Via Bishop Hill.…the BBC’s idea of balance in reporting climate change…they are investigating sceptic’s claims about the science….and yet they are all pro-climate change people on the programme…Mark Lynas is an author and environmental campaigner, Mike Hulme is professor of Climate and Culture at Kings College London and Dr Helen Czerski is a broadcaster and ‘bubble physicist’ at UCL.
Helen Czerski
@SellaTheChemist@theresphysics@MichaelEMann@4589roger@guynewey And actually, it’s v. balanced in sense that there is no “skeptic” voice.
But also look at this…Climate propagandist Michael Mann complains...
Michael E. Mann .@guynewey @BBCNews The @BBC‘s entire framing is ill-premised and misleading:
Note the bit about ‘the well documented pause in the warming of the climate since 1998’….it’s now disappeared from the programme blurb….it is now ‘the well documented slow down of the climate since 1998’…
Amazing what a quick moan on Twitter can do to influence the BBC.
The holy religion of Global Warming must not be challenged. No voice of denial must be permitted. Denial is blasphemy against the holy word and blasphemers must be denied a platform and shouted down.
“After climate scientist Michael Mann took to Twitter to complain that the BBC was “actively promot[ing] misinformation” about man-made climate change, one member of the panel, UCL physicist Helen Czerski, responded that the show is “v. balanced in sense that there is no “skeptic” voice.”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/28/bbc-presenter-new-climate-doc-unbiased-because-it-doesnt-feature-sceptics/
Biased people think that their views are the norm hence the idiotic comment from Czerski.
It’s likely that there were guards, watching over the gas chambers at Auschwitz, who thought it was just another day at the office.
Agenda-driven climate scientists and their BBC stooges fall into the same category.
‘Slow down of the climate’
What a load of meaningless bollocks but at the same time really funny as it contradicts the BBC’s own ‘extreme weather’ agenda. You muppets.
‘Costing the Earth dicusses how best to communicate anomalies that don’t appear in climate models….’
What a peach. Not ‘Those who thus far have told us the science is settled are asked to explain why their models have been proven to be catastrophically wrong’, rather it’s ‘How can we best spin this to keep the big lie alive?’
Another whitewash, then, continuing their commitment to keeping on-message with their environmentalist 28gate mates and not a sceptic in sight. Why not invite Steve McIntyre along, BBC, are you scared of something?
And by the way, BBC, ‘consensus’ (even if it were true) is not science, it’s politics. But then, you stopped reporting science a long time ago.
Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann Mar 26
So @BBCNews continues to actively promote misinformation about human-caused #climatechange: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05nvdv4 …
Oh, my aching sides….
I recall something Gerald Durrell wrote about one of his expeditions to collect animals for a zoo. He found out the hard way that you don’t put six opossums in a single sack, unless what you hope to end up with is a single, very fat opossum.
I love it when adherents of the Climate Cult denounce each other for heresy. The irony will be lost on the beebyanka, but it does rather resemble its beloved religion of peace, which has a vast number of schismatic sects, differentiated to an infinitesimally tiny degree by variant readings of the Big Book of Divinely Inspired Claptrap, each sect dedicated to fast-tracking all of the others to paradise.
The climate change game is a multi billion dollar global industry.
Legions of researchers, activists, pressure groups, NGOs, journalists, politicians, government departments, Euro and UN groups, eco consultants etc all profit by trying to analyse, discuss and cure a problem that doesn’t actually exist.
In the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes, self-interested charlatans came up with compelling reasons to explain why no one should believe the evidence of their own eyes.
If my £50m research grant depended on me finding a new theory to explain why the earth is not warming, I’d certainly give it my best shot.
It is. I thought about studying climate change or doing some eco-consultancy instead of IT but my hypocrisy only stretched so far.
Also the thought of having to turn up to see a client in an electric car, bicycle , hybrid or shanks pony as too much. But then again those who preach don’t actually practice as Marcus Brigstock and Al Gore can testify.
It seems that apart from most Atmospheric Physicists and Solar Astronomers, most other scientists involved in this scam are employed in newly created jobs, dependent on Carbon Dioxide being the answer.
All these new jobs seem to be lumped together as Environmentalism.
So I suggest those Climate scientists who are called sceptics, are those not involved with the Environmental parasites leaching off Climate Science.
I just heard that an Astronomer was given a book called “Human Universe” by the BBC’s Brian Cox. Apparently Cox goes into details about the evolution of the Earths Atmosphere, but remarkably, he manages not to mention Carbon Dioxide.
Also I heard about local market gardeners employing tomato pickers, just out of school, apparently they have been brainwashed into thinking that pumping carbon dioxide pollution into the Greenhouse, would poison the tomatoes.
The formula used in computer models predicts the greatest warming would be six miles above the Equator, so I have no idea why these morons are obsessed with the Arctic, unless increased Cloud cover in the last ten years has trapped more heat, and produced the only warming on Earth this century, in the Arctic.
The reason the Antarctic is different is that the land mass prevents heat input from the Sea, and the Antarctic has a more independent Climate, so the Antarctic is more in tune with the current cooling trend.
“Despite the consensus of scientists around the world, there are still some anomalies in the computer models of the future climate.”
Which is a fancy way of saying that the models don’t match reality.
When a model doesn’t predict what one wants to model then the model is wrong, no ‘ifs, and, or buts’
Anyone who can’t see that is in denial.
P.S. I love the way that the inanimate models are somehow supposed to conform to the ‘scientific consensus’! Those damn models, skeptics and climate, don’t they realise there is a ‘consensus’?
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard P. Feynman
The “Great Explainer” Richard Feynman, also said “if you don’t understand it then it’s Bullshit”
The computer programmers make money out of the Bullshit they put through the grinder, you can tell from what they don’t do in Climate models, that they do do in Orbital predictions.
Those three “Great Ignoramus” BBC environmental activists, don’t want anyone to understand anything, to cover up the fact that they are more ignorant than those viewers who have read sceptic blogs written by causational Climate scientists.
Not inviting the relevant scientists would be because these three ignorant idiots would not be able to control the debate, due too the need for the BBC to censor science not approved by Bob Ward, for this bogus debate about the so called sceptics, and their science.
But again, the BBC censors causational Climate scientists, and instead, invites three charlatans to tell the viewer that these scientists are part of the consensus, and all because the BBC is advised by Environmental activists.
The attitude of the BBC towards a challenge to their climate change propaganda is always that there must have been a mistake, that the people judgement of the facts are incorrect, and do not know what is in their interests. This is the old “vanguard of the people” argument used by the Communists to take dictatorial power in Russia. In other words, they know what is best and what the people need and they will give it to them, whether they like it or not. This view led to massive denial of human rights and the murder of millions who either opposed the representatives of the people or who happened to get in the way of utopian plans, such as the White Canal project. Of course, democratic far left socialists (BBC) are not supposed to think like this, but they do.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/3/29/an-unbalanced-panel.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05q0089/the-big-questions-series-8-episode-12
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King”
The BBC seems to be operating a ‘balance’ variant on this, where just one guest panel concession in their quaint world equates to a fair representation.
The Brillo interview with the imploding Labour ‘hard working family’ teaching assistant whose sole ability was wailing, doubtless counting as an offset on the political side?
Interesting to note the picket duty Flokker that is aTTP there, and all too familiar ‘debating’ techniques.