James Tapsfield, Mail Online, via The GWPF
The BBC was accused of being a ‘left-wing mouthpiece’ today after it issued a grovelling apology for failing to challenge Lord Lawson over a claim temperatures have not risen over the last 10 years. Furious MPs said the decision to single out the peer showed the corporation had given up any ‘pretence’ of impartiality.
Former chancellor Lord Lawson made the claim during an interview broadcast on Radio 4’s Today programme in August.
The BBC had initially rejected complaints from viewers, claiming that it was important to give air time to ‘dissenting voices’ in the pursuit of fairness.
However it has now bowed to pressure and admitted that it breached its own editorial guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.
Tory MP Philip Davies told MailOnline: ‘It is what you would expect from the BBC. It is typical BBC.
‘They have given up any pretence of being impartial these days. They have become a mouthpiece for any left-wing, pro-EU Labour party cause.
‘If they think they might have upset some of their left wing cheerleaders then of course they are going to apologise profusely.
‘I look forward to them apologising profusely when a right wing politician is challenged. I think we would be waiting a long time.’
Andrew Bridgen, Tory MP for North West Leicestershire told MailOnline: ‘If the BBC had to apologise for every inaccuracy a Labour politician made on air they would never be able to have a Labour politician on.
‘The position sounds rather extreme to me – the BBC very seldom allow climate sceptics on the programme.’
“the BBC very seldom allow climate sceptics on the programme”
And they don’t allow comments either, which would expose their leftist bs as being propaganda not news.
I’m happy that I haven’t subscribed to the BBC license scam since 1989. We moved to Spain in January 90.
They were accused of that? Go figure.
I mean, I would have said, ‘duh’, but there I go, stuck on the obvious.
“accused of being” should be replaced by “is”.
I re-quote “Is that true or did you hear it on the BBC?”
“It breached its own editorial guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.” Sure. The editorial guidelines are probably: “Don’t challenge anything leftist or alarmist. Challenge anything inconvenient”.
The trouble is that they usually don’t allow anything inconvenient, so they don’t know anymore how to challenge anything.
They did indeed breach their guidelines. Do you not recall the furore a good few years ago when they convened an ‘expert’ committee (actually Greenpeace et al) that decided CAGW was real, incontrovertible and immediate and so they should not only deny any air-time to sceptics but should encourage the dissemination of the ‘climate crisis’ via all their output, be it news, current affairs, drama and even humour. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/ is a good place to refresh memories
TwentyEightGate
Not surprisingly, among a large section of the U.K. population it is known as the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.
Sir Anthony Jay who held a senior position in the BBC for ten years and later co-authored two of the most popular television series “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister” claimed that the initials were short for “Bloated, Biased and Creepy”. He also said of his time at the BBC “…we were not just anti-Macmillan; we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.”
WOW!!!! And I thought I was the only one around here that remembered all that. Worst part? BBC International on shortwave was an actual, reliable news source, up until 2002. I noticed a definite break from unbiased, objective reporting then. Their political slant? Always leftist. Their legitimate news org till that point was, well, OK.
Thanks peter as a Brit that is the first time I have heard that expression
It is probably not as common as you state
,
Go to the Bull Bsht Conspiracy and find an English /name/person,
What a club £50,000 £60,000 a year are office boys (keeping there backside to the wall ) Jimmie Saville anyone ?
Here is an off-topic question which I hope someone at WUWT can shed some light on. I was recently in Braemar, Scotland, and passed by what appears to be its official weather station. This station is well known in the UK for recording the lowest temperature ever in the UK.
Within 15-20 feet of the weather station is a large green box about the size of a shipping container. It has warning signs on it saying that it contains flammable fuel, an apparent exhaust pipe in the roof, steps to get up to the roof and grilles in the side.
Anyone know what function this box serves? Why would it be so close to the weather station?
Sherlock Ohms Is on the case.
To keep weather station warm in the cold weather /sarc
Does it look anything like these:
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/c27172f834454008b8a0cbcba044e19a/oil-storage-tank-for-domestic-central-heating-narrow-type-to-fit-in-d35c82.jpg
Domestic fuel oil tanks.
No. It does not look like a fuel tank. Much bigger for one thing.
How did you paste in the image by the way? I have a photo of it, but cant seem to paste in the image.
You can not paste a picture or graphic.
You can paste a link to the photograph. The caveat is that the link must point to a site accessible to readers and commenters; e.g. dropbox.com, a web page, etc.
A must use reference is Ric Werme’s reference page. Ric’s site is “must use” because the valuable wordpress formatting information.
There is a link to Ric Werme’s WUWT page in the right menu column; currently near the bottom.
It sounds like an emergency generator; they are becoming more common now, with the switch to ever-reliable non-dispatchable wind power [if it is windy, but not too windy] and solar [unless it is, say, dark]. (mods – this is /Sarc!)
Auto
Sounds like a generator. Got any pictures?
