The BBC has told staff they no longer need to invite climate-change skeptics on to its program.
It instructs staff:
“Be aware of ‘false balance’: as climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
“There may be occasions to hear from a denier” but only “with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer”.
BBC journalists “need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively.”
“To achieve impartiality you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage.”
A section of the new policy entitled ‘What’s the BBC’s position’ asserts that “man-made climate change exists.”
So much for the myth of ‘balanced news.’
https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-freezes-out-climate-sceptics/
Thanks to Jimmy Walter for this link
“This BBC memo puts in writing what most people have known for the past ten years, which is that anyone sceptical of climate alarmism isn’t allowed on the BBC.” — Benny Peiser
I think what we are seeing here is the transition from the newspaper/TV information model to the internet information model in which these entities have become dinosaurs frustrated with their lost information monopoly.
Bwahahahaha
yes,
spasmodic clenching the sphincter as the narrative slips out of its control.
it’s the dying quivers. incontinence ensues.
Don’t beat about the bush, come straight to the point! 😉
Time to boycott all things BBC
Don’t read
Don’t watch
Don’t listen
Don’t patronize
…….
Don’t forget
…….
When their market share plummets, they could wise up…or not…
Good thing there only good show moved to Amazon Prime two years ago.
But they get the television tax, and it doesn’t matter if anyone is watching.
Even if their viewership dropped to zero, they would still be able to survive on government handouts.
But how long would the Government continue to Subsidize something truly unnecessary?
Forget I asked that.
“Time to boycott all things BBC”
Easy for me- here in Illinois.
Trump got it right .. FAKE NEWS. I never watch mainstream media anymore.
You can’t argue with this though.
“To achieve impartiality you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage.”
Let’s assume that they mean human induced climate change. I don’t think there are any scientists arguing this isn’t happening now. Are there? So why use tax payers money to promote people who spout nonsense. I mean would you want equal time given to flat earthers?
However, it is reasonable to allow debate about the impact of warming. I would argue against stopping that.
There is one party in Britain which has a platform of removing the licence fee (which funds the BBC). Were I voting there I know they would have my backing.
Bonds…Sell Bonds
What is the point when we can be imprisoned for a longer period than a rapist for failing to pay the licence fee. What is more many women have been and will continue to be.
No, we are seeing the final steps in the beginning if a world wide cultural revolution.
It will not be a pretty sight.
Step 1: Take over all education, replace with indoctrination.
Step 2: Suppress open discussion of issues sensitive to the progress of “the cause” from the press and other media outlets.
Step 3: Secure as much political leverage as possible by making personal attacks on those representing the status-quo and promising everybody will get everything free in a socialist world. One this leverage is obtained (or purchased), the coup is accomplished through the democratic process that governs currently free states. Then the agenda of the orchestrators begins in earnest.
Hunter, Maybe its not so much revolution as regression at the end.
So how is everyone missing THE MOST SALIENT point here:
In broadcast news, much unlike a standard length magazine article, when you put two talking heads across from each other — you convey that this is a 50/50 “debate.” There is NO debate. It’s like saying we need a few Young Earth Creationists on this hour to “debate” a few paleontologists on natural selection.
Look at the number of working/publishing/peer-reviewed scientists&engineers across many disciplines that both adhere and rely on current climatology, and record the number who consider themselves deniers. Now get your percentage. Worth having a “balanced” debate now? EVERY scientific discipline will have a few naysayers; when the numbers are so exceptionally lopsided like in climate science, how does a major TV news organization CONVEY that reality? Certainly not from having a “debate” lol that’s what Alex Jones is for.
BBC is general viewing, not “Scientific American” or “Nature” subscribers. Having climate change deniers sitting with ordinary scientists doesn’t inform anyone, but give psychological credence to lay audiences who already “feel” inclined towards climate change denial.
History ?
Banned !!!!!!
Banned, and removed. Can’t have those pesky old statues around as reminders
Doesn’t BBC stand for Big Brother Corporation? Are they not doing exactly what we should expect from the official propoganda arm of the progressive socialist movement? Good thing there are still elections and choice – this doesn’t;have to last forever.
‘WAR IS PEACE”
‘FREEDOM IS SLAVERY”
“IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”
…and so it begins.
And, so it begins.
George Orwell dubbed the BBC: “Minitrue” in his novel 1984. Modern leftists don’t see 1984 as a warning, they see it as an operating manual.
It’s hilarious when they call something Trump does “Orwellian” in the press.
Ignorance is bliss.
Eric Blair aka George Orwell’s final warning.
https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-rogers-rogers_001&hsimp=yhs-rogers_001&hspart=rogers&p=george+orwell+finql+warning#id=1&vid=ef290521c6ec87415c3713154da6ec38&action=click
The one big mistake that George Orwell made was in thinking that democratic socialism was the ideal. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IN THE END IS IMPOSSIBLE. It always leads to dictatorship which is what Orwell was fighting against his whole life.
In Orwell’s world of 1984 Oceania, there is no longer a sense of due process, free inquiry, rules of evidence and cross examination, much less a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Instead, regimented ideology — the supremacy of state power to control all aspects of one’s life to enforce a fossilized idea of mandated quality — warps everything from the use of language to private life. (Thanks to JoNova: We Are Living Nineteen Eighty-Four.)
A lack very much on display by the media the last few weeks in D.C.
problem with that is that a huge majority of the people who vote are mis-informed and outvote the educated every time. In the US, most people don’t even know they could vote for someone other than a democrat or republican. We do have a few more parties on the ballot. IF they happen to hear about someone else, the “wasted vote” theory comes up. We re-elect incumbents more than 98% of the time. So, does the fact that we have elections really matter at this point?
50% of the population is below average…
And yet proportional representation has its own, arguably worse flaw: the plurality party often fails to secure a governing majority and must form a coalition with one or more minority parties to make up the seats. Those minority groups become a tail wagging the dog and get their pet policies enacted in exchange for their support, exercising political clout well in excess of their number of seats. It’s how Greenie groups in those countries have kept the renewable energy snowjob going with hardly any democratic mandate.
