
I haven’t seen this trust report, but send me a link and I’ll glady give it a read.
Remember also; as undeniably damaging as the CRU episode is; it does not undermime all the other evidence that supports climate change.
Ian Murphy
It’s interesting; I’m curious as to why the BBC is your only target of this ‘bias’?
Try reading the title of this blogsite – you might understand it better.
As to why particularly the BBC – It’s a tax to pay for a propaganda machine to develop ways to tax you more – under the lie and sham that it is impartial and unbiased.
I’m curious as to why you didn’t realize this already.
“..it does not undermime all the other evidence that supports climate change.”
Do you actually know what climate change is? Nothing can undermine the fact that climate changes. There are loads of data that support this.
The damge, as you put it, at CRU is nothing whatsoever about climate change but the causation. Just like the BBC you seem happy to force me to agree with the AGW theory on the flimsiest of evidence. You are also happy for me to pay even more tax to ease your concience when there are a other therories about the causation of the rise in temperatures at the latter end of the 20th century.
“I’m curious as to why the BBC is your only target of this ‘bias’?”…
Because I’m forced to pay for something I don’t want and don’t agree with its various lefty biases. The BBC has a massive sway over political opinion in the U.K. paid by everyone no matter what their views. I usually don’t pay for a newspaper because I don’t want to read one but if I did I would be pretty pissed off if I had to pay for The Guardian before I’m allowed to read any other newspaper.
Rubbish Ian, the press are for the most part still spinning the lie about man made climate change.
Or, in other words, reporting what most scientists and experts on the subject are saying?
Or, in other words, reporting what most scientists and experts on the subject are saying?
No, reporting on what scientists, experts and people with no expertise at all, who agree and often have a vested interest in MMGW say. Scientists who say differently are ignored, marginalized or ridiculed.
BTW Check out things caused by global warming Everything from Acne to Yellow Fever. Once scientists realised that the way to get grants was to somehow factor global warming into the research proposal they of course did so.
BTW no one to my knowledge has ever denied that climate changes and has changed dramatically even in recorded history. The argument is over prediction models, causes and solutions, if any.
I read this article today in the Telegraph Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
When I read something like this, not to mention the fact that the BBC are sending 35 staff to cover this conference, even if I believed in the AGW theory I would resent what ‘those who would control our lives with it’ would do. I have absolutely no respect for any of them, or their agenda. I would rather we ‘save the world’ from these hypocrites first, as we are in greater danger from them.
Naturally you won’t find any mention of the CARBON FOOTPRINT excesses by those who apparently believe in it on the BBC site. After all, the BBC want in on the action as well.However, they do print this foregone conclusion from a ‘climate official (who since he makes a lot of money out of it is hardly going to renounce it)’ without understanding how ludicrous it is?
Top Swedish climate official Anders Turesson told the BBC that he hoped the issue “will be investigated”.
However, Mr Turesson, who will also be leading EU negotiations as Sweden currently holds the rotating EU presidency, added: “But I cannot see it will in any way affect the negotiations here.”
That table has been used before during that court case when al gores movie was labelled political propaganda and was only one side of the argument
i’ll be glad when this copenhagen thing is over, al beeb is certainy doing its best to keep this global warming bollox in the news
The Beebinator<img src=”http://cf.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png”/>
That table has been used before during that court case when al gores movie was labelled political propaganda and was only one side of the argument
Indeed it has – good spot, here….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
….however there is (at least) one difference – on this occasion they haven’t signed off with the line…
Compiled with advice from Fred Singer and Gavin Schmidt
Why on earth might that be?
BBC:
“Evidence for a Medieval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe.”
Further Reading:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php
http://www.co2science.org/subject/b/summaries/boreholes.php
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/#more-13698
Only the BBC could have the sheer brass necked arrogance to peddle a supposed poll that finds(wonder of wonders)the majority of people believe that man made climate change is a serious problem and danger.
I wonder if the poll would have shown a difference had it been conducted after the climategate scandal broke? The faked up poll was of course meant to reinforce the Copenhagen festival of lies, what better companion could the summit have? A fake poll supporting a faked climate emergency using faked data to come to a faked conclusion using faked methods?
The toady show gave the rigged poll top billing of course and deniers of course were not invited on to cast their denialist spells.
