Via Bishop Hill and the Mail:
BBC boss gags ‘sceptics’ from climate change debates
A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.
Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.
Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.
If a programme does run such a discussion, it will… be in breach of the editorial guidelines on impartiality.’
Mr MacLeod wrote that the reason the Trust decided that there should be no attempt by the BBC to give equal weight to opposing sides on climate change was that sceptics’ views were ‘based on opinion rather than demonstrable scientific validity’.
Last night a Trust spokesman said: ‘We agreed that there should be no attempt to give equal weight to opinion and to evidence in science coverage, but we said specifically that this does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded.
‘We did not specify that the BBC should not broadcast debates/discussions between scientists and sceptics.’
A BBC spokesman added: ‘All viewpoints continue to be given due weight in our output.’
Asked whether the BBC was prepared explicitly to disavow Mr MacLeod’s email, both officials failed to comment.
“we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics”
An assumption there that sceptics cannot be scientists. Which tells you about their mindset.
So the BBC’s Orwellian excuse for the censorship of the experimentally demonstrable scientifically valid results of the CERN CLOUD experiment is that the scientists or “sceptics views were based on opinion rather than demonstrable scientific validity”
Well, the BBC should only invite the scientist concerned, not those with an opinion, and that includes all those environmentalists who the BBC never excludes due to having the correct opinion, in the opinion of the BBC.
‘….rather than demonstrable scientific validity’.
That sums up the BBC’s breathtaking ignorance. Or is it arrogance? Or is it ignorant arrogance?
I’ve already posted this link below, but it’s worth reading the whole piece as it is a superb yet simple explanation as to why that which the BBC calls ‘demonstrable scientific validity’ is nothing of the sort:
‘The real climate system is so massively complex we do not have the ability to test global-size theories in a laboratory. Without this ability, we tend to travel all sorts of other avenues to confirm what are essentially our unprovable views about climate. These avenues tend to comfort our souls because we crave certainty over ambiguity.
It is a fundamental characteristic of the scientific method and, therefore, of the confidence we have in our theories, that when we finally understand a system, we are able to predict its behaviour……
All 102 model runs overshot the actual temperature change on average by a factor of three. Not only does this tell us we don’t have a good grasp on the way climate varies, but the fact that all simulations overcooked the atmosphere means there is probably a warm bias built into the basic theory — the same theory we’ve been told is “settled science.”
To me, being off by a factor of three doesn’t qualify as “settled.”
As important as models can be for problems like this, it is clear we have a long way to go. And it is troubling that current policy is being based on these computer models, none of which has been validated by a formalized, independent Red Team analysis.’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/john-christy-climate-models-overcook.html
They are funded to make the science as complex as possible, not to find answers. Lindzen said that about the funding of science in America.
But correlations point to answers, and that leads to further answers, and that’s the science that is censored from appearing on the BBC.
And that is why correlations with Sun spot numbers lead to a correlation with the length of the solar cycle, which lead to a correlation with the average speed of plasma in the Sun over a solar cycle, which lead to a correlation with planetary movements and mass, which lead to a correlation with Cosmic ray levels on Earth, which lead to a correlation with low cloud albedo, which lead to a correlation with Global warming in the 20th century. Which has lead to astronomers predicting Climate Change by using planetary harmonics.
And that prediction is a mini-ice-age from about 2018.
Beeboid leftist repression extends:
from banning criticism of Islam, to banning criticism of global warming.
“…‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.”
That old liberal fascism at work, folks. And the BBC wonders why it is held in such contempt by so many people? It’s censorship, pure and simple – that familiar retort from the Belligerent Brainwashing Comintern which holds its own views above all criticism, beyond any hope of ‘balance’ and ‘impartiality’.
As the license fee embarks upon its death of a thousand cuts, the BBC just can’t help adding grist to the mill.
‘Belligerent Brainwashing Comintern’.
Excellent. Should be adopted by all websites dedicated to exposing the BBC’s lack of balance and impartiality.
Nice one. Like it.
The Bush Blair Corporation ?
H/T to George Galloway MP.
The Boy Buggering Cronies?
Perhaps this site could organise a competition?
Ridicule is a powerful tool, especially when it’s justified. 🙂
This is utter tosh.