Australia is an excellent example of this.
Not banned, just highly adjusted and edited.
And you can be sent to prison if you don’t have a TV licence.
The £120 fee annual pays for this crude, state propaganda.
People do get sent to prison for non-payment of the license fee; largely poor women at a rate of 1 per month or so. Enough to make the BBCbies squirm over the fact that their beloved org. is existentially reliant on sending folk to prison ….. but you don’t hear any of this in discussions on the future of the Beeb.
Make it a subscription service and see it become a civilising influence, rather than an intermeddler in the nation’s political process. [ oh, and a darn sight smaller; who needs e.g. Sopel sniping and sneering at the choice of US voters?]
As this post is about ‘balance’, allow me to add some.
People get sent to prison (rarely), not for not having a TV licence but for failing to pay the fine imposed. Failure to pay any fine is punishable and that can mean prison.
A distinction without a practical difference. State coercion and compulsion. In an era of State-imposed post-modern secular progressive religion, this is their Temple Tax.
Every State broadcaster within the EU gets pots of dosh from the EU, to promote the EU! The argument being that it’s the EU that has created peace in Europe over the last 40-50 years, with not a mention of NATO because it doesn’t fit into the EU leftist view!
That is just the EU form of “Social Credit”. Banning ‘Cimate Denier’s” is just one of the dividends that thise with ‘highy’ social credit ratings get.
That is where the leftards are heading.
The BBC is a “state broadcaster”. How often do you hear that phrase, even on the BBC, used as a slur of a media outlet in some other autocratic country. So is the CBC. Politicians here in Canada live in fear of the CBC and will NEVER go against any of its shiboleths, which include global warming and the UN.
Our Truth, their Pravda.
Soon enough there will be much more creative applications of that licensing concept.
I’m surprised no one’s asked you to display your hunter licence yet. 📜👓😁
A nice example of the arrogance of power. Elites are entrenched.
Does that apply if you only watch Netflix and Amazon Prime?
iirc the only way to (legally) avoid the license fee is to not own a television
£120? Get real. It’s £150.50 now
State run media organs are only propaganda outlets anyway. The BBC is irrelevant. The Australian ABC is also the same.
NRK is the same. In a recent climate debate program on why the summer was so hot in Norway, the did not invite the climate realists although they mentioned us. The program leader Mr Torp, bluntly concluded that it was man-made climate change that was to blame. There is no longer any doubt…. (NRK = Norsk Rikskringkasting, Norwegian National Broadcasting, who is run on taxpayer’s money…)
When I was a kid, growing up in Norway in the 80s, I used to hear stories about the legendary summers of the 40s. The Norwegian Meteorological Institute announced this Wednesday that, for the particular location of Blindern, Oslo, a new record had been set for annual number of days above 20 deg C; 105 days. The old record was held by 1947, with 104 days.
Now, this should tell any thinking member of society that, although the high temperatures this summer were “unusual”, they were hardly “unprecedented”. It is, however, another indication that the temperatures for Norway are at approximatelty the same level as, or probably slightly above, the legendary balmy 40s. Since the high temperatures of the 40s could not have been, to a large degree human-induced, they need to be attributed to natural causes. Although it is certainly possible that humans might, to a discernable degree, have enhanced the present-day warming, there is no real reason to conclude that as of yet. Therefore, the NRK reporting on the subject is extremely dishonest. But the NRK bias is likely very similar to the BBC bias in this matter. At least the BBC state their bias openly.
In the US the censoring has been privatized, with lefty oligarchs more than happy to to help the administrative state by censoring things not approved of.
Breaking free of this increasingly fascistic web is not going to be easy.
That NATO has been denigrated by ignoring by the state hack media helps explain a lot.
The U.S. PBS NewsHour news outlet has had this kind of exclusion for 20+ years now.
“NewsHour Global Warming Bias Tally: 58 to 0” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?page_id=3834
This is every where all over the world .
The world population is being brainwashed but thanks to WUWT there is at least some balance .
Keep it up Anthony .
Skeptics will be off the internet, at this rate, within a year or two.
Possibly much sooner.
Leave Facebook. Stop using Google. Do not join Instagram. Ban Twitter from your life. The only way to stike back is to reduce their usage numbers, which hits their ad revenues. Just like the old, gray, and dead lady the NYT, voting with your feet will ultimately have the desired impact. It may take some time.
If you must be on social media, go to gab.
Use duckduckgo, bitchute, gab and basic web sites.
I started to use duckduckgo as my preferred search engine on my Mac a couple of weeks back. I have to say that it is a lot easier to use without all the garbage that surrounds attempts to search on Google, even for searches of goods and services. Also, you are searching on a secure web site, always. Now I use it on all my Apple devices. I’m increasingly happy I switched.
Also try Freedom Search
https://www.defyccc.com/search/#gsc.tab=0
We are witnessing increasingly obvious and deliberate intervention and partisan conditioning via media infiltration. This global movement appears to be falling behind its allotted timetable, evidenced by the transparency brought about by the desperate ramping up of its blatant actions – now clear to see everywhere.
Same songbook; different choirs.
Consensus = censorship. What type of message is the BBC sending out by doing this? Dictatorship on knowledge?
Unfortunately they have convinced the last two generations that dictatorship is OK as long as the dictator vows to take care of everyone.
And has a friendly face
Martin
You ask if it is a dictatorship on knowledge. Quite the opposite: it is a dictatorship of ignorance. They will dictate what you must be ignorant of, which is to say they will ignore it on your behalf by banning it. The next stage, first realised in Uganda under the screws of “Dr Idi Amin Dada”, is they will force you to listen to them.
I have to say it is more honest of the BBC to publicly declare they ban all informed skeptical opinion than to implement the ban it secretly as has been the case for ages. Imagine how many other topics they list with similar ideological bias built into the fabric of their content!
+100. Brilliant.