The fraudster in chief Harrabin managed the feat of telling us that the majority of UK people thought AGW was a major threat AND thought government should take a lead role(quelle surprise) while later admitting quietly that the majority thought the exact opposite, talk about chutzpah eh?
The BBC is the world leader in faking and then cherry picking and manipulating polls to say exactly what the BBC want it to say.
So two thirds of people think exactly the way that the BBC wants/needs/requires them to think and all done before the climategate scandal broke? They really do think we are retarded dont they?
“the poll shows strong worldwide support for action on climate change in spite of the recession” said globescan in the hope of more generous contracts from the BBC which can be very very generous IF the BBC gets the answers it wants?
I hate these crooked lying bastards so much I can taste it and it does not taste good.
BTW whenever the BBC run a HYS on the supposed man made global warming fraud the vast majority of comments are highly sceptical and those are the comments which get the highest reader ratings by far.
The BBC can be actually proven to be cheating and lying about the publics sentiment about the supposed climate emergency and what should be done about it.
Every MSM report that allows reader comments shows a massive sceptical reaction to the global warming lies, the BBC knows full well the REAL feeling out there but chooses instead to fund(with our money)lavish polls specially rigged to ignore reality.
The BBC could in fact run a poll on the HYS website, it would cost nothing and would be far more accurate BUT they never will because it would show the exact opposite of what the BBC wnat to show, the BBC are frightened of the real truth, they are desperately and deliberately lying to the public that trusts them.
If they ran a poll on their HYS website they would quickly realise the true feelings of the people and that can never be allowed to happen which is why the BBC have been reduced to grubby poll manipulation.
Cassandra, I’m disappointed in you. Surely you know that any poll which is ‘opt in’ (such as HYS) is never a true reflection of public opinion and trying to paint it as such is disingenuous.
For an example, look at any Daily Mail story on the BNP. The comments are always overwhelming pro-BNP. Does this mean the majority of Daily Mail readers are BNP voters? Of course not.
Nice try Paulo BUT the BBC HYS is very popular, are you saying that all the posters and readers who recomend those posts should be ignored because they dont fit the profile the BBC wants?
It seems that if the public dont buy the lies and fraud then its not the lies and fraud thats at fault but the public who see it for what it is.
Polls can be faked easily, those who commission the polls can easily conspire with the pollsters to manipulate the results to suit their own agenda and the BBC and globescan have a long history of poll fraud.
“BBC HYS is very popular”
Among certain groups perhaps. But that’s a completely unquantifiable statement. There’s no way of knowing whether they truly represent a cross section of British society. Many of the posters on HYS don’t even come from this county…
“are you saying that all the posters and readers who recomend those posts should be ignored because they dont fit the profile the BBC wants? “
Of course not, don’t put words into my mouth. That just isn’t the best way of representing the views of the country.
“Polls can be faked easily”
If you say so. But as you well know, online ‘opt-in’ polls like you suggest are very easily hijacked.
Here is a classic example of a Daily Mail poll on “Should gypsies jump NHS queues” getting 90% in agreement. Not a standard Daily Mail viewpoint….
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/twitterers-subvert-daily-mails-racist-poll/
Ed Millipede spouting total nonsense on the TV and radio this morning about climate change (note dangerous climate change has surfaced again) the Liam Burne spouting utter nonsense about saving billions by sacking a few senior civil servants (just how much are they paid then?)
Context is everything isnt it.
Had al beeb arranged their example of “impatiality” around the other way then their article would have taken on a completely different tone.
Yesterday afternoon I caught a part of the politics program when Milliband was on and what an absolute twat. He and the rest of the fetid carcass called Labour are peddling the politics of envy (raising taxes on the rich is only fair) and fear (flat earthers)…this guy is so invested in global warming that he cant see anything other than the complete and utter bankruptcy of the west to support developing nations (because its only fair).
Honestly, is this guy the best Labour can come up with?
Mailman
Mailman
Someone clearly hasn’t read the latest BBC poll.
Miliband’s fury at climate sceptics
Politicians face a “huge challenge” to convince people that action on global warming should be a priority, Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband has said, ahead of crunch UN talks in Copenhagen.
Ed Miliband clashes with Lord Lawson on global warming
Mr Miliband accused Lord Lawson of being “profoundly irresponsible”.
<!– E SF –>
The energy secretary said Lord Lawson was “spreading doubt” despite a scientific consensus.
