Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The BBC has belatedly decided they need at least a little input from one of the targets of their latest big oil climate conspiracy propaganda piece. Dr. Willie Soon does not hold back in his response.
Note some of the links take you to a “You are leaving the mail.com service” page. This is a harmless artefact caused by copying Dr. Soon’s email, click continue to see the referenced document.
Dear Ms. Keane,
I am wary of responding to your false allegations, since your questions seem somewhat loaded. Disappointingly, they appear to repeat the dishonest and misleading claims of the former Greenpeace USA research director, Kert Davies (now running the so-called “Climate Investigations Center”), whose research we have shown to be disingenuous in Section 2 of our attached 2018 report on Greenpeace (Attachment 1). Unfortunately, the premise of your series seems to be the dangerous conspiracy theories promoted by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change and their 2014 film of the same name. I’ve attached a short 3-page .pdf (Attachment 2) summarizing just a few examples of the poor scholarship and bizarre hypocrisies in Oreskes & Conway’s conspiracy theories.
The BBC has an established history of stifling genuine scientific inquiry and nuanced debate on climate change since its infamous 2006 Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting? seminar, as described in detail in Andrew Montford’s short book The Propaganda Bureau and summarized in various blogs in 2012, e.g., here, here, here and here.
It is also regrettable that you attempted to contact me in such a roundabout way, i.e., by going through the Heartland Institute, rather than emailing me directly here at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. I am not pleased that you saw fit to circulate your letter, with its numerous libellous comments, to a third party.
The BBC seems to encourage the unethical pseudo-journalistic practice of selectively quoting and cherry-picking out-of-context interviewees who disagree with the narrative of the program, in order to make the interviewees seem foolish or uninformed. Richard North, summarized this unethical practice well in this 2011 essay: https://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-being-stitched-up.htmlThis was a particular concern when I considered whether to reply to your allegations.
I am hoping that you have more journalistic integrity than your BBC colleagues who have carried out unethical “hatchet jobs” in the past. I suspect that you may not be planning to “fairly and accurately reflect any comments” as you promised me.
Nonetheless, given the number of false allegations you are threatening to broadcast, I feel compelled to respond. I have copied this letter a number of friends and colleagues who might be interested to see the questions you have asked me and my responses.
I have copied and pasted your letter to me below. Your letter is in bold face: and my responses are in Roman face.
Will you change course in your grave misunderstanding on this timely subject and uphold honest debate and discussion on climate science?
Yours faithfully,
Willie Soon
Phoebe Keane
BBC Radio Current Affairs
BBC New Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA
Dear Wei Hok ‘Willie’ Soon,
My Chinese name given by my father is Wei-Hock. There is no need to put a quote on Willie as this is my name.
I’m making a BBC Radio series about the way oil companies have over emphasized the uncertainty around climate change. The series will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in the UK and we intend for it to be available as a podcast internationally and may appear as an online article. It is a 10 part series, each episode is 15 minutes long.
The series is currently titled ‘How they made us doubt everything’ and will discuss how the oil industry has carried out a campaign to make us doubt climate change. It explores how it drew on a ‘playbook’ of tactics developed by the tobacco industry and PR company Hill & Knowlton to make us doubt the connection between smoking and cancer. We’ll set out that these tactics weaponised doubt and enabled both the tobacco and oil industries to undermine science, but also has fed into a broader sense of distrust in facts and experts which has spread far beyond climate change.
I should strongly urge you to reconsider the current premise of your proposed series which seems to be based on the flawed conspiracy theories promoted by Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway in their 2010 book (and 2014 film), “Merchants of Doubt”. I would recommend you read the attached 3-page critique (Attachment 2) of this pseudo-scientific conspiracy theory by Oreskes & Conway.
Instead, if you genuinely want to address the vested interests who are most seriously hindering and undermining scientific inquiry into climate change, I would urge you to read our 2018 analysis of the anti-science, anti-education and ultimately anti-environment behaviour that Greenpeace has engaged in. In particular, I would refer you to Section 2, in which we specifically review the dishonest and insidious misinformation campaigns which Kert Davies spearheaded while he was Greenpeace USA’s Research Director. I’ve attached a .pdf copy (Attachment 1), but you can also download a copy from the Heartland Institute’s website here: https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/analysis-of-greenpeace-business-model.
We’d like to offer you the opportunity to respond to the points we intend to broadcast. We therefore draw your attention to the following:
1) You received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015 from fossil fuel interests including Southern Company, American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Foundation. Is that the case? Would you like to respond?
