Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr Willie Soon – according to leaked information obtained by the Carbon Brief, the taxpayer funded BBC is very concerned that “climate deniers” are sometimes not properly challenged on air.
…
- Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCCās position, set out above.
- Be aware of āfalse balanceā: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ādenierā to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCCās position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken. However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier. There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt.
- Again, journalists need to be aware of the guestās viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective ā in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.
…
Read more: https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change/
Just in case you think providing a hostile reception to the occasional “denier” grudgingly allowed on air constitutes excessive leniency, the BBC provides further guidance regarding their green broadcasting initiative.
The BBCās Greener Broadcasting strategy
In 2018, the Corporation launched a Pan-BBC strategy, Greener Broadcasting, to create a business that is environmentally sustainable and doing its part to tackle environmental factors that could impact our futures. The strategy is in three-parts: Ourselves, Our Industry and Our Audiences. Its goal, over the course of the current Charter period, is to create a positive environmental impact.
āOurselvesā
looks at creating a sustainable workplace, including our ways of working as BBC employees and our ways of running our buildings and operations.āOur Industryā
is about working with other organisations in the production and transmission sectors as well as in our wider supply chain to see how, together, we can reduce carbon emissions and learn best practice from each other.āOur Audiencesā
ensures that we, as the BBC, are informing and educating the public, allowing them to make informed choices about their own behaviours around sustainable living.…
Read more: https://www.scribd.com/document/388060002/Climate-Change-Crib-Sheet-for-NEWS
I think the advice to BBC employees seems clear. If they want to allow the occasional “climate denier” on air, make sure the “denier” is treated to a hostile reception, and make sure they don’t get an opportunity to interfere with the BBC’s mission to convince their audience make green lifestyle choices.
And that lovely word “potentially” in the advice – BBC journalists are encouraged to offer their own potentially unfounded opinions about how they think the guest “denier” is funded.
Let them have what they want. Shut off the natural gas at BBC and all electricity produced from fossil fuels. A year or so of shivering in the dark should provide a much needed attitude adjustment.
Wonder what CBC’s guidelines are…
I wouldnāt know as I havenāt watch them for 20 years.
CBC?
Probably worse. I have not heard a sceptic on CBC yet.
I wrote to the CBC and challenged them on this point, specifically about McIntyre being hailed around the world for exposing the hockey stick chart. 18 months later then interviewed him for more than an hour. It is a pretty good interview.
That’s it. They once interviewed a guy, an expert, they thought, in Alberta who to the shock of the interviewer said straight out that he was a ‘denier’ and he felt more people should come out of the closet and say so.
The interviewer, young and obviously unskilled on the subject, tried to lampoon the guy but failed terribly. He sounded like an idiot struggling to fling mud. The interviewee was completely unfazed and in answer to the question, “What causes the climate to change?” replied that he thought the sun played a major part.
That’s all. The rest of the time we get that clown modeler from Victoria or a Suzuki acolyte. Off-message messages aren’t allowed so we hear next to nothing about Doug Ford, about the second most important person in the country. All we get about him is the cancellation of the new sex ed syllabus – a popular move with the deplorables. Why teach sodomy to eight year olds in schools when there are free lessons on Sundays?
Relevant here is Jordan Peterson’s question, “Do you think it is possible for the left to go to far?” The CBC has answer and you won’t like it
Is there anyone on the planet who thinks we don’t have a climate?
Or that this climate changes over time?
I’ve yet to meet one!
There is one rather simple question that has yet to be given an adequate answer: Is the planet getting warmer?
Some places yes, others no. Its climate. It changes. It always has and always will, whether we, in our ephemeral existence, are here to witness it or not.
Do we have an effect? Meh, perhaps but not very much, and certainly nowhere near what alarmist would have us believe. Any impact we’ve had pales in comparison to cyanobacteria that probably had the greatest impact on our atmosphere, but most life on earth isn’t complaining about that (except for a few misanthropes).
The earth doesnt have a climate, it has climates from tropical to glacial.
The planet does not have an average climate or energy state i.e. temperature.
so, you’re a denier denier, eh?
Luke-warmer gate-keepers of the RGHE as yourself are an embarrassment to science , Roy, no spine, to affraid of the so-called consensus, with your back-radiation garbage.
Postma makes achump out of you every time you tangle.
Have a nice day.
“Why teach sodomy to eight year olds in schools when there are free lessons on Sundays?” … that deserves a prize!
OK…OK…Now you’re just Preaching to the Choir Boys
Tom: Aren’t they the outfit who constantly put up Suzuki for his promotion of AGW?
IF at all possible get only Mann, Mckibben and Suzuki for anything climate change related…if they are not available, Greenpeace is a prefectly acceptible substitution (feel free to quote greenpeace in all articles as well).
Exactly…..they want to push all of this green nonsense – then let them lead by example! And if they want their buildings to be so nice and green, then they should have solar panels on the roof, a few small rooftop windmills (or wherever they can reasonably place them without running afoul of government regulations and unhappy neighbors) and a bunch of people peddling stationary bikes hooked up to the electrical system to take up the slack from lack of wind and sunshine. Not sure what they’d do about their HVAC systems….those tend to be energy intensive and none of the above mentioned methods of power generation would cut it. Maybe just open the windows in summer, bundle up in winter and hope for the best.
BBc is leading by example. Their pension funds are managed by Generation Investment Management, LLC. The green investment management firm for huge institutional investors set up by Al Gore.
TheLastDemocrat
,,,BBc is leading by example. Their pension funds are managed by Generation Investment Management, LLC. The green investment management firm for huge institutional investors set up by Al Gore….
Who will they blame when the fund goes broke? Or is it already tapped into the deep pocket of the taxpayer?
UNFCCC
External Statement / 02 Nov, 2017
Re: Deployment of smart grids.
https://unfccc.int/news/shift-to-clean-affordable-energy-critical-to-attaining-global-goals
UNFCCC
Search results: smart grids
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=smart%20grids
UNFCCC
Search results: smart meters.
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=smart%20meters
UNFCCC has many articles on smart grids and smart meters.
We can use their frozen corpses as door stoppers.Their gonads that have frozen off can be used as small paperweights.
If you can hold down a stack of paper with a Raisin
shutting off the licence fee income would help tremendously
They don’t seem to have any concerns when it comes to flying their people round the world, especially to report ‘climate change’ conferences or catastrophes, or to collect fake footage for their wildlife porn*. Then there’s the bill for sending taxis the length of the country to collect/return guests for their left-leaning blatherfests. And the licence payer picks up the bills.
*I look forward to the day when disturbing wildlife for entertainment purposes is as unthinkable as spending Sunday afternoons laughing at the inmates of |Bedlam.