I think I can clear this up. Global warming by about 0.8 C happened from 1975 to 1998, and it was anthropogenic, but it wasn’t due to CO2. See:
https://www.asianacademicresearch.org/2018_paper/september_md_2018/3.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/27/propaganda-of-privilege-how-labour-went-to-war-with-the-media
American readers may not know who McClusky is and what the Morning Star that he was carrying is.
McClusky is the head of the biggest union in the UK, the Unite union with around 1.5 million members.
The Morning Star is the successor to the Daily Worker, which was the UK Communist Party paper before the British Communist parties withered and died. Yes, there were several of them, maybe still are. DW was always said to have been funded by the Soviets, but I do not know whether there was ever any hard evidence for that.
It certainly followed the Soviet party line. Now that there is no Soviet party line to follow, it simply follows the Russian line.
Consensus = censorship, e.g. gagging / ignoring. What type of message is the BBC sending out?
The message is that Orwell missed by only 34 years……
Sad but true.
We humble Brits have known this for a long, long time! I recall the last review of the BBC done under the Conservative government, undertaken by an apparently neutral reviewer, around 20+ years ago, that the BBC came out smelling of roses despite known biased programmes on display! The BBC is useless & needs privatisation asap! I signed a petition to such affect a few years ago, mysteriously it never amounted to anything, despite thousands of signatures penned! Having said that, there was some woman called Lucie Seigal (I think) & she was a regular Grauniad writer, & she would come on the BBC’s magazine prog “The One Show”, to spout her lefty garbage about how the UNIPCC has proven this & that, typically with no evidence other than simple claims! They have NEVER had anybody on to claim the opposite in defence! Every other show is spouting AGW at every opportunity, like this monring, some simplton in Wales at a nature reserve caliming that due to AGW certain birds weren’t landing near a lake at the “right” time! SHeesh!
I was asked by a TV weather presenter to contribute to his local radio slot a few years ago. I explained the significance of changing jet stream tracks as a measure of natural climate change. He asked me to return in the future to review the issue but in the meantime he lost his slot and is no longer prominent in the media.
Could there be a connection?
It was Paul Hudson and here is a link to his defunct blog which shows no update since August 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson
but he is still active
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06k83pp
The tide is going out for the BBC, and they know it. This is just more evidence.
In the event/certainty of a hostile EU after Brexit the economy will need a boost, one obvious way to do that would be to slash the license fee, which the BBC could easily afford by ditching its overreach, such as sending hundreds of staff to IPCC meetings, or spending millions “defending the free press” in law suits.
No, it is evidence that the BBC has morphed into a modern Administrative State communication media organ.
The personal knowledge that the typical journalist has at their disposal leaves them sadly equipped for determining factualism versus non-factualism for just about all topics. Authoritarian dictates are just about the only option that is available to an entity such as the BBC.
As an aside: It appears that there is one global circulation temperature model that has come near to matching the measured temperature record. That model was devised and is being run in Russia. Do you reckon they may know something that the BEEB is missing.
And now that Corbyn has announced plans to bankrupt us with windmills solar panels and other green nonsense guess how much Labour propaganda will now come from the Beeb.
However it would be interesting to test the BBC on the issue
” OK assuming the AGW hypothesis is all true and free from exaggeration. How effective are these green strategies ? How much CO2 mitigation really happens and at what cost ?” How much real subsidy is paid ?
So will the BBC then air the views of the Mitigation Effectiveness Denier / Skeptic?
Let us all write to the director general and ask for reassurace on this point
Jeremy Corbyn that is.
Despite the fact that his brother, Piers is a climate change sceptic, albeit a somewhat eccentric one.
http://www.weatheraction.com/
First you censor climate discussions.
Then, since energy has to do with the climate, you censor energy.
Then, since energy has to do with finance, you censor finance.
Then, since finance has to do with jobs, you censor jobs.
Then, since jobs has to do with how people spend, you censor reporting on that.
Since censoring is unpopular, you call it “false balance”.
Since this might possibly create reservations, you get the academy to fully endore it and indoctrinate the students entrusted to them.
No, the BBC is part of the cultural revolution, not a victim of it….yet.
I have been thinking if the media like BBC in Britain and NPR in the USA could be sued for false reporting on the climate. I would want to be part of a case like that.
Unfortunately, NPR and prb’ly the BBC have deep-pocket marxist sponsors like Soros and his ilk, so any lawsuit is going to face an army of obstructive lawyers and prb’ly even the judges. Mark Stein in his lawsuits (one against him & his subsequent counter-suit) has experienced this for many yrs now w/no end in sight.
There is a war on the media by the left in Britain. This story covers one manifestation of it. Another story on the same war is that the MSM is proposing a tax on Google, Facebook etc to fund responsible journalism, such as that found in the Guardian.
It will be interesting to see whether this idea extends to funding the Daily Mail which is a particular object of hate on the left. Probably not, what we want to see is funding for peoples journalism, responsible journalism, and a ban on fake news.
There is no written constitution in the UK, and no guarantee of freedom of the press. Parliament is sovereign. A Corbyn government could do whatever it liked to the UK press the day after it took office.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/27/propaganda-of-privilege-how-labour-went-to-war-with-the-media
American readers may not know who McClusky is and what the Morning Star that he was carrying is.
McClusky is the head of the biggest union in the UK, the Unite union with around 1.5 million members.
The Morning Star is the successor to the Daily Worker, which was the UK Communist Party paper before the British Communist parties withered and died. Yes, there were several of them, maybe still are. DW was always said to have been funded by the Soviets, but I do not know whether there was ever any hard evidence for that.
It certainly followed the Soviet party line. Now that there is no Soviet party line to follow, it simply follows the Russian line.
And just what is the “Russian line”?
In the Soviet era it was clear.
Now, not so certain.
“There is no written constitution in the UK”
That is not true. There are many Acts of Parliament that make up part of the British Constitution of which the 1689 Bill of Rights is just one (It is also the act on which the US Constitution is based), The Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland are also constitutional acts, along with several acts of Supremacy. The difference is that they are not all in one document, nor are they codified like the US Constitution
The important difference is not that.