WS: This is definitely not the case. I have definitely not “received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015”. My employer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is simply not that generous. Frankly, if making money was my main priority, I would not have gone into science. Indeed, if I did not care about science or the environment, maybe I would have found it more lucrative to work for an advocacy group like Greenpeace, which as we discuss in the attached report has an annual turnover of about $400 million.
My salary has come from the Center since I started as a staff position in 1997. Until about 2008, I had no involvement in where the Center received its funding. After my immediate supervisor retired in 2009, one of my additional duties was to write grant proposals on behalf of the Center, which has received funding from many sources including government, industry, charities, foundations and many others. This includes the three groups you mentioned, amongst many others.
However, most employees (including me) receive their salary through the Center. This has the advantage that our research is uninfluenced by the Center’s funding sources. In any case, I am a scientist. I believe it is important to follow the science wherever it leads. I appreciate that there probably are some “scientists” out there who might alter their research results to facilitate vested interests, but the idea is abhorrent to me.
2) Kert Davies of the Climate Investigations Centre says your research was used to slow down progress on climate change. Would you like to respond?
On the contrary, in my opinion, the dishonest and unethical misinformation spearheaded by Kert Davies of the Climate Investigations Center (and previously Greenpeace USA) has been used to slow down progress on genuine climate change research. See for example, Section 2 of our Greenpeace attached report, where we describe what he did through his “ExxonSecrets” campaigns.
3) Our guests outline that this played into a broader campaign to misrepresent the data on climate change, leading to many people doubting legitimate climate change science. Would you like to respond to this?
Again, on the contrary, in my opinion, it is the misinformation promoted by Kert Davies and others like him that is “leading to many people doubting legitimate climate change science”. Often the original sources of this misinformation seem to have arisen from people associated with campaigning groups who have a vested interest in downplaying the extensive ongoing scientific debate within the scientific community on many aspects of climate change: for instance, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the David Suzuki Foundation (in particular, see the DeSmogBlog website co-founded by the Chair of this foundation, James Hoggan), the Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.
If you visit the websites of any of these groups, you will quickly find that many of their campaigns explicitly rely on the assumption that “97% of scientists agree” and “the science is settled”. In fact, as Legates et al. (2015), of which I was a co-author, demonstrated that the widely-quoted Cook et al. (2013) paper that purported to find 97.1% of 11,944 peer-reviewed climate papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011 all agreed that climate change is mostly human caused, was based on flawed analysis and bad science. Upon a close inspection of their data, they had only found 64 papers or 0.5% of their sample had explicitly argued that climate change was mostly human caused. A subsequent examination showed that only 41 of these, or 0.3% of the original sample, had made that statement. On the other hand, 27 papers concluded the exact opposite that i.e., climate change is mostly natural. Vast majority of the papers did not make any statements one way or the other. For more details on the 97% consensus myth, please read here.
As we discussed in our Greenpeace report, these campaigns can be very lucrative for the campaigning groups. As a result, an honest reporting of the messy and contentious scientific debates that continue to this day within the scientific community would directly harm their claims of “scientific consensus” and “settled science”.
Our case study of Greenpeace showed that it has an annual turnover of about $0.4 billion, and that from 1994-2017 they spent $521 million (i.e., more than $0.5 billion) on their “Climate/Climate & energy” campaigns. In comparison, Greenpeace’s “ExxonSecrets” campaign (led by Kert Davies) claimed that ExxonMobil allegedly spent $1.8 million/year over the period 1998-2014 on “funding climate denial” and that this supposedly substantially altered the public discourse on climate change. I encourage you to read our complete analysis in the report. Meanwhile, consider that if Kert Davies were correct that the alleged $1.8 million/year from ExxonMobil on “funding climate denial” has substantially altered the public discourse on climate change, what was the impact of Greenpeace’s $31 million/year expenditure on “Climate/Climate & energy” campaigning, 17 times greater than Exxon’s alleged expenditure?
4) You have been characterised as downplaying the impact of human activities on climate change. Is that a fair portrayal of your work?
No, definitely not. My climate change research considers all of the plausible mechanisms for climate change that are discussed in the scientific literature. I’m not sure of what definition you have in mind, but to me “downplaying” means making something appear less important than it really is. If that’s the same definition you are using, then that is the exact opposite of my research. My research involves trying to find out exactly how important each of the many proposed climate change mechanisms are in current, past and future climate change.
It is true that many scientists (in particular, several of the main computer modelling groups) have “downplayed” (to use your word) the role of solar variability and other forms in recent and historic climate change. So, by not downplaying these important factors, my work often leads to more nuanced, and in my opinion, more accurate and reliable, conclusions.