Yes, but can’t work out how to paste the image into these comment boxes.
There is a very clear view on Google Earth. The coordinates are 57 00 ’38 60″N 3 23 ‘51.27″W
or thereabouts!
The weather station is at the northern end of Braemar on the A93 and about 150M after the last houses and just after the petrol station. This link to Google maps might work:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Braemar,+Ballater/@57.0093523,-3.398248,430m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4885e458e9e9d3c3:0xd78d16916a837a4d!8m2!3d57.0064696!4d-3.3979439?hl=en
Yes, it looks like a generator too. But what’s this massive “generator” doing next to what I think is the official Braemar weather station? Is it backup power for Braemar? Surely far too much power to ever be needed by the weather station.
probably a diesel storage tank for that servo down the road a bit. the smaller box, the pump. I have seen a few converted shipping containers (what look like, inside they house the tank) providing diesel to local petrol stations. the pipe is a breather.
http://www.royal-deeside.org.uk/RDsurround/braemarweather.htm
you can see it here
https://www.google.fr/maps/@57.0105617,-3.396887,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEOwzqmqzKL7CU5Kqj2lfjg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I have no clue
It’s strange. It’s really seems likely that it has a sizeable engine in there and that obviously means lots of heat! I wonder if other weather sites have these things?
As is well known, in the States they had a volunteer program of checking weather stations and they found most had become compromised over time by the siting of buildings, tarmac, power sources, air conditioning units and so on, close to the weather station.
I looked at the images, and zoomed in. The Orbital view appears to be only the long green container, prior to the stairs and the devices, which should be visible but are not. All the devices look clean and white, and the wind sock is not tattered. It looks new, or well-maintained. Both green boxes show no signs of weathering discoloration, and the signage colors are bright. (joke here: on the fence at the NW corner of the lot is an advert for a restaurant).
The street view shows the devices nicely, and two green boxes. The ~3′ tall one on the south side of the large one appears to be a transformer case. The large box I think is a shipping container converted into a platform, and which also provides mechanical support for the wind-sock and 1 other device which is mounted on the top.
With the views provided, its not possible to tell if it is possible to enter the larger box, but based on the small vents on the West side, I think it can. If it is so, then having an entrance on the top, via ladder, would be reasonable. I think it quite possible that there are recording and/or communications equipment for the station within. Otherwise, there really is no need for the smaller green box, whether it contains a generator or transformer.
As far as the question whether they are too close to the Stevenson screen… I think so. Afternoon sun on the big green box would re-radiate in the direction of the screen, slightly warm it after sunset, and affecting the clear flow of air when the wind is from the East, perhaps even warming it.
My guess is that it’s an environmental monitoring station. The object on the roof looks like a sampling probe, and the steps for maintaining it. The large container could contain automatic laboratory equipment which could need supplies of caustic chemicals and solvents. Hence the signs on the wall (which I cannot read). It could be supplied by a small underground cable to the nearby buildings. The small dark green box at the side looks like a typical telecoms box used in GB.
A generator in this size of box would be in the range 500kW to 3000kW and would have a large and obvious silencer/exhaust on the roof of the container. It would also have a remote bunded oil tank. No sign of anything like this in the picture. If the big container was an oil tank, it would need a walled bund. Similarly, nothing to suggest this box contains an oil tank.
Interesting. I have zoomed in on my photos of the warning signs on the side and what I can read says “No smoking”, “No naked lights”, “No mobile phones”. I seem to remember that the warning signs did mention some sort of fuel being stored in the box, but the pictures are too fuzzy to read exactly what is says.
There is also a solid red diamond on the box which appears to read 3Y 1863. This is a code for a flammable liquid. Code 1863 corresponds to “Fuel, Aviation, Turbine Engine” apparently.
Looks like storage and launching (up the steps) for weather balloons.
Automated weather balloon launcher. 2 per day weather permitting 😉
That size container would have supplies for 2 to 3 months. 70 to 100 balloons until next service visit.
Met office(read MOD Navy) have quite a few of these dotted around the country.
I agree with Jordan. It looks like a large air quality monitoring station.
Like this one . . . https://cas-en.com/turn-key-ambient-air-quality-monitoring-system-installed/
If you were there Where is the photo?
If you were that much concerned you should have taken a photo , then someone could help you
He already explained that. Try reading more and complaining less.
Charles, you can load photos to an image hosting site like this one.
https://imgbb.com
And it will give you a link address you can post here to show the pic.
Would it be a storage for hydrogen for weather balloons? Our own BoM observatory has a small ventilated shed with similar warning signs. I was castigated by BoM staff when I went to look, they informed me of the risk of hydrogen gas when they were filling weather balloons.
I originally lived a few miles from Braemar so posted the question on a local discussion group. This seems to be the answer – “It’s for mountain rescue( coast guard or military )helicopters refuelling when based in Braemar, seen them a lot.” If it’s only occasional use and the helicopters land the other side of the container it probably won’t have too much effect on the temperature gauges but I wonder if they thought of that when they installed it.