I mean what you have written. Mr. MacLeod is absolutely right, though his phrasing is poor. For far too long the BBC has bent over backwards to give the tiny number of sceptics equal prominence to the scientists, who in their thousands across the world endorse the two facts – climate change is real, and the climate change we are seeing is caused by human activity.
To give sceptics equal weighting is wrong in journalistic terms – they are a TINY minority of informed opinion and should therefore get a TINY slice of the coverage, and wrong in moral terms – climate change is a massive problem, a present danger, and to minimise it is completely irresponsible.
Other countries do not have the problem we Brits seem to have in understanding the facts of climate change. But then they do not have an almost totally irresponsible press on this issue.
Poor old Britain hobbles along, way behind Germany, Denmark, et al, missing out on the vast markets which renewables and conservation represent, and putting the whole of our economy into an expensive, fossil-fuel dependent time-warp, and even now the US is getting its act together on renewables.
Time to wake up!!
It occurs to me, that perhaps the “waking up” might be better engaged in by yourself.
‘Germany Decides to Cut its Renewable Energy Subsidies’
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Germany-Decides-to-Cut-its-Renewable-Energy-Subsidies.html
‘Germany’s International Competitiveness Threatened by Rising German Energy Prices and Low-Cost Energy in the United States, IHS Study Says.’
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-international-competitiveness-threatened-rising-093000306.html
‘Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months – (No Warming for 210 Months)’.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/
‘Climate models overcook the planet by a factor of 3 times; the science isn’t “settled”.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/john-christy-climate-models-overcook.html
Your meaningless mantras demonstrate why the science needs to be debated. The population of this country needs to be ‘educated and informed’ rather than brainwashed.
Daniel: why do you bother? There is not a single number in any of your arguments (apart from “thousands” being bigger than “tiny”)- a sure sign of an arts graduate. Ask your electricity supplier to put you on a “renewables-only” contract.
Daniel,
scientific reality is not dependent upon how many people believe it or like it. Its not XFactor.
don’t just believe something because ‘thousands of scientists’ say something. Think for yourself. Ask questions. Do some research. Try to understand the science and not the politics. Ask yourself what the words ‘climate change’ actually means? Is it colder. or warmer? Maybe more windy or wetter? Ask questions. THINK for yourself. Otherwise you add yourself to the problem.
Science is not about the ‘majority’ kneeling and praying to the weather gods. And most importantly. Keep an open mind and take your news from multiple sources.
That’s quite right. It doesn’t matter how many people say something. It just matters whether it is right or not.
But in taking ‘news from multiple sources’ try listening to farmers, fishermen, gardeners, observers of birds, bees, butterflies, bats, etc, all of whom have plenty of evidence that the climate is changing. But most of them won’t have any numbers, unlike the few bloggers stuck all day in their offices arguing over whether the global average temperature – a pretty meaningless figure for most purposes – has or hasn’t changed by a fraction of a degree in the last few years.
Every week on this site someone complains that a farmer or a fisherman has commented (usually on bBBC Countryfile) about climate change, but they’re the people who really know. Not someone hunched over a computer with his fingers in his ears shouting “la-la-la-la-la I don’t want to hear”.
So the proven link to man-made CO2 is….?
No one is saying its not changing. Its always doing something. Going into an ice age, coming out of an ice age, responding to volcanoes, solar activity etc. We are just observing that there has been no increase in warming for the last 17 years, despite all the CO2 we emit. The predictions are running much hotter than reality and in a few years there will be no logical way to conclude that CO2 is even a problem. Of course it may return with a vengeance but currently its looking like the Skeptics were maybe right.
No one is saying its not changing.
But yes, they are. There are complaints on this site almost every time anyone mentions climate change in any bBBC programme.
I don’t think anybody on here has ever said the climate isn’t changing, Sir Arthur, but there have been many comments on the alarmists’ motives in ditching ‘man-made global warming’ in favour of ‘global warming’ in favour of ‘climate change’.
I live in a farming area and am on good terms with the local farmers. I do not know a single one who believes in AGW.
Farmers tend to take a long view and realise that the very word climate implies change. It has changed in relatively minor ways throughout their lives and those who have long farm records will have seen ebbs and flows down the decades.
Sir Arthur is being deceived by the usual BBC propaganda.
How can one person press the “like” button 8 times?