They wouldn’t last an hour. BBC is made up of 3 or 4 great people and a mob of snowflakes.
Basic facts are always in short supply at the BBC, but this is a spectacular ‘own goal’:
“To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.”
They would be right to deny that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday, the match was on Sunday!
https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-climate-change-guidelines-get-it-wrong/
Trouble is………….who is the Climate Referee?
Lol.
In fact, impartiality DOES require all voices, in proportions. Showing skepticism and alarmism in that order is neither balanced. As a rule, the underdog deserves the last word.
But, they discarded balance a long time ago. Waah, it is worser than expected!!
BBC must understand what is climate change — what IPCC or UNCCC definitions — before making guidelines.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
They use a Humpty Dumpty definition.
Dr Reddy,
You may have already noted that the News editor – Fran Unsworth – who made this important proclamation – has a degree in drama.
Source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Unsworth
Yes, I know that the wiki can be edited by almost everyone [until their proclivities are noted . . . .],.
A friend did drama, long ago, and there was no physics or chemistry in that degree course. Certainly, not the course that the redoubtable Unsworth did.
Just sayin’.
Auto
Ah, but auto, being a Drama Queen, she has feelings, & they ALWAYS outweigh science, rational thought, & logic!
Alan,
Indeed.
My bad.
But do the DQ’s feelings always have to be paid for by the tax- and licence-payer?
It seems so, now. But, surely, not forever!?
Auto
“The referee has spoken.” I guess science is now like a sporting event where the referee decides the “truth” and facts and data are irrelevant.
https://youtu.be/C8mKkngERW0
What no video replay?
Exactly. Lets have the equivalent of the video replay and ‘snicko’ etc on say Mann’s Hockey Schtick, Hide the Decline and Mike’s Nature Trick. Then lets have a similar forensic look at the temperature record fiddles, the actual ‘extreme weather event occurrence/severity analysis.
Yes, exactly. If the ref has spoken why did they introduce VAR?
If the general public was as informed about climate science as it was about football, it would be howling for the hides of the referees who are ‘blowing the game’.
A shame that such a previously revered institution as the BBC is now no more than a propaganda machine.
It’s been that way for decades. It’s just that 40 years ago they still felt the need to hide their biases.
BBC mantra:
‘Whites need not apply.’
Wally,
You mean the Romans weren’t Zulus?
Their gladii look a lot like assegais to me.
And the similarities don’t stop there. But I’m going with convergent cultural evolution rather than direct descent.
It is run by the government. What do you expect?
Actually it isn’t.
But it might as well be.
They’re worried deep down that they may have to brow-beat the guvment for extra Licence Fee money due to the impending Ā£20M+ shortfall that will inevitably occur once Britian finally leaves the damned Totalitarian EU! The EU gives such amounts to ALL state broadcasters, I wonder why?
The Biased Broadcasting Company was never a “revered institution” except in its own propaganda about itself.
I recall it was once called the British Broaddcorping Castration by some wag.
Yup, just like I call Verizon Wireless “We’re lies ‘n’ virus”.
These days its the Boy Buggering Corporation.
I think over 50% of its employees class themselves as LBGT etc etc.
I would call it a “reversed institution” these days…
I recall seeing a picture, I guess from the 1930s, of a BBC Radio announcer standing at the mic–dressed for dinner. Black tie, wing collar, patent leather shoes the whole thing.
Now, that was class!
None now.
Bob Hoye
It always has been, since WW2.
It has become pretty much unwatchable, my blood pressure won’t take it!
This training blurb is very sloppily put together. Iād go as far as to say they are purposely trying to mislead and indoctrinate their own journalists by use of word play and sophistry. Take this excerpt for example (from the Carbon Brief link):
āFor instance, there is very high confidence that there will be more extreme events ā floods, droughts, heatwaves etc. ā but attributing an individual event, such as the UKās winter floods in 2013/2014, to climate change is much less certain.ā
The operative word here is āwillā. The BBC refer to projections (āthere will be…ā) and then immediately conflate that with the reporting of current (and past) extreme weather events. So the only context that makes any sense has to be that the BBC is saying these are very near-term projections. And also that theyāre exploring here the idea of whether those projections are already being borne out. But they are not being borne out right now in relation to drought and hurricanes. Thatās according to IPCC AR5 view on current extreme weather trends. The increase and attribution to climate change/global warming is only suggested in the long-term IPCC projections (and labelled as āvery likelyā).
So the BBC are already misleading their own journalists that theyāre supposedly trying to educate and theyāre doing so by conflating future projections with current extreme weather.
“there will be more extreme events” – this is not a prediction, this is a simple statement of fact. A great debate technique is to put new significance on simple facts. Millions of people are dying every year!!!!
Yeah … like the story of the airliner that went down in a graveyard ….. 1500 bodies have been recovered so far.
IIRC it was a Cessna and the crash site was in Ireland.
Agreed, however the word “more” could be misconstrued to mean an increase over the current rate of extreme events. This is not supported by available data. The statement of fact, as you noted, means that we will have extreme events in the future.
Bit strong to call BBC’s so called ‘journalists’, journalists, after all, all they are expected to do is cut and paste from The Guardian newspaper.
keith
Some have to make-up whole cloth without even the Grauniad’s guiding light [not powered by any fossil fuel, of course].
Of blooming course.
Auto
The classic Wet Office approach is denial-confirmation techniques, e.g. a bad weather event occurs wherever, then they say something along the lines of, “no specific weather event of this magnitude can be attributed to Climate Change, but yes, this is the kind of weather extreme we expect in the future!” You see? it’s the no-yes syndrome!
The absurdity of what the BBC is advertising as policy is clearly lost on the BBC. They seem to suggest the interviewer is more qualified than the ādenierā who in most cases will be a researcher likely equally if not more qualified than those who are the sources of the never-ending alarmist propaganda. BBC says it follows the science of the IPCC and fails to realize much of the alarmist nonsense they publish, support and editorialize on goes way beyond the more modest claims and cautions about uncertainty imbedded in IPCC reports. They dishonestly imply the ādeniersā are people who deny climate change when it is almost certainly known to them that the debate is about the amount of recent climate change, whether it is dangerous, beneficial or neutral and the extent to which human activities have contributed to and/or can act lesson the change.
Their greening of the BBC is a sign of adherence to a new religion- hardly a sign of objectivity.
Most journalists are examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect:
“DunningāKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability; without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.”
Back in the 20th century, we just called that being a know-it-all.
It’s even more absurd when many of those they would deem ‘deniers’ were contributors to the IPCC reports that they hold in such high esteem.
From Merrian-Websterās Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition.
Skepticān[L or Gk; L scepticus, fr. Gk skeptikos, fr. skeptikos thoughtful, fr. skeptesthai to look, consider…]
Apparently not used in college anymore. Denier is pejorative, as in denigration.