Indeed, several of my recent publications have argued that the current global and regional temperature datasets have substantially underestimated the role of a specific local form of human-caused climate change, i.e., the urban heat island phenomenon. The Urban Heat Island is a well-recognized form of local climate change that has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, but is definitely a result of human activities. This is an underappreciated problem because even though urban areas only comprise 1-2% of the planet, many of the weather stations used in current global temperature datasets and most of the ones with the longest records are urbanized. This appears to have led to a sampling bias: the trends of the sampled data are unrepresentative of the global trends.
Your response would be appreciated in writing to the above by 7th July 2020 so we can fairly and accurately reflect any comments you wish to make, where appropriate. Please respond to: [redacted]
For your information we also intend to report:
1) That a 1995 draft primer to the Global Climate Coalition dismisses solar variability, which we describe as your main thesis. The primer says it’s ‘accounted for 0.1 degrees C temperature increase in the last 120 years, it is an interesting finding, but it does not allay concerns about future warming which could result from greenhouse gas emissions.’ [SOURCE: Primer sent from L S Bernstein, Exxon Mobil, Environmental health and safety department, to members of GCC, 21ST December 1995. Made publicly available as part of the court case ‘Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie’ 2005.]
Are you implying that the Global Climate Coalition had already in their 1995 document reached “the definitive answers” on the complex and challenging problem of the attribution of recent and future climate change, a year before IPCC’s Second Assessment Report and nearly 20 years before its fifth? Are you suggesting that all scientific research into climate change since 1995 is redundant?
I’m not sure how you think science works, but that is utter nonsense. Climate change is a complex multi-causal phenomenon, and scientists have been debating the relative importance of different factors since the 19th century, particularly following the discovery of the ice ages.
The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is in many ways the easiest to assess, because according to the Antarctic ice core estimates, atmospheric CO2 has increased near-exponentially from pre-industrial concentrations of nearly 0.03% to a little above 0.04% today. In contrast, the role of the Sun is a much more challenging subject: there is much ongoing debate over which estimates of past “Total Solar Irradiance” (TSI), i.e., solar output, are most reliable. There are also ongoing debates over the various mechanisms by which solar variability influences the Earth’s climate.
If you are interested in learning more about the ongoing debates in the scientific literature over this, I would recommend reading our comprehensive 2015 review paper: Soon et al. (2015), Earth-Science Reviews, Vol. 150, p 409-452. You can download a copy from my CfA website here. If you don’t have time to read the full 44-page article, which is technical in places, there is a simpler overview here:
However, one of the problems inherent in the research of those groups who “downplay” (to use your word again) the role of solar variability in recent and historic climate change and instead focus on CO2 as the “primary climate driver” (as the current computer models do), is that they find it very difficult to explain climate changes before about 1950, as CO2 seems to have still been only 0.031% then.
A consequence of this is that in order to try and fit the historic global temperature trends in terms of CO2 as the primary climate driver, researchers have had to:
a. Increase the modelled “climate sensitivity” of global temperatures to CO2 concentrations; and
b. Revise the estimates of past climate changes to downplay the climate variability before about 1950.
A bizarre result of these attempts to “shoehorn” CO2 as the primary climate driver is that even the IPCC’s latest (Fifth) Assessment Report still suggests that the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” (ECS) to CO2 could be anything from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C. This year (Meehl et al, 2020, Zelinka et al. 2020) it is reported that the sixth-generation models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project find the spread to be 1.8-5.6 °C. ECS is the expected global warming that would occur from a doubling of CO2.
In a recent scientific paper that we published in March, we showed that the value of this metric has major implications for international climate change policies. If ECS is at the higher end of the IPCC’s “likely” range, then the 2015 Paris Agreement would be broken in a few decades if we continue “business-as-usual”. However, if ECS is less than 2 °C, then if we continued “business-as-usual” for the rest of the century, the Paris Agreement wouldn’t be broken until at least the 22nd century. That seems to me a pretty important point that the BBC should be discussing.
In case you’re interested, you can download our 2020 “Business-as-usual” paper here: Connolly et al. (2020), Energies, Vol. 13, 1365. Again, it is a rather long paper. However, I hope you appreciate by now that these are complex problems, and that there is a lot of ongoing scientific debate within the scientific community on these issues.
2) That you published a paper in 2006 relating to Polar Bears which concluded that there was no reason for alarm for their continued safety. Please let me know if that’s incorrect.