Sir Arthur,
you are confusing ‘denial’ with the cynical reaction to the immediate use of the words ‘climate change’ every time its wet windy or hot or cold.
The words have become meaningless within themselves and are shorthand for ‘we caused this and we better (insert political mandate here) or else we are all going to die and the butterfly’s and polar bears will die too’. Its getting boring.
I think that the reason that intelligent people do not follow the consensus, unless it is correct, is that intelligent people tend to benefit from thinking for themselves, while thick people like small children, usually benefit from following the consensus, because other peoples opinion is more probably correct than the independent opinion of a thick person, or BBC employee.
Sadly I have two nephews with Oxford Firsts who still believe in man-made climate change precisely because they are unable to question. Anyone who doesn’t follow the IPCC line (WUWT) must be sponsored by the oil industry they say.
Mensa originated at Oxford, and I was told in the 1990’s that at the Oxford University Mensa test sessions of students, only one in six students passed the test.
Some had below average IQ, I presume that they where the left-wing arts people that go on to be employed by the BBC, which was confirmed by that W1A comedy/documentary.
Not sure I agree, Richard. At the very least, definition of ‘intelligence’ is difficult. If you mean educated people, most of them are believers. As Reagan remarked, the trouble with liberals is not that they are ignorant, it’s that they know so many things that are not so.
This business would not be so intractable if only stupid people were warmists, or for that matter, deluded liberals in general.
After wrestling with this, I’ve come to believe that the correlation between intelligence and being right is either zero, or a negative number. The correlation between being educated and being right is certainly negative.
The thing about Liberals is that they can waffle on and on, without thinking about what they are saying, its as though they regard religious belief as stupid but need to believe in Climate as a religion, but unlike God, their Climate beliefs can be proven wrong, which then violently upsets them, which makes me think they are morons.
This is utter tosh.
I mean what you have written.
That was a close one.
Poor phrasing from the outset can really frame what follows poorly.
The BBC invites Lord Lawson, but not parliamentarians who are also scientists such as Graham Stringer and Peter Lilly.
Censorship of so called sceptical scientists by the BBC, means that the viewer does not get the full scientific facts, due to the left-wing bias of the BBC‘s environmental activists.
People with arts and drama qualifications, who live in the BBC/Guardian bubble, are not forced to watch any scientific debate, but there are a great many intelligent people who only obtain scientific information by reading the Daily Mail, or in the case of Mensa members, the magazine and SIG newsletters.
I remember Patrick Moore once invited the flat earthers onto Sky at Night, neither I nor any other Astronomers where afraid of what they may say, opinion is not as valid as scientific facts, so unlike the BBC, Astronomers do not believe in censorship of opinion, as an excuse to censor facts.
And yes there is a lot you can learn from the Danish National Space Center.
Daniel, your free thought has been corrupted, talking to you would be like trying to convince the Pope there is no God. What are you going to do when one day you wake up and realise that it (it being that man made Co2 has caused all the Global Warming which has caused all the Climate Change) has all been one long hoax?
You tell me in your post that Climate Change well, please inform me of what change in the climate are we suffering in Great Britain? Those that talk of Climate Change can never tell me what is that Climate Change. Are we, a maritime climate changing to a Polar Maritime, a polar Continental, a continental, what exactly. And as you are so sure that we are having climate change, are the mean pressure(s) in the u.k. going up or down?
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE.
Brainwashed alert.
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
The climate’s always changing, has been ever since the World was born, ~4.5 billion years ago, & won’t stop any time soon.
H/T Buzz Aldrin.
Earth’s currently on it’s 3rd atmosphere.
H/T Michael Crichton.
There’s been no statistically significant global warming now for 17.5 years, while CO2, commonly known as plant food has continued growing, as it does, on an 800 year time lag, AFTER global warming. Ice core data.
BBC selling you lies, man.
Satellite data.
H/T Anthony Watts:
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
Strange how the BBC champions the right of minority groups to have a voice only if they assist the left/liberal agenda setting.
That’s assuming sceptical scientists are in a minority, of course. The truth is, we don’t actually know, we are just told so time and again by the likes of the BBC and the IPCC – and if you believe either of them you might as well get yourself a lobotomy, if you haven’t already.