Sceptic
It’s kinda bizarre. Or would be, in a normal universe.
The document acknowledges that very few critics actually deny that climate changes or even that, god forbid, humans might have some influence. Yet they still want to make exclusion of these people paramount. To my knowledge, no one the BBC has ever aired fits their concept of a “denier”.
The whole thing is pathetic. The best I can hope for, from the BBC’s point of view, is that this document is a complete lie/forgery. Unfortunately I now find it too easy to believe that the BBC resorts to such shallow thinking in order to exclude people with legitimate arguments against their global-warming dogma.
The BBC needs to be privatized. If it makes the pill easier to swallow, the government could use some of the proceeds to fund a new school of actual journalism in the UK, as long as it isn’t staffed by anyone now working for the BBC.
The Beeb needs free market competition for news broadcasting.
It is even more alarming when one goes ‘off-piste’ on the BBC website. In certain areas the articles become more and more like the SJW articles and attitudes that you can find on social media. I don’t object to such viewpoints being allowed to be expressed, but comments are rarely enabled and the attitudes of the articles are increasingly of the variety that encourages simple denigration of differing viewpoints as being socially unacceptable.
This is an organization that protected Jimmy Savile for years and you expect them to act ethically?
& Stuart Hall, & Rolf Harris & …..
The BBC denied for decades that Jimmy Savile was an abusive pedophile.
So they’re deniers, then!
The BBC acts with a view that their viewers are TAPS, (Thick As Pig Shite)!
Tragic
As the late Dr Stephen Schneider implied in his 1989 book, āfair balanceā will kill the AGW issue.
āIt does not help the public to understand the nature of complex technical questions to balance an extreme position of a scientist or advocate at one end of the spectrum against an extreme position of a scientist or advocate on the other end. ā¦. if only the irreconcilable debates of implacable expert enemies are reported, the typical public reaction (and probably those of politicians as well) will be, Well, if the experts donāt know whatās going on, how can I decide?ā The next reaction would probably be, āYou folks go back and study some more, and when you have more certainty come and tell us so we can decide how to act.ā http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1886
That’s reasonable. Scientists are not nearly as reliable as they would have people believe. We have the replication crisis. Most published research findings are false.
Yep …. none of the researchers put much stock in their own words ….. negative data is as valuable as positive data …. it shows you need to come up with anew hypothesis. …. but grant hungry scientist know that negative data doesnāt get you the next grant.
A recent example of the differences between experts is the Happer/Karoly ‘debate’.
Hard to decide who is right or wrong with such disparate views of the same data
Apparently the UN-IPCC is the ‘referee’, according to the BBC.
They have elevated the group with the highest vested financial interest in sustaining the climate change fraud to British ‘referee’ status. It’s equivalent to authorizing the mafia to referee who must pay ‘protection fees’ every month to keep their businesses from being destroyed…. by the mafia.
I despair for you, Britannia!
Well…you know…the sun used to never set on the British Empire, so when it does, we should see some global cooling!
Re the IPCC being the referee, in 1995 didn’t one person off his own bat change the conclusions of a committee that there was no evidence of any human influence on climate to the exact opposite?
Ben Santer changed the only part of his working group’s work which is likely to be read in its entirety: the summary.
From the article: “ensures that we, as the BBC, are informing and educating the public, allowing them to make informed choices about their own behaviours around sustainable living.”
How does one make an informed choice when only one side of the argument is presented to your viewers?
“We know what’s good for you…” is the primary diktat of the socialist catechism.
Ah. You need to adapt the old adage..is it Mark Twain?
“If you do not listen to the BBC you are uninformed. If you do, you will be misinformed”.
Please WUWT readers start protesting outside the BBC’s London HQ
Suggested placards:
BBC kills kids. Stop emitting CO2.
BBC CO2 pollution killing your family.
BBC genocide. Stop fossil fuelling now.
BBC fossil fuelling kills polar bears.
The BBC have a legal requirement to impartiality. That is not a requirement to only be impartial if it believes one side is correct … it is a requirement to be impartial irrespective of the Biased Broadcasting Company’s views on the issues it is covering.
However, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly backs us sceptics. The pause is real, the supposed link between temperature and CO2 is absent and the lies and frauds and dirty tricks from alarmists are legion.
So far from removing sceptics, if science were the basis of what the Biased Corp broadcast, then it would be ONLY sceptics that could be aired.
However, science requires free and fair discussion and tolerance of alternative views – so we sceptics, BECAUSE WE SUPPORT THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, are not afraid of dissenting views even when like those of the alarmists they have almost zero scientific credibility. The evidence will sort out the wheat from the chaff, and alarmists are clearly the chaff.
And as for the Biased Corp – they are little better than a dictator’s brainwashing factory. And if you don’t believe me … just stop listening or watching them for a few months. What you will notice, is not that you find you disagree with them … but that you realise they have an agenda which no ordinary person would ever take as their own “thoughts” except by being constantly exposed to the brainwashing propaganda of the BBC. Until I finally took the plunge a few years ago, I never knew that so much of what I thought were my “own opinions” – was in fact me, just regurgitating the PC dog’s dinner brought up by the Biased Corp. I now look at people still under their spell and wonder when they will wake up.
I have written the following to the Daily Telegraph:
BTW: I was amused to find that spellcheck suggested that ‘Unsworth’ as ‘unworthy’.
The people of England must accept that they are completely clueless. The BBC and the government of the UK are the guardians of all knowledge and power. Sit down, shut up, run, hide and die. Your betters are in control.
Mike, most are doing that.They allowed a foreign hostile takeover of their country and culture with little resistance. Nanny governments are suckling 25%+ of the population and they are raising children in households where nobody goes to work. That’s how you install these kinds of intractable governments.
Until May’s Chequers scam was exposed, I thought these opinions were those of the Tin Hat brigade. Now I know better.
“As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective ā in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.”
Um…doing their job.
Fine Ray, so has the BBC ever shown or demanded to be shown the amounts AGW people receive from grant funds and what the percentage is of their personal income. Actually any persons advocating any policy change should have to report all conflicts of interest. Meaning that No AGW would result in no further grants and if their research was unprofessional then grant funds must be returned and possible legal action.
The best practice would be for a copy of the grant(s) to be made available as normal reporting. Not just the note and file number the compete document, this will also reveal any possible conflicts with parties approving said grant.
now that would doing their job
michael
“Umā¦doing their job.”
Yes, if they apply the requirement equally to both sides. And, if they use pejorative terms like “denier” and “alarmist” with equal frequency to both sides of the debate.
Uh huh, and flat-earthers deserve their opportunity too.