It was also suggested that it might be used for helicopters during the Queen’s annual holiday at Balmoral Castle nearby. Not so sure about that one as there’s plenty of room in the castle grounds, but maybe they don’t like to spoil the peace of the royal family with routine comings and goings.
Ah, this seems to be the answer! Thank you Bob and all the others who posted on this topic. The code on the side, 1863, does relate to aviation fuel. And the windsock also makes sense if helicopters are going to be landing there.
Also, I checked the online lists of air quality monitoring stations and Braemar is NOT listed, so I don’t think it can be an air quality monitoring station.
The only remaining question is whether this green box would affect the weather station measurements. It certainly seems very undesirable to have any structures anywhere near a weather station. In an ideal world I would have thought that you would want an entirely natural, open environment for at least 100M around the station – no roads, no buildings, no manmade forest. Especially given that this weather station has on 2 prior occasions recorded the coldest temps in Britain.
But the BBC IS a leftwing mouthpiece. Everyone knows that.
And reading the rest of the story we are back with the Gorebull and the 97% again.
I don’t understand.
Andrew Dickens 12:29 pm: Google “Maurice Strong,” father of climatism and the most influential man you never heard of. Read about his rôle in the Global Governance Commission and Director of the UN’s Environmental Program, spawning the IPCC and global warming frenzy. He stated it’s “the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse” and that it’s “our responsibility to bring that about.” Fleeing investigations of UN corruption, Strong exiled himself to Beijing, dying 2 days before the Paris conference – his crowning achievement.
Google comments by Christiana Figueres, who headed the UN’s Climate Change Section and its Paris Summit. She and alarmist writers Naomi Oreskes and Naomi Klein say openly that climate alarmism isn’t about any real concern for climate, but it’s the best vehicle for destroying capitalism and achieving de-industrialization, simultaneously extracting from the West $100B annually for the UN to redistribute.
“Stop worrying about the lousy science and show me the money already”- Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN’s IPCC (until sexual misconduct forced his resignation in 2015).
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy.”- IPCC lead author Ottmar Edenhofer.
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen”- Sir John Houghton, ex-IPCC chairman.
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth” – V. Lenin
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”- Paul Watson, Greenpeace.
“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,”- David Brower, founder of Sierra Club.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States”- John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor.
Speaking of the man
, from 36m 30s, very interesting considering who he really worked for…
Curiously Al Beeb haven’t said very much about the Uranium One scandal. It’s on their web site, but by God have they buried away – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41742184
If you were just to look at the /us_and_canada you’d never find it.
It’s as near as dammit to lying by omission.
How did the climate debate ever become a left/right thing? Can someone explain?
Mainly because the extreme left quickly recognised cagw as a perfect vehicle to advance their agendas.
The short version was that Maurice Strong found the hypothesis useful in his political goals, as did the green blob, which has also associated with political leftists for a long time (at least the late 1960’s), so most of the opposition had both political and scientific objections to the policies advanced by the climate change advocates.
Another thing is the strong tendency for the advocates to label opponents as vendidos, tools of the fossil fuel industry, as well as evil capitalists.
The left wants more gov’t control over our lives; right wing wants gov’t restricted. CAGW is about more gov’t, more control over our pocketbooks and our lives. Some say we have a climate debate, but the left won’t debate it because they always come out on the losing end – they can’t support their argument.
Because fears of serious man-made global warming are the perfect excuse to advance left-wing aims of more state control, more taxes and doing all they can to weaken the apparent wealth and power of western states versus the rest of the world. Many on the right now recognise that the global warming issue has long since been hijacked by left-wing activists and gravy train bureaucrats and that records and data have been hopelessly corrupted to fit the narrative. The right therefore resists the hysteria over the threat of global warming.
Years ago in my naive youth I was on the board of the largest and wealthy chapter of a major environmental organization. At one meeting a group of young people arrived. It was odd because they arrived together but all sat separately at each meeting next to older members. They helped their obvious leader get elected chapter president. He started taking each of the board members out to dinner, at relatively fancy restaurant, even though he didn’t dress or drive in anyway indicating he had the money, other words he was funded. By the time he got around to me I had already been called by other board members. I let him give his little speech, baited him several times and then acted as if I was in agreement. What was he selling? He was an admitted socialist. He believed that with AGW just becoming news there was a great opportunity for the environmental movement and the organized socialists to finally join forces. He understood clearly that eliminating cheap energy would be a major blow to free market capitalism, especially the USA and worthy goal that both the environmentalists and socioeconomic politicos should be able to agree. When none of the board members bought into his schemes he and the group he had arrived with disappeared, not just from the organization but from the city where we lived. Over the next year there were more subtle attempts to get us to partner. However myself and all the board members no only left the board but the parent organization. One of the reasons the chapter was so wealthy was because many of the older active members had made their money by good old capitalism.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, and Communist China adopted capitalism, Leftists in Western Europe and the US found that CAGW was a perfect substitute. It rationalized their hostility to industry, it called for microscopic control over the lives and thoughts of the great mass of humanity. It allowed them to preen their virtue over the proles. And, as bonus, it freed them from having to pretend to like the working class, whom they had always despised, and it allowed them to continue to call for the murder of brown babies. And CAGW looked even more scientific than Marxism.