The important difference is the status. These are just laws, and can be repealed or altered by a simple Act of Parliament, ie a bare majority in both houses and Royal assent.
The British Parliament could pass a law tomorrow implementing press censorship, or a government monopoly on news coverage, and no court could rule it unlawful or unconstitutional. It would just become law.
If Prime Minister Corbyn and his majority of MPs decide they want to purify the news media of right wing anti-party elements, they can do it just as soon as they get around to it. There is no constitution, as there is in the US, to limit what they can legislate.
The Democrat Left in the United States has had little problem in ignoring the ideas of the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of the destruction of America. Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh is the latest victim. There are the Mussolini black shirts, ANTIFA, busily destroying property, bullying, and threatening conservatives around the country and getting away with it. Now Smash Racism DC is harassing and bullying conservatives in our national capital in restaurants. All such organizations use Soros, Bloomberg, et al, money which makes it ok, of course.
Australia has no bill of rights, we aren’t even guaranteed free speech which probably 90% of the population doesn’t realize. Australian law works in reverse it tells you what you can’t do and everything outside that is ok. There is and established court interpretation acts of Parliament are presumed not to have intended to limit fundamental rights, unless it indicates this intention in clear terms.
So this sort of thing gets very worrying in Australia because if it starts there is no legal mechanism to tackle it. The leftist leanings of many in the government broadcaster ABC is one of the reason it has been so much in the news for the last two years and the fun and games around the board this week. Those attacking it see it as a UN style crime syndicate where those with particular views get promoted and those who don’t get weeded out, it is “a political swamp”.
There is a push within the organization to follow that and other leftists PC agendas. The worry from conservatives is if they don’t bring the government broadcaster back to a more representative view they will be fighting this group with press freedoms for years. There preferred option is to defund the ABC or privatize it as a private media owner can hire and fire and thus drain the swap. There first moves had been to stack the ABC board which played out this week with the sacking of the CEO. There is a definitely a fight coming to those in the ABC swamp and most who are involved know it won’t be quick or easy.
NRK is the same. In a recent climate debate program on why the summer was so hot in Norway, the did not invite the climate realists although they mentioned us. The program leader Mr Torp, bluntly concluded that it was man-made climate change that was to blame. There is no longer any doubt…. (NRK = Norsk Rikskringkasting, Norwegian National Broadcasting, who is run on taxpayer’s money…)
It was Paul Hudson and here is a link to his defunct blog which shows no update since August 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson
but he is still active
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06k83pp
This from an organisation that has been happy to broadcast statements from terrorists without any “appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer.”
The BBC formally bans science!
yep, airports globally – CNN/BBC
Marxist plan to effect a state takeover > schools, media, courts…….they have 2 out of three so far.
Oh come on, they are only calling for outright deniers to be banned, and lets face it, how many of us fall in that camp?
This is what the BBC also said: “The climate science community is clear that humans have changed the climate, but specifically how is more difficult to evidence.”
That is a fair comment, and I am sure we all agree with it.
“Oh come on, they are only calling for outright deniers to be banned, and lets face it, how many of us fall in that camp?”
Probably everyone who is remotely sceptical about climate change.
Here here!
i’ll ban bigfoot cuz it will be so meaningful.
maybe ban nessie too- for fairness.
The (once) flagship ‘Today’ programme seems to have a Gloibal Warming scare of the day slot most weeks the content of which varies between alarmist overstatement at best and an insult to the intelligence at worst none of which is ever challenged.
The programme has lost an astonishing 800,000 regular listeners in the last year and presumably the editorial stance on AGW is a contributry factor. As editorial credibility goes down the pan so do the listening figures. As reported below (August 2018):
“BBC Radio 4’s flagship news and current affairs programme, Today, which for decades has set the agenda for the media-political elite, has been haemorrhaging listeners. According to figures released by RAJAR, the official body for the monitoring of radio audiences, the programme has lost more than 800,000 listeners over the past year”.
I’m reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail where the woman is declared to be a witch because she outweighs a duck on a balance scale.
IIRC the train of logic was:
1. Witches burn
2. Wood burns
3. Witches burn because they are made of wood
4. Building a bridge out of her would prove nothing because you can also build bridges out of stone.
5. Wood floats in water
6. Ducks float in water
7. If she weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood, and therefore a witch.
And the punchline was that she DID weight the same as a duck.
“It’s a fair cop.”
I think there is a recent trend in both Britain and America which is quite unusual historically. What seems to be happening is that debates about quite specific policy issues are being treated as marks of identity.
What you see is arguments on these issues which make no logical sense – as for example that we should fight global warming by importing wood pellets for Drax, or that we should close down the Navajo power station to save the Florida coastline. Or, indeed, that we should sign up to Paris to reduce CO2 emissions globally.
This is also connected to another phenomenon. The underlying scientific propositions that are debated have only a tenuous relation to the policies about which the debate is happening. For instance, the question of whether the MWP was about similar todays warming, and global in scope, has a very tenous relation if any to the question of the merits and effectiveness of Paris. But the arguments about these kinds of propositions gets mixed in a quite illogical way with the arguments about policies.
And in the end, the only thing that the alarmists seem to be really interested in is deciding whether a given speaker or writer is one of us, or one of them. Its not about the science, its not about the policies, its not about what scientific justification there is for the policies. Its about finding out who to dislike as the evil opposing party in some weird kind of cultural war.
I can’t recall another recent situation like this.
a very perceptive view of the situation michel and one i agree with. it is a very starnge situation indeed.
Imo, that “weird” kind of cultural war poses a potential threat to the stability of the nation.
I believe it is called ‘tribalism’, and it is as old as the human race. It is the predominate way humans have behaved from the beginning. Identity Politics on the left, and various forms of ‘Nationalism’ on the right, are all manifestations of tribalism. The ‘tribe’ served a vital purpose for early man, and was a key part of survival. It is deeply embedded in our cultural DNA.
We would like to believe that we have progressed beyond such ancient thought patterns, but it has never really left us. When the going gets tough, the tough form a tribe and head out to rape and pillage; figuratively and literally.