Nothing would bring viewers faster to TV than a live debate between a flat-earth believer and an astrophysicist. Why? Because the flat-earth believer has the chance to put forth his evidence and for it to be examined and questioned. Likewise, the astrophysicist would have the chance to put for his evidence and for it to be examined and questioned. The absurdity or soundness of either idea will be proven in such a debate.
In such a situation, two competing ideas are brought together to debate. That’s classic scientific rigor– at some point, ideas come to the table to be debated. One idea or another should not be expelled because of its seeming absurdity.
You and I reject the flat-earth theory, but should its adherents be excluded from the conversation? Should they not be given the chance to put for their case? I swear this has happened before… ideas being excluded merely for the absurdity… by some authoritative body. Hmm… just can’t remember it. I know it was some number of centuries ago… involving something regarding proposing that the earth orbits the sun instead of the sun orbiting the earth. Hmm… golly, I seem to forgotten it. And by your comment, it would seem you have too. Sad.
Well, for what it’s worth, to paraphrase a once great man, “I may not agree with one word you say, but, (unlike you of course), I would defend tothe death your right to be wrong!” BTW, the Earth is flat pretty much for 78% of its surface, it’s only the land masses that get a bit bumpy! š
You need a longer spirit level
Clyde, the current BBC bias is in the use of ‘Far Right’ (never ‘Right’, and never ‘Far Left’)
There is no “Right” in Europe, it’s always “Far Right”.
It’s just another way for the Left to diminish the Right verbally. Anyone who isn’t on the Left is an extremist, don’t you see, so they have to be FAR Right.
Mind games. Propaganda tricks. Bias.
I have alwayts believed that anyone who refers to an opponent as “Far Right”, is saying so from a position of being “Far Left”! They seem to conveniently forgotten that it was the “National Socialists Workers Party of Germany”!
the current BBC bias is in the use of āFar Rightā (never āRightā, and never āFar Leftā)
Well, when you sit on the Far left, everything else is to the right, and anything to the right of center is “far right” in comparison.
Uh Ryan, and reporting what “potential” sources of funding they are getting. In other words, lie about who supports their research if you have nothing else, particularly if the guy has a serious point. You know this is how your side operates and nevermind the colossal funding from governments, enviros, and global gov interests buying foregone results to support draconian policies. Even Mann and others have received funding from fossil fuel companies.
So, you still haven’t learned much, have you Ryan! What one’s official status is, & what one’s actual status is are often two very different things! The BBC is run by Intellectual Elites, who happily tell lies from a position of alledged authoriy, they’ve been doing it for years!
At the first mention of “denier” you’ve already lost the argument.
Galileo would still be in jail if the ABC had it’s way.
Jim,
IMO, the ABC wouldn’t have reduced his sentence to house arrest for life. They’d have burned him, like his fellow heretic Bruno.
They would still be supporting flat-earthers.
The BBC is a hive of cultural Marxism.
I cannot use the words i use in private to describe them here, they control Journalistic traing and their Union, they infect everything they touch with progressive falseness, a truly vile worthless organisation to all but momentum and Common Purpose graduates,…….. a national broadcaster that despises the ”british” in its title and 80% of the population that do not identify as ”progressive”,……
Having 8 billion Ā£ of your 12 billion Ā£ pension fund tied up in the green bank is a big factor in their propaganda.
The BBC is using the term “denier.” They should be required to define what they mean by the term and why a different term is not preferred.
They need suing, so do so called professionals when descriding fellow scientists as deniers.
Attention mod
please review this post
Gary now that would be fun a class action suit for pain and suffering from being described as the same as the worst human monsters in history.
Hmm, there is an ambulance chaser when you need one. One in every country.
those who live by the sword….
nah lets not sink to their level
michael
Science is never settled.
CAGW-advocating scientists and Leftist MSM/politicians are the only institutions who believe the logical fallacies of: argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem, reductio ad absurdum, post hoc ergo prompter hosc, etc., are valid arguments..
In any other branch of science, if hypothetical projections were as devoid from reality as CAGW, the hypothesis would be laughed at, but alas:
CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypotheis, and even intelligent CAGW advocates know this, but because the CAGW ho@x will enable Leftists to: gain incredible control over every aspect of human existence, steal $76 TRILLION (2008 U.N. estimate) from taxpayers, and destroy capitalism, they have no qualms in censoring and destroying CAGW skeptics to keep the lie alive for as long as possible.
CAGW will eventually be tossed on the trash heap of failed ideas, and the timing of its demise is just a function of how well Leftists can effectively: censor CAGW skeptics, manipulate empirical data, and brainwash the citizenry…
I’ve always wondered what this spaghetti graph looks like if the models are run backward from 1975.
I read a report this morning that 90% of Google employees donate to the Democrat party.
I’m pretty sure that the other 10% don’t donate.
Donating to the Republicans is probably a firing offense these days.
6% of scientists are Republican. Scientists have no idea why that number is so high.
What is a “scientist”?
anyone defined by the BBC as having the right opinion…..
Orwellian. Itās really scary, and it reminds me of the uncompromising certainty of the religious education I received as a child from Catholic clerics, many of whom turned out to be pedophiles in disguise.
Many turned out to be pedophiles? John Jay study clearly indicates it was no more than a few percent. Clearly anti-Catholicism is acceptable here at WUWT.
Joe H
Might Trebla be speaking about his own experience?
I am sure that only a small percentage – ‘a few percent’ – were abusers.
That, still, was a lot of folk, I think.
But – is it not possible that Trebla (Unhappily) was taught [etc.] by a biased community, with, proportionally, more abusers?
I suggest it is possible., and very unfortunate for Trebla if true.
Auto
There was recently a program on the BBC that poked fun at itself…the name escapes me at the moment, but it starred the actor who played Lord Grantham of Downtown Abbey. The whole gist of it was that everybody in the BBC was involved in positions and committees that focussed on the politically correct, but nothing was ever decided, no actions were ever taken. Repetitive as hell….. Written by BBC people – there’s many a true word spoken in jest.
It is called W1A. A bit tiresome because it is so accurate but funny!
I don’t think Goliaths like the BBC and the once top universities can be rehabilitated since the takeover by Š°ŠæŠæŠ°ŃŠ°ŃŃŠøŠŗŠø (apparatchiks) after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Harvard, Oxford and other fallen institutions of higher learning have tenure for a couple of generations, old unhappy alumni are dying off and new ones are pouring out of their designer-brain factories. Competition from new universities with a dedication to quality apolitical scholarship will be needed.
BBC can have its budget chopped by a new government, I guess, but except for UKIP, there is little to choose from in the political marketplace anywhere outside of North America and Eastern Europe (who know first hand what these types are all about). I’ve been wondering where my grandchildren should go to college. Maybe Prague is a good alternative to what they are up against here.