The people who hated communism before 1990, discovered that CAGW was the same old garbage with a new label.
It all started in west Germany, where both the nazi and the communist party were forbidden. USSR already had learned, before WWII, that funding and helping pacifists (besides communist parties) helped its agenda, so since it couldn’t help a forbidden communist party, USSR just funded and helped anti-nuke, pacifist and the like that became “die grünen”, whose activity was (and still is!) to protest again USA protection of west Germany (troops, nuclear weapon, …), undermine any fighting will , and sabotage german industry that made Germany a mighty economic power turning East Germany into ridicule and possibly funding a real war.
The fact that enviroBS is obviously the most reactionary, extreme right group didn’t hinder USSR at all, on the contrary.
so was born the communist-green alliance.
When the iron curtain fell, communism was utterly discredited, but communists didn’t disappear, they just melted in the green stuff, and turned into the well known “watermelon”
This is a pitifully exaggerated faux-‘apology’ from the cretinous left-wing BBC. The whole thing is staged; complaints from the likes of Bob Ward and a craven (and most importantly very public) apology. That’s what this is really about: publicly supporting AGW theory just when it’s facing yet more serious questions ie the Return of the Pause and the recent humiliation of scientists admitting their models *really are* running too hot. If that sounds like a horror story for the BBC it’s because it is because the BBC has huge pension investments in all-things climate change. Their reputation was once superb, today in the UK their bias is so strong they’re a national joke.
Trump is our only hope, Pruitt will dismantle all of this Climate rubbish
Jim Heath
Can you ask him to do the same with the BBC while he’s at it please.
Actually HotScot – I’d prefer if rather than nuking N Korea, Trump dropped an atomic device on the BBC
rapscallion
You’ll be interested in this. Long but a compelling read.
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ac415195f5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-ac415195f5-36447077
That is not much of a hope!
What a shame that the BBC has sunk to the level of a third world broadcaster, in so far as differing views or editorial content is concerned. When a country is too scared to offer differing views on something such as climate science, you know you are on the verge of a dictatorial tin pot dictatorship. To be honest, The BBC isn’t much worth watching anyway, and I rarely do.
I had read somewhere that when George Orwell wrote and published Nineteen Eighty-Four, often published as 1984, a dystopian novel published in 1949, that he was in part very troubled by the British Gov’t decision in 1946 to make it mandatory for all citizens to have to buy a TV viewing licence, presumably to finance the BBC which had a state monopoly on broadcasting. From the UK Licensing website: “You must have a TV Licence if you: watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they’re broadcast. download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand. A TV Licence costs £147 (£49.50 for black and white TV sets) for both homes and businesses.” Perhaps this is why the TV ‘screen’ plays such an Orwellian role in his book.
Oh, I forgot to mention, it is half price if you are legally blind. Free if you are 75, or if you are in jail and are lucky enough to have a TV in your cell. If they tried that in America, there would be a revolution equal to 1776. You will have to pry this remote from these dead, cold hands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
its significantly cheaper than the sky pay to view channels
Do you mean the Broadcast stations? The ones you can watch for free?
~¿~
As often happens Wikipedia is almost correct.
From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/terms-and-conditions-top11
The key part is the very first line, “To use and install TV receiving equipment at the licensed place. “ Those contracted to collect this tax interpret this mean that if you have equipment that could receive either ‘live’ broadcasts, or any BBC, or other UK TV originated output then you must pay. It matters not if you do not actually watch any broadcasts, you have the equipment to receive.
Those contracted to enforce the recovery of the TV tax, (It is a tax not a misspelled ‘licensing’ as the money goes straight to the general tax fund, and then the UK government and BBC haggle over how much the BBC will get [currently approximately £3Billion].), are also allowed to use a logo (BBC copyrighted) saying ‘TV Licensing’. NO COMPANY IS CALLED TV LICENSING. Usually a company called Capita is contracted to collect these moneys.
See
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2553496/BBC-pays-100-000-compensation-people-bullied-TV-licence-collectors-Corporation-500-goodwill-payments-past-five-years.html
and for the alternative view about the BBC see https://biasedbbc.org/
Also see http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/
I do hope that CAGW is debunked in my lifetime so that I can enjoy the total humiliation of the BBC.
I have a gut feeling that the Alarmists will never feel humiliation. Do ex-Commies feel humiliation?