I would prefer the so called sceptic to be a scientist, preferably a causational or attributional climate scientist, such as an atmospheric physicist or solar scientist. The BBC’s “best scientific experts“ always seem to turn out to be scientifically unqualified environmentalists.
At the BBC, its all about the dogmatic debate about speculation, assumptions, consensus, ideology, belief and scepticism.
But true scientists, such as Johnny Ball and David Bellamy, base their judgment on evidence, facts, proof, observations, correlation’s, results from experiments and the scientific method.
There where only two “MP scientists” on the IPCC 5th Assessment Review committee, Graham Stringer and Peter Lilly, they just happen also to be the only two so called sceptics on the committee, the others not being scientists, do not show the confidence to ask challenging questions, to guests.
But I did note that Peter Lilly did ask about the BBC censorship policy, asking why the BBC excluded scientists such as himself, and more importantly, scientists such as Piers Corbyn, Henrik Svensmark, Ian Wilson, Jasper Kikby, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller.
He got a rather ambiguous answer from ex-BBC employee James Painter, but Painter was told that the BBC editorial policy was to censor scientists who the BBC say are “sceptical of man-made climate change“.
The BBC tries to keep up the lie about Scientific concensus .
The Cook paper which claimed 97 % of scientists believed in AGW has proved to be a total lie , [ it only covered about 70 selected replies ] & with the Oregon petition of over 31,000 scientist opposing AGW the real figures are that less than 1% of scientists actually believe .
If a scientist bases judgment on belief and not the facts, then they are enemies of the scientific method.
This site is a laughing stock amongst those whom it needs to persuade. We are simply talking to ourselves, like grumpy old men in the snug, ignored and derided by those in the lounge. Concerted action is needed. ‘Outreach’ should be the buzzword. Organised campaigns designed to bring BBC bias to the attention of the general public and to politicians will achieve far more than talking amongst ourselves.
We should spread the word by all possible means. For individuals acting alone one simple way is to influence people we meet. Subtlety will have more effect than the sledgehammer. All it needs is the planting of a seed of doubt. “Ah yes, but you can’t always believe the BBC you know. They are very biased.” Then change the subject and leave them thinking.
If we are ever to achieve anything the site needs to become more focussed. It has lost its way, with many contributions that are hopelessly wide of the mark. ‘The mark’, for the many contributors that seem to have forgotten, is the sole issue of BBC Bias. I can just hear people in the BBC reading out some of the nonsense that is posted here and scoffing at it, and then dismissing the whole site out of hand. Contributors should ask themselves whether their posting actually gives evidence of BBC bias or whether it is really about something else. Large volumes of blather might relieve the poster’s feelings but they damage the cause. I’m asking for some intellectual and emotional discipline here; less groundless ranting and more solid fact. Even perfectly valid complaints of bias are devalued if they are accompanied by irrelevant ranting.
Posters should not voice their opinions on the TV licence fee, immigration, Muslims, and politics generally. It’s fine to involve these issues when they arise within an example of BBC bias, but not otherwise. Gratuitous whining about immigration merely allows our enemies to accuse us of racism, and in fact there have been postings that actually have been blatantly racist. These sentiments are tremendously damaging to the site as a whole. Generalised attacks on the Labour Party allow our enemies to discount what we say about the BBC on grounds of our bias. We also need to be very careful about issues of gender, sexual politics, and sexual orientation. Fine if the matter is relevant; damaging if it isn’t. So let’s have no more posts about the evils of Islam; about the damage it is doing to British society. No matter how enraged you are, this is not the place. This is not a talking shop for right wing patriots; it is a site devoted to exposing BBC bias, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to discuss the Muslim problem there are plenty of other places where it is more appropriate.
Allegations of BBC bias should be properly researched. All too often assertions made on this site can be disproved by a quick look at the BBC News website, or by watching a BBC programme on iPlayer. Unjustified or irrelevant complaints kill the credibility of the whole site.
Can we have some discipline please?
‘Allegations of BBC bias should be properly researched. All too often assertions made on this site can be disproved by a quick look at the BBC News website, or by watching a BBC programme on iPlayer. Unjustified or irrelevant complaints kill the credibility of the whole site.
Can we have some discipline please?’
Please explain why any of that applies to this thread.
I could be wrong, but it’s possible a bot has got stuck in a feedback loop.
One thing is likely, a silent majority will be pretty darn disappointed.