Wake me up when Tuvalu has sunk.
Then we’ll be waking the (very long) dead.
The wording is just what one would expect from an authoritarian regime. The blind and unquestioning belief without any effort to exercise healthy skepticism, dialogue and scrutiny (bigotry) will make a laughing stock of our society (if anything survives) in generations to come.
Genuine science invites intelligent replication and that involves skepticism. Weaponised science denigrates and prohibits it. Todayās MSM is no more than reporters and presenters being recruited as propaganda mercenaries to further a political cause. Welcome to the age of weaponized science. Goodbye to any genuine news from the MSM.
Didn’t Greenpeace’s co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore quit because of the takeover of the organization by Marxists? When I see or hear “Green Initiative”, guess what comes to my mind?
“To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday.”
Unfortunately, this his how simple some of these folks think our climate system is. It’s as simple as Manchester United won 2-0. Wow!
To be more relevant to the current subject the quote should read:
There, fixed it for them.
The really scary part is that it is not just the BBC doing this. The green fanatics are taking control of all major institutions, organisations and companies in the western world. They will have total control of our lives before long. It is very worrying.
The war on plastics is the new climate change. Likewise, a lot of the claims made for plastic pollution don’t seem to be verifiable. I guess the watermelons have foreseen that temperatures might start to fall, and want to have a backup campaign ready just in case.
In Mumbai you can now be arrested for owning a plastic bag.
Meanwhile the wind energy profiteers are covering the planet in plastics of the worst, non-recyclable kind.
I read recently that most plastic is coming from afew rivers in Africa & Asia! Will try & hunt down a source asap but it is Sunday!
If media personalities expect to successfully challenge a well informed sceptic, they will need to change the subject often enough to divert the viewers’ attention from the stated sceptical evidence to the repetition of AGW dogma, combined with a personal attack on the adversary of the meme.
So business as usual for the media elites.
The Manchester United analogy is idiotic, but less idiotic than the LA Times’ editor’s basketball analogy at least 5 years ago in this multi-year Groundhog Day cycle.
Why don’t they just point the reader to whatever it is the denier is supposed to be denying?
Hold on a sec …. I know the answer to that.
The good news, I suppose, is that they’re having to lie harder (as predicted).
“To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.”
Science by referee? Are they serious?
Well, if the BBC say the referee is always right they can save a few million on paying Lineaker and his team of old footballers discussing the rights and wrongs of referees’ decisions during games.
They (BBC) are supposed to be creative thinkers and all they can up with for a metaphor is one about football and referees!!!
Harry
Footy is pretty creative for a BBC Insider, who did drama at college.
Pity physics – or even the scientific method – was not included in the Big Boss’s education post-16.
Auto
Why do posters on here refer to these people as Marxists, greens, socialist, lefties? They’re none of the above. They’re phonies, kleptocrats and kleptocrat’s useful idiots. Thieves in common parlance.
…yeah…they’re all synonyms…
Because those are the masques they hide behind.
Because that’s what they identify as. You don’t want to mis-label them, that would be as bad as not using their preferred pronoun.
Usual tripe from the natural variation deniers at the BBC
Andrew
They are deniers of rational objectivity.
To them, truth is political.
George Orwell was only inaccurate by 34 years. He didnt realize that even the left couldn’t move at lightning speed in the takeover of the media. But now in the year 2018 the left has most of the things in place that George Orwell said would be in place. The only thing missing so far is the jackboots to our heads.
https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-rogers-rogers_001&hsimp=yhs-rogers_001&hspart=rogers&p=orwell+final+warning#id=1&vid=ef290521c6ec87415c3713154da6ec38&action=click
In the U.S., “AntiFa” is filling the role of the jackbooted thugs. The fascist “anti-fascists”.
I hear there are plans to fund the BBC out of general taxation because so many people are refusing to pay the licence fee. That would be bad. It would be compulsory funding of propaganda.
just like in Aus;-(
Id like my 8c or whatever a day refunded
It already is compulsory, isn’t it? I’m from the UK, so I feel I can safely say that paying to have people lie to you is a uniquely UK concept. This would be just switching the method of payment which would ultimately be subject to the opinions of the voting public, i.e. a step in the right direction (potentially).
These people, being the smarmy, elitist, parasitic liars that they are, will always be one step ahead though, so we shouldn’t expect too much.
Some people refuse to pay, but probably most non-payers are doing so because they are watching online rather than broadcast TV.
I stopped paying the license fee more than a year ago and also stopped watching TV. Don’t like alternative lifestyles being rammed down my throat. Glad to hear I’m not the only one. A lot less bother than torches and pitchforks and very satisfying.(Oh and I found Alex Jones in spite of him being kicked off YouTube!) For local news I read UKIP Daily online. PS also cancelled Non Scientist.
It would be compulsory funding of propaganda.
It already is, and has been for as long as the BBC has existed.
Sir Cliff Richard, the singer, recently won a court case for damages after the BBC broadcast film of the police raiding his property following a phone call alleging historic sexual abuse by him. This included video taken from a BBC helicopter. Sir Cliff was never attested or charged.
The BBC reserve a specially vindictive loathing for Sir Cliff on account of his evangelical Christianity. Looking into the details of what happened that day, what is most revealing and alarming is the way that the BBC and the police worked together. Not only were the actions of the two organisations closely choreographed. The police raid and its timing actually took place under the instructions of the BBC. The BBC told the police what to do and when to do it. The BBC donāt just consider themselves a branch of government. They are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45183421
The news supremo who ordered the helicopter coverage of the unlawful raid on Sir Cliff Richards’ house in his absence was Fran Unsworth, who after the case appeared on television to defend the A
ugust 2014, Unsworth ordered helicopter filming of a police raid on a mansion belonging to Cliff Richard. The coverage led to the singer suing the BBC for breach of privacy.[20] On 8 May 2018 The Guardian reported that, “Sir Cliff Richard is seeking a payment of at least Ā£560,000 from the BBC following the broadcasterās coverage of a police raid at his home in 2014”. In July 2018 Sir Cliff won his case for damages.
Moderator Please delete my submission that appeared at 11.25 – I was drafting and pressed the wrong button!
This is the revised version:
In August 2014, Unsworth ordered helicopter filming of a police raid on a mansion belonging to Cliff Richard. The coverage led to the singer suing the BBC for breach of privacy.[20] On 8 May 2018 The Guardian reported that, āSir Cliff Richard is seeking a payment of at least Ā£560,000 from the BBC following the broadcasterās coverage of a police raid at his home in 2014ā. In July 2018 Sir Cliff won his case for damages.