I’ve yet to see a mea culpa from Paul Ehrlich, or any of the Club of Rome, for how incredibly wrong they where regarding overpopulation and the ‘Population Bomb’.
And if you go over to the now thoroughly discredited Oil Drum website the ‘Last Post’ doesn’t say a word about how it turns out they were wrong and oil production wasn’t going to peek right now after all.
The scammer never admits he was running a scam, no matter how long after. It would limit the effect of the next scam.
~¿~
The BBC will never give up. They can’t afford to: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/bbc-pension-heavily-invested-in-oil/
Heads are set to explode in the months ahead.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
In the report I read he was referred to throughout as “Lawson”. No doubt deliberately insulting. And puerile.
They wear the mantle of “presstitutes” very well.
I was a senior journalist in the UK for many years and worked alongside many regional BBC journalists most of whom were OK. Unfortunately, nationally, the corporation has a left wing philosophy and is institutionally biased in favour of the left. I access its content every day and find many instances of this bias manifest not only in how the story/programme is handled but also in the choice of story/material.
In at least one major area of public policy – the environment and climate change – it is OFFICIALLY biased. It decided several years ago that sceptical science voices were not to be given the same airtime or weight as that afforded to warmest scientists. I repeat, this is official BBC editorial policy – and this from the UK’s public broadcaster.
Nationally, reporting standards at the Beeb have slipped disastrously and many people who know what responsible, independent journalism looks like regard most of their news personnel as a laughing stock.
A typical example is how they reported the Government decision to move to an all-electric car market by 2040. Within 30 seconds of hearing the news I asked the question that a 12 year old would ask…indeed the question that an apolitical friend of mine asked when I bumped into him in town. “Where are they going to get the power from to run the cars?”, he asked.
I explained that as the UK’s maximum generating capacity was 61 gigwatts, and that we would need an additional 30 gigwatts on top to fuel an all-electric car market, and that a 27-year plan to build our only new nuclear power station would not be ready until 2025 and that we would 9.6 of these new plants to generate the extra capacity that the all-electric car market in the UK by 2040 was clearly a non-starter.
So here’s the thing. If a 12-year-old would ask this question guess which warmest national news organisation who see the story in a totally CO2 focussed way has NOT yet asked this question? Go on, guess….
john v wright, you say you were senior journalist in the UK, could you explain why have I never head of you?
please g
r
From your question, I think it’s fair to assume that you know all the senior journalists in the UK. Ergo, you must have been or are a journalist, yourself. From there, it’s not much of a leap to deduce that you are or were a BBC employee. Or perhaps a Guardian employee. Or maybe you’re just a troll. Please tell us what your credentials are to make that assertion.
Srsly though Gerontius, are you going to contribute anything to these discussions? Or are you just here to question the integrity of every sceptical poster?
Because you arn’t doing a very good job of it. You haven’t even accused anyone of being a shill for Big Oil yet.
Come on, man! This is WUWT. We expect our Climate Faithful Trolls to put some effort into it.
~¿~
Please could you give an example of your journalism
Gigawatts, obviously, not gig watts. Although Anthony on stage doing his thing with an electric guitar would probably be well worth watching…
Here’s an example of biased reporting in the BBC a couple of days ago.
They report that global wine production will hit a 50 year low this year.
The reason given is “extreme weather” but they don’t say what kind.
That’s because the weather in question is spring cold and severe late frosts this year.
They are downplaying that politically incorrect cold weather story.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41728536
https://www.iceagenow.info/france-worst-wine-harvest-since-1945/
“BBC was accused of being a ‘left-wing mouthpiece’” Really? Who the f**k does not know BBC is, has been, and will always be a left wing mouth piece? Sweet Bleeding Jebuss!!!!! They have defended every communist, socialist, fascist, marxist and anarchist movement/government/country/group and cell since 1917. Just how stupid is this motherf*cker?
I was pleasantly surprised on the BBC Good Morning Scotland show the other morning, when Dr Carol Turley of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory was interviewed after publishing an article on ocean acidification which claimed a drop in pH from 8.2 to 8.1.
The interviewer was quite assertive and seemed to be putting here through the mill. The interviewee stumbled and stammered along, and seemed to be making things up on the spot. The interviewer seemed to build on this and I thought was almost goading her to go further:
Q: Why do you say we should be worried?
A: Well, we’re emitting more and more CO2 and the ocean acidity has changed and 0.1 of a change is equivalent to 30% change in ocean acidity
Q: But it’s still quite alkaline though, isn’t it?
A: Oh it is, hopefully it will never become acidic but moving along the pH scale is called acidification.
Q: Just explain the 30% if you could, I’m just trying to get my head around that
A: It’s a logarithmic scale so 0.1 is around 30% change.