What surprises me is that tribalism seems to be resurging, while the ‘going’ has never been better. The planet is greener, poverty is on the wane, hunger is diminishing and innovation continues to increase the standard of living all around the world, yet the tribes are getting restless, and there is a sense that the raping and pillaging is about to begin…again!
Is it an unspoken sense that the global economy is an elaborate ponzi’ scheme on the verge of collapse that has us all seeking our tribes and getting together for Friday night saber-rattlings? Or is it just our nature to grow restless and annoyed with peace and prosperity; ever anxious for the next big throw-down with the neighboring tribe?
I would like to ponder this some more, but I am meeting some friends down at the Ikea store where we will be harassing libtards with ‘Confirm Brett Kavanaugh’ signs! TTFN!
“The planet is greener, poverty is on the wane, hunger is diminishing and innovation continues to increase the standard of living all around the world, yet the tribes are getting restless, and there is a sense that the raping and pillaging is about to begin…again!”
It’s the Socialist Tribe that is getting restless because they see themselves losing their political power. The Socialists/Leftists get real nasty when they think they are losing power.
I agree, Tom. There is no question in my mind that a culture of violence is growing rapidly in the left these days, and I fear it is going to get a whole lot worse. In Europe, there is an unholy alliance between the far left and the Islamic far right, that boggles my mind.
In the US, an incident that may or may not have happened between 2 teenagers 35 years ago, threatens to further divide the left and right tribes even more, to the point of dividing families and relationships, with the left clearly attacking, and the right almost too terrified to even speak. This alleged violent attack between two teenagers in the past, may very-well become the catalyst for exponentially more violence in the near future.
The climate is such that it is becoming more likely that the left will prevent the Supreme Court from becoming a body that protects the Constitution, then elect an openly socialist Congress and President in the next 4 years. The resulting laws will be massive burdens on the US and global economies. The result will be a massive amount of misery and suffering as the world economy implodes. Then we will really see the tribes going at each other like they did during the Dark Ages.
But blaming the other side just escalates the tribal divisions. I don’t have any idea how to de-escalate the situation. Pattern recognition of human behavior suggests that the fall of Western Civilization and the imposition of a new (and hopefully shorter) ”Dark Age’, is unavoidable.
I pray for my children and hope I am wrong, but everything continues to unfold in that direction!
another name for tribalism is collectivism.
hope that resolves any mystery.
We romanticize what we have not experienced. The idea of war for a righteous cause is delightful to those who’ve never fired a shot in anger. The idea of peace at any cost is delightful to those who’ve always been in the midst of war. The idea of being taken care of by the state is delightful to those who’ve only known dysfunction and neglect from their own family and community. The idea of vigilantism is delightful for those who’ve suffered miscarriages of justice.
“Man’s one hint of perfection is that at times he wants to weep for what he is.” ~Paul Crume
‘I can’t recall another recent situation like this.’
Look beyond the narrow issue of Climate Change, and I think you will. AGW was never more than a means to the end.
Have they ever resolved how many angels could dance on a tip of a needle?
It’s “head of a pin”, and it’s a canard that Protestant “reformers” liked to brandish against Catholic theologians.
From, seemingly, somewhere in The Telegraph but will be out there somewhere else:
The BBC has been accused of “fake news” after it tweeted an account of President Trump threatening war in Iran because a reporter misheard the word “more”.
The ‘standard’ colour TV licence fee is currently £150.50 in the UK
Dragon Slayers, as I might be accused of being (I genuinely have No Idea wheat they’re about) might say that the idea of the GHGE is a Total Crock of Shyte but actively *do* say that Man is changing the climate.
He is doing it via his acceleration of the natural process of soil erosion (chemically and mechanically)
4 brief reasons why:
1. The recent UK heatwave.
Temps of 33 degC on a Tuesday evening near Newark and 13 degC – exactly 48 hours later.
=Rapid and large temperature variations typical of deserts.
Explore round here (and all of England, esp where the CET is recorded) to see & read about all the swamps, lakes, ponds and wetlands that have been drained. New rivers created. Wind driven and steam powered pumps to dry the place out.
2. The China story from yesterday……
drifting sands covering cropland at the rate of 1,400 square miles (that’s like adding a new desert larger than Rhode Island) every year Too much ploughing and nitrogen fertiliser creates Dust Bowls
Your head really WILL be ‘buried in sand’ if you wanna claim or pretend otherwise.
Also from China, the renaming of the Great River to Yellow River.
=Yellow because of all the farmland soil it now moves
From #1 above, check out “Fen Blow”
3. The German vineyard owner we heard from recently – his desert has moved 190 miles North
=Rapid and large temperature variations typical of deserts. Farmers continuing the fine work started by Ancient Rome all around The Med, and undoing Ma Nature’s attempts to repair it.
4. The link says it all:
https://today.oregonstate.edu/archives/2013/sep/overgrazing-turning-parts-mongolian-steppe-desert
“Twice the size of Texas”
Also how goats in Northern Nigeria are adding 800,000 acres per year to the Sahara.
Wither thou NASA greening Sputnik…..
yet when we hear from the scientists, NASA and the MSM, those things are all down to CO2 induced Climate Change.
They are correct.
We are in really deep sh1t.
For 2 reasons. Cause & Effect have been utterly twisted out of all recognition and legions of folks are trying to enrichen themselves on the back of that.
And Surface Stations Project was/is exactly ‘Right On The Ball’ Bang on target.
The data coming from errant stations that SHOULD be examined is the data concerning how their surroundings have changed – not especially how their temperature numbers have changed or are ‘wrong’
sigh…
They are correct in that we are in Deep Sh1t, but NOT about CO2 being the cause.
Hence “cause & effect blah blah blah”
Any idea about which of the myriad of disasters that have been claimed to be imminent over the last 50 years, have actually happened?
Indeed. We are still here! How did that happen? The odds of our survival must have been infinitesimal.
Proclamations and declarations from the senior masters of the BBC always seem to be edited by Obi-Wan Kenobi, but I always imagine them be recited by Darth Vader on helium. 😀
You are funny man.