The news supremo who ordered the helicopter coverage of the unlawful raid on Sir Cliff Richardsā house in his absence was Fran Unsworth who, after the case, appeared on television to defend the BBC’s disgusting behaviour which has cost the license payers more than Ā£1.000,000. Since Sir Cliff had already received an apology and substantial compensation from the South Yorkshire Police the BBC should never have attempted to defend the case in court.
Yet Fran Unsworth has not resigned and her latees emmision is the Climate Change crib sheet complete with her coveinr letter below:
Dear all
After a summer of heatwaves, floods and extreme weather, environment stories have become front of mind for our audiences. There are a number of important related news events in the coming months ā including the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Green Great Britain Week in October ā so there will be many more stories to cover. Younger audiences, in particular, have told us theyād like to see more journalism on the issue.
With this in mind, we are offering all editorial staff new training for reporting on climate change. The one hour course covers the latest science, policy, research, and misconceptions to challenge, giving you confidence to cover the topic accurately and knowledgeably.
Please book now by choosing a time from MyDevelopment (youāll be prompted to login first), searching āreporting climate changeā on MyDevelopment, or emailing XXXXXX@bbc.co.uk to set up a tailored session for your team.
In the meantime, you can read the Climate Change for BBC News crib sheet, and the Analysis and Research website by searching āclimate changeā which cover the basics.
I hope you find the training useful.
Fran
Fran has a degree in drama.
It is likely that science did not figure heavily in that course.
I may be wrong, but I understand that the scientific method may not be universally included in UK University (degree/BA or BSc ) drama courses.
Auto
Eric Blair (George Orwell) resigned from the Big Brother Corporation, having grown weary of catapulting “British propaganda.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/2b31054065d4a340b1dd2f5bf6671ca38bfcad21.jpg
The Ministry of Truth, with its hordes of actors and producers churning out propaganda tuned to different demographics, was clearly modeled on Blair’s employer, the BBC.
In fact, the BBC is often referred to affectionately in the UK as “Auntie,” as it it were a wise old loving and trusted member of your own family.
“Umā¦doing their job.”
-BBC fanboi, Ryan S
In the land of the blind, one-eye is king. Unfortunately in BBC land there is no king, because everybody is blind. A bunch of scientifically illiterates deciding what the people is to be told about science. It will not end well.
I think you have misread it. ‘potential’ does not qualify the funding, it qualifies the mention of it. They may, potentially, discuss sources of funding. Not they may discuss potential sources of funding.
But yes, its another example of the view that ‘the science is settled’. That there is something called climate change which is certain, and there is something which if people dispute any of it, they will be denying science.
Same thing occurred the other day on Ars, where Happer was described as someone who denies climate science. He is not someone who disagrees with some propositions or theories in climate science, no, he’s someone who denies climate science.
Imagine Einstein, or the early quantum physicists. It was not that they thought that the Newtonian account was incomplete or incorrect. No, they were denying physics. Imagine people who claimed a bacterial origin for stomach ulcers. They were denying medical science. They were not disputing a then accepted theory about the cause of stomach ulcers. No, they were medical science deniers.
Same thing with those miscreants who disputed and continue to dispute the saturated fat – blood cholesterol – CHD theory. These people are biology or dietary science deniers.
It reminds one of the former Soviet Union, in which people who dissented from the view that they were blessedly living in the inevitable Hegelian moment were denying historical science and self evident truth, something which could only be explained by mental illness.
Indeed, the attempt to characterize disagreement from one’s views on climate as a form of mental illness is alive and well in the peer reviewed literature.
Weird. We are looking at the corruption of science in our culture, and most of us are failing to recognize it for what it is.
Itās soooo painful trying to debate with the āuseful idiotsā! So determined not to think for themselves. Hereās a great example from the Guardianās article on this story…
https://www.facebook.com/10513336322/posts/10157167516741323/
What is wrong with “The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the fundamentals of human-induced climate change, but there is healthy debate about the extent of that change and what to do about it”
Does anyone here have a problem with that? Does anyone disagree with that?
It depends what you mean by ‘the fundamentals’. You have to watch the pea under the thimble. What they actually agree on is very thin gruel with almost no policy implications. But what you will be called a denialist for doubting goes far beyond this. Its like the 97% nonsense. What they agree is that there is some human influence. Obviously there is. Some.
Whether its important is the issue, and this is what they wish to claim there is a total consensus on – that it is super important, the main driver, and that its dangerous and our causal activities should be stopped.
No, the vast majority do not agree on that.
Some local effect, to me, includes surely-undeniable local UHI effects.
Not least those around airfields, airports – and great air-transport centres like Heathrow and Gatwick. I am within thirty miles of both.
Beyond that – certainly in well-situated observation stations – I suggest that we have, certainly, had weather, quite a bit of it
I believe we have come out of the ‘Little Ice Age’ [Dates a la carte, but I think, sort of, 1500-1600 to 1800 or 1850 or even 1900. Ish. Ish-ish.]
Auto
What are the “fundamentals of human-induced climate change”? Please list them because yes, people on here are not stupid enough to buy into the (your) appeal to the authority of some undefined and possibly non-existent “vast majority of climate scientists”.
‘Tis a pity that neither Einstein or Hawking are alive to tell the BBC that science is very rarely settled – and that fact alone should make them realise that closing down debate is a typical action of a Stalanist state; not the way a free, democratic country’s national broadcaster should act.
But, of course, the BBC never admit they are wrong.
Yes exactly. I think that would solve the communication problem between the two sides.
Seems to me that they are treading on dangerous ground. They have now admitted that they are conducting a propaganda war against ‘deniers’ – we need them to spell out exactly what the definition of a ‘denier’ is. In the absence of that tight definition this policy can be used to suppress any disagreement with the IPCC.
Incidentally, I think this is a world first for the BBC, in that they state that they will unquestioningly follow IPCC statements, and that though they may allow people to disagree with those statements, such disagreement should always be challenged. I cannot think of any other body – national or supranational, which the BBC promise to believe implicitly.
Both the above points should be grounds for formal complaints to the BBC and to the UK parliament. Given the BBC’s global reach, it should be open to non-UK citizens to complain equally with UK citizens – ther is an ‘all-party parliamentary group’ which might be a useful contact – https://www.appgs.org/all-party-parliamentary-bbc-group/ UK citizens would be best advised to write to MPs…
T
“we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents”
Because the most duplicitous and well funded organizations are Government Bureaucrats and the “Experts” they enrich.
If the BBC won’t allow thinking outside the box it deserves to be in a box and six feet under.
Notice the pea and thimble trick. They say climate change deniers. They mean critics of the CAGW theory.
Two different things.
Clever.
Exactly; they purposely conflate the two as a means to dummy the public – it worked.
“Sustainability” is the word to pay attention to in the following quote from these BBC guidlines:-
“There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debate”
There is no sustainability debate because they dare not debate it.