Q: Seven is neutral
A: Yes, but the point is that all the creatures in the sea have got used to a relatively stable pH with some fluctuations, but what’s happening now is that that average acidity is changing and if we keep emitting CO2 the ocean will take it up and by the end of the century that average could be around 120% change
Q: What are the guides to the effect of that, presumably its the geological record
A: Yes, absolutely
Q: Because we have had much higher CO2 in geological eras so what did that do to the ocean?
A: Well, if you look back to 56 million years ago when the dinosaurs died out, there was a change of the acidity and that resulted in lots of the deep sea organisms dying out over several thousand years. Now its happening about 10 times faster and we’re changing the whole ocean chemistry in an amazingly rapid way. And it’s something we can do something about.
Q: In what sense?
A: Well, by reducing our CO2 emissions urgently and implementing the Paris Agreement and moving away from fossil fuels, we can reduce that whole impact on the Earth system that includes ocean acidification, global warming and the warming of the ocean. Because the ocean is taking up over 90% of that heat energy from atmospheric warming. So the ocean has got a double whammy,
Q Its difficult to change the amount of CO2 that we, as a species produce, and we have undertaken a lot of work over the last 20 years to reduce global emissions by less than 1%. It’s not going to make any difference:
A Well that’s why all these countries are getting together in November because we need to move amazingly quickly to stop global warming, but now we have ocean acidification. So we need another industrial revolution, which is away from fossil fuel burning
Q: It we can’t and these mass extinctions happen, what will the oceans look like in 20 or 50 years?
A: Basically life on land and the ocean will be very different and we will not see the biodiversity that we see now. I doubt the ocean will be able to produce the food that it supplies millions and millions of people, tens of millions of people that depend on the ocean. Its why the planet is called the Blue Planet. Its what makes Earth different from every other planet, is the blue bit.
Q: There is also the idea that nature abhors a vacuum and if one species dies out, another one takes advantage, so will we not just see a changing flora and fauna in the oceans?
A: Oh gosh, yes absolutely. We will see a massive shift. We will probably see a reduction, a simplification of food webs and eco systems. But the whole point is that they wont be as productive and useful/supportive for mankind. Essentially, evolution would start again and all the different species will compete with each other but there is likely to be a reduction in the complexity, the magnificence of the marine food web.
Q: Thanks very much for joining us with that slightly pessimistic view of the future
? seems to be a completely clear and concise summary of the science to me.
where are the material errors of fact in it?
science ? where ? I saw the propaganda, but no science at all.
Dinosaurs didn’t died out ; they evolved into birds. Whatever caused that, Asteroid or supervolcanoes, changes ocean pH in a matter of DAYS or MONTHS at most, changed it much more than a few 1/10 (that marine life do not care about, it happens on a daily basis for them), and changed other things that just pH.
And while we care about this fantasy threat, real one (like overfishing) aren’t addressed
“where are the material errors of fact in it?”
Griff, it was an impressive demonstration of hand-waving and guesswork out of nothing. Starting from the interviewee as a reporter of the data she has collected (pH measurements) and results (pH has increased by 0.1), which of the following can be said to be dispassionate scientific reasoning?
“if we keep emitting CO2 the ocean will take it up and by the end of the century that average could be around 120% change” (“could be” is not a fact. Does her data support the conclusion that our CO2 emissions are the cause of the 0.1 change?)
“There was a change of the acidity and that resulted in lots of the deep sea organisms dying out over several thousand years.” (Has this been quantified to a satisfactory resolution, and then demonstrated to the exclusion of all other causes of deaths of organisms?)
“We can reduce that whole impact on the Earth system that includes ocean acidification, global warming and the warming of the ocean.” and “we need to move amazingly quickly to stop global warming” (What does her study have to do with global warming?)
“Basically life on land and the ocean will be very different and we will not see the biodiversity that we see now.” (How does her data and analysis allow her to report this as a conclusion?)
“I doubt the ocean will be able to produce the food that it supplies millions and millions of people, tens of millions of people that depend on the ocean.” (How does her data and analysis support these statements?)
“We will see a massive shift. We will probably see a reduction, a simplification of food webs and eco systems. But the whole point is that they wont be as productive and useful/supportive for mankind.” (How does her data and analysis lead to this conclusion? When she says “probably”, what is the quantified probability from her data?)
“Essentially, evolution would start again and all the different species will compete with each other but there is likely to be a reduction in the complexity, the magnificence of the marine food web.” (Is her study concerned with evolution? How does her data and analysis lead to this conclusion?)
The interviewer seemed to be goading her to see how far she would go, as the over-reaching and exaggeration went further and further. She should have stayed close to the scope of her study by remaining modest and dispassionate. It was an embarrassment to the name of science.
Q: Because we have had much higher CO2 in geological eras so what did that do to the ocean?
A: Well, if you look back to 56 million years ago when the dinosaurs died out, there was a change of the acidity and that resulted in lots of the deep sea organisms dying out over several thousand years. Now its happening about 10 times faster and we’re changing the whole ocean chemistry in an amazingly rapid way. And it’s something we can do something about.