We have the same, sad situation in Sweden. Sweden’s state Tv (SVT) and radio (SR) also funded by mandatory license fees is just a big megaphone for the alarmist – in addition, they peddle all the “politically correct” opinions on other issues. All the other traditional media just follow suite.
Rolf, you are right, and currently they cannot even form a government after this election, because they censor out the right wing Sweden Democrats. It is socially incorrect in Sweden to listen to climate skeptics and non socialists.
Where are they going to get the “knowledgeable interviewer” from to challenge the “denier”?
I doubt there are any really knowledgeable interviewers in the UK. Plenty of interviewers with cotton wool in their heads, and some fixed ideas about climate, who know little or no science.
This will come back to haunt the BBC (if it still exists in a few years time).
They are digging a hole for themselves.
Climate does change! It will do so in a way that will make all of this look incredibly silly.
Let the BBC preach their gospel of impending doom.
Let them gather on the hill for the end of the world.
The rest of us will just live our lives and laugh at them.
‘The rest of us will just live our lives and laugh at them.’
I doubt that will be allowed. If you will not run off the ledge with the other lemmings, you will be beaten off it.
In case you haven’t noticed, Progressives have not been ASKING.
But almost all of us here know that man can and has changed the local climate in many places, so all of us should be allowed to speak on the BBC.
The question to be addressed is “Does CO2 have anything to do with global climate change?”
Try to get THAT broadcast on the BBC, or indeed printed in MSM apart from in a few papers which allow freelance commentators to write what they like.
From the memo:
“The climate science community is clear that humans have changed the climate, but specifically how is more difficult to evidence.”
The BBC are saying that it isn’t really known what has caused the changes in climate that humans are, nevertheless, clearlly responsible for. Make sense of that if you can.
We are now in a period of very low solar activity. We will see how the jet stream will behave now.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20180926.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/equirectangular=-46.51,0.00,188
I agree, climate is changing.
So do most, if not all, of you.
There are probably no real climate change deniers.
Climate is doing what it always does: changing.
Thank you, BBC, for pointing that out.
Don132
+10
If anything, the posters and readers of this site are much more open to the idea that the climate does change, and is changing as we speak. Michael Mann gained fame with the BBC types by composting an esoteric collection of natural observations, using his contorted, super-secret, linear regression procedure, to demonstrate that the climate had been constant for a thousand years. Tyrannies, even when run by faceless bureaucrats, seem to always fall prey to such ideological mind-traps.
Climate change believers have corrupted nearly every aspect of civilization.
And they have accomplished nothing at all, despite the vast sums and increasing power they are given.
All they do in reality is provide a weary, derivative, costly punchline to an old scary story.
That the world rational freedom seeking people made is being destroyed by such a shallow transparent scary story dressed up in a lab coat is pathetic.
It must be a corollary to the idea that the world will not end in fire, but rather end in ice.
The BBC make no distinction between those who deny that climate change is happening ( a small set equivalent to those who believe the earth is flat) and those who question whether the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are the primary driver of the changing climate is proven or not.
Easy mistake to make.
Not.
Climate Imperialism is a Royal Perogative, par for the course.
A Royal Charter is the constitutional basis for the BBC (not to mention other dominion channels).
British, Canadian and Aussie subjects take a knee.
Once there were Pravda and Izvestia, now there are ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, NBC …and ZDF. Sometimes I wonder if the cold war was actually won by USSR.
The Fourth Estate thought they won.
… and to think … even his own supporters were a bit uncomfortable at first when Donald Trump unleashed the crude and biting aphorism — “Fake News”.
Turns out he is a stable genius who managed to convey a difficult concept in the simplest of language, in an era where everyone else kept stringing increasingly intricate phrases together. Placing themselves at the mercy of the Merchants of Obfuscation who walk among us.
It is no mystery then that the Merchants of Obfuscation consider him a threat.
‘Turns out he is a stable genius who managed to convey a difficult concept in the simplest of language.’
And the guts to say so – at the possible cost of everything he has spent his lifetime building.
Oh, sorry – I forgot Obama/Warren – ‘you didn’t build that’.
As the evidence degrades, they want to talk about it less and less.
What about the strategy? Can we debate the strategy? Even if we accept everything the alarmists say about the danger, the only important question is what should we do about it? Is raising taxes, enacting wealth transfers and expending money (and CO2) to build windmills really a rational strategy?
Free speech requires free listening.
The BBC collects, with the force of the British gov’t, a fee if you receive a signal with any kind of device.
That effectively means you must pay to listen. By censoring what you hear and enforcing that censorship with the power of the government, you are restricting what may be heard, and therefore you are restricting effectively that which is said.
If the BBC can restrict and control the topic of climate, it can restrict whatever it wants.
The BBC *presently* has a monopoly of routine news distribution in the UK which by some measures exceeds 90%. The organisation is absolutely infested with partisan players and lefty driven political correctness.
They have legal barricades against scrutiny and oversight that they have spent extraordinary amounts of (our) money on defending. (see 28gate and The Balen Report)
What is exasperating is that the political and ideological partisanship has developed / been driven into something of a monoculture over the last 40 years where independent, evidenced points of view have been frozen out by desperately trendy ideologues who are absolutely immersed in groupthink. Any worker who doesn’t subscribe is endangering the bulk of employment opportunities – so pervasive and enforced is the dogma.
The pressure of groupthink has passed the stage of farce – American readers might be amused at the tale (a few years ago) of one national TV news anchor who wanted to read a UK national newspaper (the regularly awful Daily Mail) – but was so intimidated by the likely reaction of his colleagues that he put it inside a copy of The Guardian (The BBC’s printed arm).
If “hydraulic groupthink” is a thing – then the BBC epitomise it.
For those who can’t accept that the BBC is biased, just Google balen report.
The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of UK taxpayer money to keep it secret. His highest court has allowed them to keep it secret.
One would think that if the report declared the BBC unbiased on Israel they would publish it!!!
BBC are formally accepting the language of hate speech, by demonizing their critics with the term denier in this memo.