“What we’ve heard from the national academies of the eight leading industrial countries, and the five leading emerging countries, like China and India, is that global warming is man-made and it’s happening,” he said.
“I think you are being profoundly irresponsible by saying we can stick our heads in the sand and just hope this thing goes away. It’s not going to.”
BTW the 2nd article from the BBC seems neutral. I wonder if the Beeb is beginning to ease to an ‘each way’ bet?
I wonder if it is possible to take a fair poll of the man on the street about Global Warming?
Climate sceptics are like holocaust deniers.
Climate sceptics are irresponsibly allowing a catastrophe to happen.
All the smart people agree that the matter is settled.
Deniers of global warming wisdom are behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics
Climate change/global warming is too important to be politicized
After all this, clearly it takes a brave poll respondent not to answer MMGW is a serious problem and a danger.
I noticed that the toady show this AM was a denier free zone, perhaps the BBC realise that when a sceptic is allowed to speak they usually demolish the alarmists in short order, Ed Milliband could have doubled with a sceptic but then he would have ended up looking like a total twerp.
I notice the BBC is now trying to squeeze out the sceptic voice, trying to minimise the impact of climategate, they cannot win the face to face debate so they silence the ‘enemy’.
The tragedy is that scum like Milliband have a stranglehold on the UK, they are dishonest lying cheats and it matters not if they are ejected from the rotten parliament soon, they will continue to revel in positions of power and influence by way of the shadow state which is now more powerful than the Westminster facade.
When nulab and their beeboid fellow travellers resort to name calling, its a sure sign that they are rattled and feel the argument slipping away from them.
On the Toady programme this morning, there wasn’t even an acknowledgement that the reported science underpinning the AGW case has been blown out of the water, just full speed ahead and ignore the sceptics.
I get the feeling that the sort of people (especially in the bbc), who were so vocal in support of nulab , when dissilusion set in, simply transfered to climate change as their replacement warm and fuzzy lefty cause.
As has been mentioned elsewhere the BBC Trust has decided that the BBC can peddle AGW as fact and their defacto position.
I am curious as to when, why and how they arrived at this decision. It appears to be after a seminar held at TV Centre in 2006. There is a FOI request into the BBC.
Request list of scientific experts who attended and minutes of high-level seminar on man-made global warming
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_list_of_scientific_exper#incoming-57513
We need to see who these experts were. They have 20 working days to respond, which by my reckoning is 22 December.
Even though the BBC is public funded they don’t do FOI requests as they would show them up as the lying, biased, leftist scum that they are. The one thing guaranteed is that you cannot trust the BBC trust.
I watched that interview, the milliband/lawson one and milliband went around in circles and eventually ended at the “neither you or I are scientists and we should listen to scientists” to try to discredit what Lawson was saying.
However I couldnt help but think that golden opportunity after golden opportunity is being missed by those who are sceptical that man is the sole cause of global warming.
Lawson should have countered that if we are to listen to so called scientists then the data and methodology used to underpin their sceience MUST be made available to all and everyone so that it can be picked apart and reviewed. He should have also asked why, if the science is so settled, that the so called scientists have for over a decade refused to release their data so it can be truly indepentendly reviewed.
While we can laugh at the train wreck interviews like Friday nights comedy (the one where watson called the other guy an a-hole), the fact is al beeb and co are still calling the shots and so far havent dared present any “credible” sceptics.
Sadly something bad will come out of Copenhagen and really its going to be up to the US Senate and Congress to shoot anything down that comes out of that farce.
Having said that, its going to be interesting to see how Barry gets around signing something binding when anything he does still has to be ratified by Congress.
Mailman
What would be even worse is that after copenhagen has been signed off, and temps continue to decline over the next couple years, every alarmist and their dog jumps on the bandwagon saying the decline is proof their intervention worked!
Mailman
Mailman
You are absolutely right: the importance of Climategate is its illustration that, as far as “climated science” is concerned “science” is not being done: that is the point that should be hammered home by the sceptics. The AGW theory (and the “consensual” way of combatting AGW ie taking the West back to the Stone Age) may be correct but until all the raw data (and the “adjustments” thereto) and the computer model algorithms (together with the assumptions underlying those algorithms) are made freely available (and thus replicable) the conclusions are questionable: they are a matter of opinion not a matter of “science”.