Griff:
? seems to be a completely clear and concise summary of the science to me.
where are the material errors of fact in it?
There is the 600lb gorilla error that you are not seeing here.
Carol Turley was asked why her prediction of harm calcified organism by a few hundred ppm CO2 was not falsified by past eras with thousands of ppm CO2. Turley replied fraudulently by implying that past very high CO2 levels were only associated with extinction events. This is absolutely false. CO2 levels in the thousands, even tens of thousands of ppm were sustained for hundreds of millions of years, for instance throughout the Cambrian till the late Ordovician during which corals and other calcified marine organsims evolved and thrived. Calcified marine organisms have thrived over most of the phanerozoic, as has all life on earth, in rude health in the presence of thousands of ppm atmospheric CO2.
This is a central fact that utterly falsifies CO2 as a threat to calcified organisms and reveals the ocean acidification scare to be total nonsense. The only establishment response is to evade questions about it.
Australia has a similar problem with the Australian Broadcasting Corpration.
It is nicknamed “Aunty” in imitation of the BBC’s nickname.
It claims it adheres to its Charter to be fair and unbiased.
It is anything but, a la the BBC.
It is a conservative free zone and is essentially a Left wing collective of groupthink partisans particularly on the subject of climate change.
My household and others I know refuse to watch its News bulletins let alone its documentaries and current affairs programs.
It regularly promoted stories on the “ death” of the Great Barrier Reef although as reported recently it has published a report suggesting the “ death” may be overblown.
Parliamentary attempts to insert in the ABC legislation a provision to be “ fair and balanced” are bitterly resisted.
As are PBS and NPR in the US. Rather one-note lefties and greens.
The difference being, you don’t have to fund PBS or NPR, whereas Aussies like myself pay for the Oz ABC through our taxes. Take this ridiculous article they published yesterday, for example (link to ABC article in bottom of Jos’ post):
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/10/the-rise-of-fake-skeptics-who-change-their-minds-about-climate-change/
Claiming Richard Muller was a sceptic and converted to the CAGW faith only recently. Jo Nova has dissected the hogwash nicely, but the lie is out there now. Read and believe…
I back up Herbert’s comments
He could have also mentioned its Science Show which is a blatant propaganda machine for the CAGW imdustry in this nation
“BBC accused of being a ‘left-wing mouthpiece’ today after a grovelling apology”
This of course untrue.
The BBC is the voice of the activist gentrifying gentry, and supra-green virtue signaling arm of the comfortably rich, left-wing elitists. And their message to everyone else is “you are guilty!”.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation aka Always Been Communists or Always Broadcasting Crap.
All state owned broadcasters are to some degree a reflection of the Gov’t of the day. In Russia, their state controlled media don’t give a hoot about global warming. If anything, they stand to gain the most if we are lucky enough to get any net warming. But they did sign the Paris Accord, and will accept any transfer of wealth for their going along with this ruse that was invented and massaged by institutions that stand to gain the most by implantation of their new power base of controlling the planet’s access to energy.
Other democratic countries like Canada (CBC) and New Zealand have also drunk the kool-aid with the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation being relentless about ‘pushing’ the CAGW agenda. The NZ government are implementing a methane tax on their important livestock industry that deeds 10x their population. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. Very sad to see such foolishness.
The BBC is hardly alone in presenting a leftist viewpoint on climate change. Try to get a balanced one from the Canadian Broadcasting System, which seems to dance to only one tune: that of the environmentalists. Not that Canadians are listening since 60% oppose carbon taxes and few are making any major lifestyle changes that supposedly mitigate the problem of a warming planet.
The US main stream media isn’t even news right now. It’s just a big fight between them and Donald Trump. Anyway, it probably doesn’t matter what country your from, we all know any main stream media is nothing but propaganda.
media is just a branch of entertainment. News included.
Once you understand that, it much more funny to watch, and you look elsewhere for real information.
WUWT for instance
I find these comments rather amusing. Surely if the BBC was as left-wing and green as everyone seems to suggest they would never have invited Nigel Lawson onto the radio and if they had they would have questioned his assertion that there had been no global warming over the decade. This statement is contradicted by all temperature measurements whether satellite or land based and so is clearly false. Furthermore the BBC then initially refused to apologise for not questioning him – again something that is hard to explain if the BBC is left-wing and green and only apologised when it was forced too. So as far as I can see this saga only goes to show how right wing the BBC is.
I find Germinio’s comments rather mindless. The BBC apologizes to the Climate Faithful for allowing in a sceptical voice, and germ thinks that proves them right wing because they didn’t apologize FAST ENOUGH.
As to why they allowed him in in the first place, I assume for the same reason they ever interview skeptics. They were hoping to get a sound bite they could twist to make him seem silly and/or obviously wrong. And they probably thought they had it. The Leftist are all so far into their echo chambers these days that they assume that anyone saying anything skeptical will sound just as wrong to everyone else as it does to them. ‘The Pause not debunked? Extreme Weather not increasing? Sea level not going to increase 10 meters by the end of the century?’ They assumed anyone saying such things would be laughed at by all correct thinking people.