Sounds like the CBC in Canada and the Winnipeg Free Press
The description of ‘climate denier’ is misunderstood by most. Every ‘climate skeptic’ realizes that climate is always changing, so there is no denial of climate change at all. The ONLY point of contention is whether CO2 is responsible for any ‘discernable’ climate change. Most people don’t get that difference. Even the media sources, such as BBC, do not get that difference.
‘Climate deniers’ are thought of as flat-earthers, because MOST people think that they deny climate change. Not so, obviously. History shows us that climate is always changing, but logic tells us that we should not try to take credit for it.
When they say ‘climate change’ we say ‘global warming’. Problem solved.
This is another daily win for the internet as a freedom of information and choice miracle. The economics of Freedom to Choose is compelling.
The BBC ensures that the message gets out — The long march of Fabian Socialism and it’s ongoing corruption of human endeavor… see http://freebritainnow.org/0/fabiansociety.htm
The BBC’s programming depends on viewers being open-minded:
You know your country is in trouble when your news media starts using “skeptic” as an ad hominem and mentioning “far right” and “hate speech” as a real things. The BBC could just as well be an American Main Stream News company.
American News Company? – huh … in its dreams …
Although the USA team are completely – as we say on the eastern side of the Atlantic – utterly up themselves.
I’d add that in a small way they are – just look at a Mark Thompson the ex BBC chief who ran away…
Impartiality.
They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
Goebbels methodology is ‘progressing’ well on the left, thank you.
They’ve got all these great historical models to base their philosophy on.
The greater misrepresentation is the unwritten one: that the climate debate is about whether “climate change is happening.”
Climate change has always happened. That is not what the arguments are about. The arguments are about its attribution, and its effects.
The best evidence is that a large part of the slight warming which the Earth has experienced since the mid-20th century was caused by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, but the net effects are positive, rather than negative. In other words, anthropogenic climate change is real, but modest and benign, and the effects of higher CO2 levels are positive, rather than negative.
Where’s the evidence that man is largely responsible for the slight and beneficial warming of the late 20th century?
We still haven’t reached the temperatures enjoyed during the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods.
For about 90% of the last 10K years, it has been warmer than it is at present.
Once again I ask, where’s the evidence that the current warming is due to man and is not natural?
MarkW, we know from the physics of what happens when atmospheric GHG levels increase that the Earth’s climate should warm.
Here are some good resources about it. See, especially, the three links under “Physics,” and the link under “Amicus brief in Calif v. BP lawsuit, by 3 top scientists.”
https://www.sealevel.info/learnmore.html
Indeed, as expected, the climate has warmed slightly as GHG levels have risen. Exactly how much of the warming we’ve enjoyed since the mid-20th century is attributable to human influence is an open question, but it is certain that it’s not 0%.
According to the most recent AMS survey of broadcast meteorologists, their “average” opinion is that about 57% of the warming over the last fifty years is attributable to human activity (and most of that they would presumably attribute to GHGs, esp. CO2):
http://sealevel.info/AMS_meteorologists-survey_2017.png
Every year the so-called “greenhouse forcing” from rising CO2 levels increases. A naive glance at a typical CO2 level graph might lead you to think that the forcing is exponentially increasing, causing you to fear that temperatures might also increase exponential. But, in fact, since CO2’s warming effect is logarithmically diminishing, the so-called “greenhouse forcing” trend has been only barely more than linear for about forty years, and there’s no good reason to expect that to increase much. You can see that near-linearity in a log-scale plot of CO2 level:
https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html?co2scale=2
So, even if you accept that the temperature increase over the last 1/3 or 1/2 century is largely due to human activity, there’s no reason to expect much acceleration in that trend.
What’s more, natural feedbacks are already removing the equivalent of about 2.5 ppmv CO2 per year from the atmosphere, and as CO2 levels increase that rate also increase (due to negative feedbacks). So, when mankind transitions away from fossil fuel dependence, as must surely happen within a century, due to resource constraints, there’s every reason to expect atmospheric CO2 level increases to slow, and then plateau, and then finally decline.
That means the current temperature trend is a reasonable high-end projection for the temperature trend over the rest of the century.
That current trend is small. Depending on whose temperature index you trust, over the last thirty years temperatures have risen somewhere between about 0.25°C (UAH) and 0.45°C (GISS):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1987.5/mean:12/offset:1.4/to:2018.75/plot/rss/from:1987.5/mean:12/offset:0.9/to:2018.75/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987.5/mean:12/offset:0.4/to:2018.75/plot/gistemp/from:1987.5/mean:12/offset/to:2018.75
Projecting that trend to 2100 would yield just 0.65 to 1.25 °C of additional warming.
That’s very slow compared to the alarmists scary predictions (both past predictions and current predictions). 1°C of warming is what Hansen et al 1988 predicted for just 20 years, for their their “business as usual” Scenario A, as part of their lobbying for creation of the IPCC:
http://sealevel.info/hansen1988_retrospective.html
1°C of warming would cause only a 50-90 mile average shift in isotherms & growing zones. It can be compensated for at mid-latitudes (away from the coasts) by advancing planting dates by ≈1 week:
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Kansas/Places/wichita-temperatures-by-month-average.php
It is possible to estimate the warming effect of GHGs (mainly CO2), a/k/a “sensitivity,” by examining the result of the “experiment” which we’ve performed on the Earth’s climate, by raising the atmospheric CO2 level from about 311 ppmv in 1950 (or 285 ppmv in 1850, if you prefer) to about 408 ppmv in 2018. Here’s how you can do that:
https://sealevel.info/sensitivity.html
So, is there a clear definition of exactly what a “climate change denier” actually is?
Can a good example of such a person be supplied?
they’re racists!
So, is there a clear definition of exactly what a “climate change denier” actually is?
Can an example of such a person be named?
Anyone who doesn’t believe the world will tomorrow if we don’t stop using fossil fuels is a climate change denier according to the Left.
Fear creates a lie and resistance.
Has the BBC also issued a definition of denier?