The IPCC science reports make no mention of “Sustainability.”
Zero percent of scientists say that anything is “sustainable” ( in the sense that the BBC and environmentalists mean it). In fact I can’t find ANY scientists who voice opinions on the topic at all. It’s mostly evidence-free believers like economists and sociologists who talk about it.
And yet the political, social and economic transformations that are being enforced in its name are far more totalitarian and harmful than those of just “de-carbonisation.”
Just for one example – “One Planet Fremantle” in Fremantle, Australia is a plan for “sustainable development” that requires reducing the material standard of living of Fremantle by three quarters. That’s three quarters less food, water, housing, transport commerce etc.
“http://www.bioregional.com/one-planet-fremantle/” reveals that “Freemantle is the 2nd city to implement the “One Planet” methodology for sustainable development”
see also:- https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/one-planet
“One Planet Fremantle” is the same plan as “One Planet Brighton” which is being implemented in Brighton (UK) where I live. It is also being implemented as “One Planet Wales” throughout the entire country of Wales (UK).
I have documented “One Planet Brighton” on my blog at:-
http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/sustainable-happiness-is-no-laughing.html
“One planet” is methodology for evaluating “sustainability” that is so precise that it calculates a numerical co-efficient of “sustainability”. That numerical coefficient for Brighton is 3.2 and for all of Wales is 2.7 and it turns out to mean that Brighton is considered to be consuming material resources as if it had 3.2 planets worth of resources available. The plan is to reduce that to the “correct” amount which is One Planets worth – hence the name of the plan – “One Planet Brighton” which is a plan to REDUCE Brighton by 2/3. That is:- 2/3 less food and 2/3 less water etc..
Australians should be concerned that the methodology calculates that the average Australian consumes the resources of FOUR planets and thus needs to reduce their consumption by THREE-QUARTERS.
“One Planet Living is an international sustainability initiative based on the idea that we all need to live within the limits of one planet’s natural resources. If everyone continues to live like the average Australian, we would need more than four planets to support the current world population.”
https://www.landcorp.com.au/innovation/wgv/initiatives/One-Planet-Living/
see also
https://cofremantle.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/world-environment-day-one-planet-and-freo/
One of the things that politicians are demanding that humans hand over to them is direct control of “Happiness”
UK politicians are going to be able to put people in jail for having the wrong kind of happiness.
Brits should also check out:-
* One Planet Bristol
* One Planet Middlesbrough
* One Planet Norwich
and many other places.
“One Planet” sustainability is coming for you whereever you live.
Sustainability is poverty and slavery
Sustainability is ghetto and gulag
Sustainability is starving to death in a hovel.
Sustainability is shivering in the cold and dark so that in the future they can shiver in the cold and dark
The Age of Green is a new and terrible dark age
“The rise in CO2 is now the leading cause of pathological neurotic hysteria.” – UN IPCC
If the BBC put as much energy and concern into questioning the actualitĆ© of AGW as they put into trying to bring down a democratically elected President they’d do better (not that I can find John Sopel an example of a balanced, unbiased reporter).
The Beeb in the first quote conflates the term climate change meaning that the climate has been constantly changing for over 4 billion years with the AGW meaning of “climate change” which the CAGW croud morphed from “global warming.” The Beeb also showed their lack of understanding of the scientific method by their settled science claim.
āclimate deniersā are sometimes not properly challenged on air.
Uh, when are “climate d*niers” ever on air? Certainly not on the British Broadcasting Communists (BBC). Not on the American Broadcasting Communists (ABC). Not on the National Broadcasting Communists (NBC). Not on Communist Broadcasting System (CBS). Not on Communist (Fake)News Network (CNN). Not on Communists Broadcasting (of)Canada (CBC). Not on Australian Broadcasting Communists (ABC).
The BBC, as a proponent of clear communication, should be ashamed of how they butcher language in using the phrase, “climate denier”.
Surely, educated newscasters know the definition of “climate”, and yet they use it in an absurd phrase that means a person who denies the existence of climate. That’s what a “climate denier’ is — a person who denies the existence of climate. Ridiculous !
BBC= Brainless Butchers of Common usage
Say what you mean, BBC!
Use the language correctly. “Climate” has a specific meaning. “Denier” has a specific meaning. Put the two together, and they, as a unit, have a specific meaning that does NOT fit any known human outlook. There is no such thing as a “climate denier”.
From the Tips and Notes page:
āFollow WUWT via Emailā
āYou are following WUWT via emailā
BUT, I donāt get email and it doesnāt go to SPAM. Any help?
Edit – using Firefox Quantum
Einstein’s theories would have had more difficulty being accepted, it took from 1906 until 1919 anyway, had the BBC been around at the time. With their Oxbridge English graduate, Harabin, commenting on climate change, the drama is more important than the facts.
Of course, it all supposes that its audience is too stupid to judge for themselves what constitutes interesting information, or that any of the lower classes might research the matter further.
I wonder if they broadcast “An Inconvenient Truth”. It was almost completely free of correct facts but it had the all important “received viewpoint”. One assumes Albert Einstein in 1905 or Charles Darwin in 1870 would have been treated similarly. Yet Brian Cox can come on and blather about string theory like it’s real.
Whereas the media is all too happy to highlight controversy and even to inflame it in most cases, the BBC is aghast at the notion of courting a little controversy over the weather.
Never mind Aunty. It’s the same as always. Wet and rainy and dull.
…. and in addition to the stupid ones, you can add the scientifically uneducated ones, the lazy ones and, peculiar to the UK, the mustn’t grumblers. In total, that’s a large swathe of the population.
We are the priests
Of the Temples of Syrinx
Our great computers
Fill the hollowed hallsā¦Rush 2112
“speaking with authority”
Respect my authoritah
The template is Andrew Montfordās The Propaganda Bureau which tells of Horrorbinās disgraceful conspiracy in 2009 to deny sceptics airtime as a matter of BBC policy. Collaboration between BBC high ups and Green institutions. Thousands paid to lawyers to deny FOI requests about composition of the meetings. Not what I paid my licence fee for.
I don’t think BBCnicans or CNNites should be hounded from public or harassed, but I would not want to go to their places of worship and either participate in their ceremonies disingenuously or mock their traditions, no matter how strange.
I do object to them trying to turn everywhere else into their places of worship, that’s all.
+97
Yeah, the irony of where the useless human gene pool is as intelligence (term used in a loose sense) vastly outpaced reproductive evolution. My religion’s better than your religion ner ner, because I have a degree in political science or English literature or PPP or PPE.
Can it all be boiled down to the fact that they need to find and hold on to a job?