Of course, there ARE some people on the Left who know all these talking points are actually false, and were horrified that the general public might hear them and look them up. Can’t have John Q Public questioning his masters Proclamations now, can we.
~¿~
But!
both Lawson and the GWPF admitted that his claims/figures were wrong…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nigel-lawson-climate-change-sceptics-global-temperatures-fall-false-claim-warming-gwpf-bbc-radio-4-a7894686.html
The BBC is clearly pandering to whining dupes. Several years ago the BBC published an article in which the author openly stated there had been no warming since 1998. Yet Nigel Lawson is being berated by ignoramuses for merely restating what the IPCC have already admitted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504
See links. I am a UK resident and am aware that both Conservative and Labour supporters in the UK have complain about biased reporting from the BBC, and have done so for many years – 40 plus in my experience. I reason that this is probably a good thing, and demonstrates that many important stories that tax payers should be aware of are not buried or diluted. The BBC is not perfect, and I myself complain, but according to independent polls a roughly equal number of right (61%) and left (67%) wing respondents agree that the BBC provides, within a margin, fair reporting – “the BBC’s news reporting is generally accurate and trustworthy”
http://opinium.co.uk/do-people-really-think-the-bbc-is-biased/
The right wing (press and politicians) complain about a left wing bias, and the left wing complain about a right wing bias. The BBC are dragged before select committees and made accountable to democratically elected representatives. The BBC even make programs taking the p*ss out of themselves, for example, I recommend W1A to anyone who would like to laugh at the expense of the BBC/’Management speak’ consultants/faceless agencies.
Examples of a number of Labour accusations of BBC ‘hatchet jobs’ are included below.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-team-send-complaint-to-bbc-over-its-hatchet-job-panorama-programme-10495955.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bbc-bias-jeremy-corbyn-labour-centre-right-robbie-gibb-theresa-may-laura-keunssberg-andrew-marr-a7844826.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38248630
I absolutely agree…
when we have had a Labour govt, they have complained about BBC reporting of the govt quite as much as conservative govts have.
Labour supporting websites have quite as many complaints the BBC is biased to the right as vice versa
the BBC is making a great effort to be impartial: it is in my opinion one of the most independent and objective media organisations in the world
QED : if Grauniad brain-washed Griff think BBC is fair, conclusion is obvious.
Iain, actually, the links you provide do not complain that BBC lean right, it complains that BBC do not lean left enough. Which is pretty different, and in fact acknowledge BBC leans left
The first, because they didn’t paint Corbyn good enough
The second, because, “the centre has moved, and it’s actually much further left than they think it is” (sic). Well, left is never left enough, isn’t it?
The third do not complain about BBC, so is just irrelevant
That is why we have sites like biased bbc
https://biasedbbc.org/
If both left and right complain about BBC bias, how much actual bias to one side or the other is there?
Both the BBC and the Guardian are global-warming mouthpieces, terrified
of contrary facts.
Follow the money.
Tell me who supports the BBC public funding, and I’ll tell you which side the BBC is biased toward.
Tell me who wants to cut down public funding, and I’ll tell you which side the BBC is biased against.
So, is it the left, or the right, that support public funding? That support cuts in BBC budget?
The following people do not need to stay at the BBC for money or defend it, because of some funding. They are however, deeply influential in reporting to the public or in setting strategy and adhering the policy as laid down by Parliament. The BBC answers to Parliamentary oversight, which at the last reckoning had been predominantly Conservative for the past 7 years or so. Checks and balances, seek to limit abuse from both sides.
Nick Robinson – for 10 years the Political Editor for the BBC – background Oxford PPE and President of the Young Conservatives
Andrew Neil (most Political Air time on BBC) – Former Sunday Times Editor (Murdoch paper), Chairman of the Conservative ‘Spectator’ magazine
Chris Patten – Chairman of BBC (former Conservative Cabinet Minister) – no Labour Minister has ever chaired the BBC
In addition, Boris Johnson hired Guto Harri BBC Political Correspondent to head his Media team, before he then moved on to a job with Murdoch.
David Cameron hired Craig Oliver, the then Editor of BBC News to replace Andy Coulson (ex- Murdoch) as his Press Secretary.
The BBC is composed of people from all political persuasions, and rightly so. That does not preclude them have a collective belief, possibly incorrectly on subjects such as AGW, but arguing political bias on the basis of funding is demonstrably wrong.
My question was very simple, and the fact that you refuse to answer it and provide some name of influential conservative, translate to me that you think BBC as a left bias (because of your zeal to show it cannot be so, like “the Earth cannot be round, there are important place completely flat”).
Thanks for you answer .
The BBC are traitorous filth Iain.