That’s my post but I didn’t post it here. I posted it in the weekend open thread but it disappeared from there so I posted it in the current open thread.
Is there a Donald Rumsfeld known knowns option on Google translate?
You can join the Space Special Interest group of Mensa action to abolish the BBC, by emailing: cmscom@parliament.uk: or write directly to the: Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 7 Millbank, House of Commons, London, SW1P 3JA.
But please stick to the scientific facts, not sceptical opinion, they already get enough of that.
I must add, that people have given up trying to complain to the BBC, and the BBC Trust, who are obviously dominated by, arts and drama qualified environmental activists with inferior intelligence and inferior scientific qualifications to those who complain.
So the tactic has changed to “destroy the BBC from behind“.
Too long, didn’t read it.
Do you greenbot programmers not understand the concept of attention span?
Short attention span is a characteristic of sub-normal intelligence and also of immaturity.
Pathological verbosity and constant repetition is a sure sign of a narcissistic personality disorder
Nein nein nein, Herr OBergrupenfhurer.
You vant PC conformity mind control, you go zeek it elsvere, JA?
“Beyond Belief” this afternoon on Radio 4 was beyond parody. I was expecting an examination of Christianity and environmentalism. but it soon lapsed into CAGW as a religion that all Christians should belong to. Lots of time given to anti-fracking zealots with a general assumption by those in the studio that modern living standards are destroying the planet.
“IS ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ THE REAL REASON WE COULDN’T FIND FLIGHT 370?”
By James Delingpole.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/24/Is-Climate-Change-The-Real-Reason-We-Can-t-Find-Flight-370
For some reason, my Facebook postings on BBC Radio Devon concerning Climate Change keep on getting deleted.
My latest, “The complete works (almost) by the Reverend Climate Change, might last about 10 minutes. For the complete works, please view: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
That’s brilliant, OB. Any idea just out of interest how many contradictions there are in there?
Hi johnnythefish. Isn’t the whole concept of Climate Change just one big contradiction? So keen are the followers of this religion that they forget what it is they have said or done, henceforth contradiction abounds. Remember the whole concept of man made Global Warming was the inevitable Climate Change (so we were told) and someone somewhere produced the infamous *Hockey Stick* graph, you know, the one which was used to beat (through fear) unsuspecting governments the world over to part with their cash. The trouble is, that the data used in the *Hockey Stick* graph was not real time data but data produced from a hypothesis. All well and good. But with the help of all good left wing establishments, which includes the far left BBC, this hypothesis *became* fact. Again, the trouble with this *fact* is that in the hypothetical *Hockey Stick* no account was taken for the oceans to absorb excess temperature, which is what oceans do. As a result of this, the *Hockey Stick* graph is a falsehood, but here lies the problem. The *Hockey Stick* graph to the left leaning establishment has become their *God*, so who of the left leaning establishment is going to listen to anyone who tells them their religion has been based on a falsehood and as such their *God* doesn’t exist?
And the Hockey Stick conveniently consigned the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age to the memory hole, making their 20th century ‘warming’ look even more exceptional.
There’s also the lack of reliable historical temperature records for the deep oceans to support their latest theory that that’s where the ‘warming’ has gone – thus using another poorly thought-out hypothesis to prop up the first one.
What’s for sure – the science is not ‘settled’.
As a non-scientist I’m amazed that I can get to grips with these simple arguments but the BBC ‘can’t’. Thank God for t’ interweb.
Be careful what you say about the hockey stick. It was devised by Dr Michael Mann, who is so confident of its validity that he refuses to release his research data and sues anyone who disagrees with him. He also thinks he won the Nobel Prize, but that was apparently the sort of misunderstanding anyone can make, a bit like Idi Amin being under the impression he had won the VC.
Business section, ‘Telegraph'(£) yesterday, had this headline:
“Crimea is a wake-up call for Britain’s fuel future”:-
“Russia’s seizure of Crimea drives home the urgent need for the UK to develop more domestic sources of energy, such asd shale gas an nuclear power, the Energy Minister has warned.”
Will Beeboids and their Greenie chums sleep through all this, sweetly dreaming a goodbye to ‘non-renewable’ energy?
OOOhhh, I’ve so enjoyed this thread, folks. 🙂
Ai’m soo made oop ah could croosh a grape.