The majority of climate sceptics sits within the bandwidth of the IPCC, albeit in the lower parts.
This is sabotage of scientific progress.
Warmunists can’t win the debate, so they silence it.
Pedophiles are welcome though.
It would be fine in theory if they banned, say, both people who claim we’re doooooomed and people who say there’s no warming trend.
But of course in practice they’ll put on any speculative CAGW crank, but ban Judith Curry.
Yup. I’ve never met a person who denies that climate changes, and I bet the BBC haven’t either. But they will use this as a reason for the exclusion who people who accept their views.
To mis-quote the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen again, “The BBC aspires to educate the world, yet they cannot educate themselves.”
If ignorance is truly bliss, then the BBC must be one damn happy network…
Comrade Television
If you want to know who wants the BBC a sa propaganda arm read this. This is the response to a petition to take the BBC off Royal Charter and free money:
Government responded
This response was given on 20 September 2018
The government strongly believes the Royal Charter is the best framework to safeguard the BBC’s independence and ensure the broadcaster effectively serves all audiences.
Read the response in full
The BBC is one of the UK’s most treasured institutions and is part of the social and economic fabric of the country. It is a great source of national pride and no other country in the world has anything quite like it.
The Royal Charter is the constitutional basis of the BBC. It guarantees the BBC’s independence and provides the framework for how the BBC is governed and funded. The Charter allows the BBC to continue to thrive, deliver for all audiences, and be an engine of creativity and growth in the UK. The establishment of the current Charter was an extensive process of consultation and evidence gathering, with 192,000 responses to the public consultation and engagement with over 300 organisations and industry experts.
The BBC is operationally and editorially independent of government and there is no provision for the government to intervene in the BBC’s day-to-day operations. Independence and impartiality are embedded in the Charter and the BBC’s public purposes. The BBC Board is responsible for ensuring the BBC delivers its Charter obligations, including its mission and public purposes. The BBC Board is also responsible for ensuring the BBC adheres to its editorial guidelines. As the external independent regulator of the BBC, it is Ofcom’s responsibility to hold the BBC to account in fulfilling its mission and public purposes. Alongside this, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code requires all broadcasters, including the BBC, to report and present news with due accuracy and impartiality.
We considered the question of funding during the BBC Charter Review process. While no funding model meets all the criteria of an ideal system, the current model provides the BBC with a sustainable core income paid by all households that watch or receive television. This model also has wider public support than any alternative – 60% of consultation responses indicated that no change was needed to the current licence fee model, and only 3% favoured full subscription funding. That is why we have committed to maintain the licence fee funding model for the BBC for the duration of this current 11 year Charter period.
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
What a complete pile of crap.
The BBC serves or rather operates at the whim of the Crown. Levying tithes, sorry, license fees, is an ancient perogative. And subjects wonder how global climate became a religion?
may have been linked to before – http://www.bishop-hill.net/conspiracy-in-green/
gives part of the back story to the BBC bias.
That link appears dead. This might be similar: http://www.bishop-hill.net/propagandabureau/
So the BBC has officially become ‘fake’ news! As in useless, biased source of gratification to closed minded people.
Yes, I would encourage everyone here to leave Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, the mainstream media, the BBC, etc – in fact, get away from anything normal, rational and moderate, and go to your favourite minority, extreme, little sources. Then everybody’s happy and us ordinary people can trust more in what we see and read! Perfect and I thank you in advance for your sacrifice.
…Y SE CUMPLIO LA AMENAZA DE LA “BBC”, QUE TEME LA MAFIA MUNDIAL DEL Cambio-Climatico???
The title of this post is completely misleading, in fact it is a LIE.
When skeptics engage in such reprehensible tactics, why should they expect to get their views heard in the media?
It seems that as well as banning “climate skeptics” and deniers, the BBC also has a policy of blaming every weather related event on “climate change”.
In an item on the Today programme this morning, John Simpson blamed the current shortage of water in the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq, on “Global Warming” because the rivers are “disturbingly low this year” because of the lack of snow this winter.
I am sure that there will have been a similar lack of snow, and shortage of water in the past, but this year, apparently its due to “global warming”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bl6n8s
About 19 minutes into the programme.
The new Inquisition is back …
In the 17th Century all misfortunes, not least the worst phase of the Little ice age and failing crops etc, all was blamed on the witches – also by people who called themselves scientists – except Descartes, the founder of modern Philosophy, of course.
Now, a few imagined witches have been replaced by “climate deniers”. The language used has a relgious connotation – another confirmation of that AGW is a religion, not based on true science. Maybe, a significant driving force behind this phenomenon is the same as back then – existential anxiety in front of ongoing structural changes? Now with the fourth industrial revolution and intensified Globalization causing havoc for many as regards job and income security etc. engenders an urge to find scape goats. Hopefully we will get away from being burned like the “evil witches” back then, but more sophisticated punishments are mobilized instead! No research grants, censorship etc.
The climate is changing, everybody knows that. The BBC also know that the sceptics agree that climate is changing, as it allways has.
What’s the problem then?
That somebody says the changing climate is not due to human activity?
Most of us know that humanity is not powerful enough to rule over climate?
So, what’s the problem BBC?
Is it so that BBC is a true believer and the sceptics are not and therefore must be abolished…?
“There may be occasions to hear from a denier” but only “with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer”.
But it’s so hard to find a State Media interviewer with more knowledge than the average ‘denier’ these days.
I foresee a day when all the media is put under some sort of USSR type gag. When the media is so dominated by one side or another, it’s really damaging to everyone. Therefore I see someone totally taking them over and freedom of speech will be eliminated.
The hysteria over “fake news” and “Russian meddling” may at first have been a childish reaction to the defeat of Hillary “most competent candidate ever in all planets in all universes” Clinton.
Now it’s the blueprint to justify taking back control over social media and the Internet. The Union, Emmanuel “En Marche” Macron, Google, M$, Mozilla Foundation are all for it. They ostensibly support an attempt to demonize the free and open Internet. They are pure evil.
I’m proud I voted for (dimwit) Marine Le Pen.