But will they? If they believe that they’re entitled to heaps of cash and/or shouldn’t have to work who will stop them from staying on the dole their whole lives? As the genepool gets more and more stupid because they need as many idiot voters and cheap labor as possible who will be smart enough to value work? Hard work is so undervalued ethics and/or morals are the only reason to want to work in this country at the moment. Who will be capable of understanding the miniscule ratio of warming created by society in the future? We must teach every chance we get.
“we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective”
So when we expect a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen whenever Roger Harrabin files a report?
If Lord Lawson shouldn’t have been allowed because of alleged inaccuracy, what about the drivelling Wadhams and his absurd Arctic predictions who was given repeated space? Or that girly little scientist who was ‘scared’ by the 2016 El NiƱo. And the awful Hoorrorbin and Shukperson who serially lie on air?
I have withdrawn to a distant part of Morrison Towers of late to try to contemplate and understand why hypocrisy lies at the heart of modern liberalism and the BBC. Maybe it would help me understand the fake climate science the BBC has peddled for years bolstered by its seeming hatred for the real stuff. Isolated in my retreat I canāt help feel that two pipes and a half decent burgundy has not been quite enough to help solve this complex mystery, but here goes.
The BBC and its cast of elites have wrapped themselves in a cloak of moral authority that accepts no argument. It despises the indigenous culture of Britain and regards with barely concealed contempt the majority of people who live in the country. They are in the unguarded word of former āLabourā prime minister Gordon Brown ābigotsā while shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry sneers at their flags, houses and white vans parked outside. The BBC needs their money and the Labour party wants their votes, but that is it.
Have you noticed how you canāt debate anything with liberals these days, especially science? Whatever facts or figures you bring to the table their mind is already made up from the Guardian they read and the BBC they watch. They run universities where they indoctrinate the young with fake knowledge and encourage them to close their minds. And then they profess injured innocence when the students start banning speakers and declaring āsafe spacesā. Of course the indoctrination starts much earlier in the public sector schools. Every long-standing employer knows that standards of literacy and numeracy are well down on previous generations. Seemingly there is little time to teach such mundane stuff when there are only so many hours in the days to discover how we are killing the planet and how appalling our ancestors behaved.
You can go to Cuba or Venezuela and see how communism can wreck a state. You can denounce terrorism in all its forms as evil and beyond civil acceptance but the leader of the main opposition party says he is a āfriendā of Cuba and Hamas and was sympathetic to the IRA. Every decent person knows he is unfit even to sit in the British parliament but Jon Snow, the main newsreader from Channel 4, sings his praises at Glastonbury and shouts āfuck the Toriesā.
The Right Charlie flies in a private jet to pick up an environmental award and calls for an end to consumerism. BBC presenter Jane Garvey says that a white theatrical audience in London is a āproblemā while her employer indulges in similar racism by advertising for ānon-whitesā. But of course it is not hypocrisy or racism because we are right and you are wrong. We are morally just and whatever you say, you are still bad and we are still good.
Smug ācomediansā spend a subsidised lifetime spilling out self righteous dross, designed to display their higher moral authority. Every now and then one gets outed for not paying tax, abusing other people or has to disappear for six months while they clean the Bolivian marching powder out of their system, but hey, just remember they are good and you are bad.
The crusades around climate change science say it all. Long ago the BBC took the precaution of banning all skeptical inquiry. Instead of a sensible discussion about future energy use and efficiency, we are being forcibly marched towards an uncertain future of renewable power. Not that it applies to the elites at the UKās āNationalā Theatre who recently asked for an exemption from new EU green lighting regulations.
Do as I say, not as I do. I am right and virtuous, you are wrong.
And further how dare you question my right to save the planet. This is my new religion since I donāt care for all those outdated Christian values. If the poor have to pay higher energy prices, so be it. I make so much money I will not notice and I am blessed in my new anti-science priesthood. If your light bulbs are a bit dim, come to my theatre where the sun continues to shine out of my fundament.
The BBC can never be wrong when all the poor plebs are forced to pay for its antics with a compulsory poll tax.
This is a comment which should go to the BBC complaints division, copy to your local MP. Note that you are only allowed 300 odd words to complain, while they are allowed any number to respond.
…Isolated in my retreat I canāt help feel that two pipes and a half decent burgundy has not been quite enough …
I can’t help thinking that two pipes should be quite enough. That’s around 300 gallons of Port….
For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the suggestion by Mr Sherlock Holmes, consulting detective, that he might need two pipes of tobacco to solve particularly difficult cases. Sadly the case of the BBC and the Purlioned Science Reputation is beyond fixing.
The BBC is obviously a part of the climate problem…
Everyone knows that the climate is changing, it has always been, this is hardly a focal point. How far these changes are caused by humans, on the other hand, there are clear disagreements about. With today’s empirical climate research it’s hard to find pointers for the anthropological global warming …
So the BBC admits it is no longer a news organization.
This part of the piece was pretty amusing.
āTo achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.ā
The match in question took place on Sunday. Quite an apt metaphor for the whole climate debate really isn’t it? The BBC being 100% certain that they are right while at the same time being wrong.
“Although there are those who disagree with the IPCCās position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening.”
— Alarmists are generally ignorant of the mainstream skeptics positions. Here, even the BBC defines a “denialist” in a way that excludes every mainstream skeptic I can think of, but I suspect they’ll apply that label to anyone they want.
the taxpayer funded BBC is very concerned that āclimate deniersā are sometimes not properly challenged on air.
ā¦
Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCCās position, set out above.
Be aware of āfalse balanceā: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ādenierā to balance the debate. -or attract new costumers when they’re already:
taxpayer funded.
The BBC itself is living in the last chance saloon so simply sitting by admiring their stupidity will see the end of such nonsense.
So what else is new?
Media censorship has been going on for decades. Some have figured that out, and others suspect it.
Most people do not know what “science” is. They think it is politics: Consensus, InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change; or religion: “Deniers.”
We need something new. Here are some
BUMPER STICK DREAMS:
My tailpipe feeds the hungry
Tree Food –>
(Sinclair’s green dino) Burn me back to Life
CO2 –> Longevity
USA is carbon sink
EU/ UK/Australia/Canada/etc. is a carbon sink
Organic is carbon chemistry
or 2lines: Organic Chemistry
Carbon Chemistry
That longevity one needs an explanation. We all know longevity has been rising and rising. Part of that is antibiotics to kill bacterial disease. Some is unexplained, and correlated with CO2. A likely mechanism: With more CO2, the rare input to photosynthesis, plants need less rubisco, the photosynthesis enzyme. The screamers pretend this means less nutrition, but most people get plenty of protein and our bodies evolved under conditions of higher CO2. With less energy for rubisco, plants can make more vitamins and other nutrients. I believe that enables improved health.