WS: Incorrect.
I’m not sure what “2006” paper you are referring to. I did co-author three scientific papers which looked at polar bear populations around that time, but none in 2006. It is possible that you’re referring to Dyck et al. (2007) as that was accepted for publication subject to minor revisions in October 2006 (after a lengthy peer review process), but it was not officially published until April 2007.
In any case, that was not the conclusion of the paper.
I also co-authored a follow-on paper, Dyck et al. (2008), in response to some comments on the 2007 paper, and I was a co-author on a separate paper, Armstrong et al. (2008) which also looked at forecasting of polar bear populations.
The three papers are:
· Dyck et al. (2007), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 4., p 73-84. Pdf available here.
· Dyck et al. (2008), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 5, p 289-302. Pdf available here.
This was a response to comments in Stirling et al. (2008), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 5, p 193-201. Pdf available here.
· Armstrong et al. (2008), Interfaces, Vol. 38, p 382-405. Pdf available here.
I would recommend reading the papers to find out the exact details of what we found in those papers, in particular, the Dyck et al. (2007) which I suspect is probably the “2006” paper you were referring to. However, in brief, two researchers (Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher) and colleagues had published a series of papers in which they concluded that the primary factor in the local polar bear populations in the western Hudson Bay region was global warming from increasing CO2. Specifically, they argued that the long-term spring-time warming since the 1970s in the region was: (a) due to increasing CO2, (b) was reducing local sea ice cover and (c) leading to reductions in local polar bear population.
We looked at the basis for their claims and realized that their analysis was scientifically flawed for multiple reasons. For instance, they apparently hadn’t realized that while the Arctic has warmed since the 1970s, it followed a period of Arctic cooling from the 1940s-1970s, and there was a similar warm period to present during the early 20th century. If their theory was correct, then the polar bear populations should have responded accordingly during those pre-1970s periods. They didn’t. Instead, we found that the local polar bear populations appear to be more influenced by other factors, such as the numbers of bears that are allowed to be hunted.
More recently, I have co-authored a study in which we reconstructed Arctic sea ice cover back to 1900, and found that the variability in Arctic sea ice cover is a lot greater than the IPCC had assumed in their latest reports: Connolly et al. (2017), Hydrological Sciences Journal, vol. 62, p1317-1340. I also co-authored a study in 2019 in which we compared the observed snow cover trends for the entire Northern Hemisphere since 1967 to the trends which the IPCC computer models say should have occurred – according to their assumption that CO2 is the primary climate driver. The results were shocking. The current computer models are unable to explain the observed trends in snow cover for either winter, spring, summer or fall. None of the 196 computer model simulations that the IPCC used for their most recent report succeeded in replicating the observed 1967-2018 trends for any of the seasons. The paper is: Connolly et al. (2019), Geosciences, vol. 9, 135.
As a result, these two recent papers reveal that the computer models which Stirling and Derocher as well as the IPCC had been relying on for their analysis of the Arctic seriously “downplayed” the natural variability in Arctic sea ice and seriously “up-played” the role of CO2in recent trends.
Yours faithfully,
Phoebe Keane
BBC Radio Current Affairs; [redacted]
A final thought: I think it important that you should understand that science is not a matter of mere politics: it is an earnest, continuing and rigorous search for the objective truth. In this reply I have given you some indication of the fact that your underlying premise – that there is only one scientific viewpoint on the climate question and that all other scientific opinions are bought and paid for by vested interests running counter to the vested interest of the BBC – is in all respects wholly false.
Are you a campaigner for a cause that is rooted in such bad science, or are you a proper journalist willing to ask real questions? The moment you begin to look at the climate question not through the eyes of blind faith, not through the lens of political zeal, but through the searing prism of logic and scientific method, you will realize that there are two sides to the climate question based on the data currently available.
Attachment 1 – Analysis of Greenpeace’s business model
Attachment 2 – Paradoxes of the Merchants of Doubt conspiracy theory
It’s time to start suing for libel.
Of course, that assumes that it is still possible to find an honest court room.
‘phoebe.keane@bbc.co.uk’ Why the email was redacted is beyond me because BBC email addresses are easy to work out as are most email address.
I submitted a 4mb FOI request to the BBC and they replied quoting legislation which in effect allows the media to lie and cheat with impunity and escape sanction. Remember the BBC was set up by the government of the day to refute allegations in the free press. Which at the time was a free press which government felt might be a threat to the supposed sincerity of government propaganda. Its a habit that the BBC cannot change.
Rona Fairhead Chairman
BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ
Dear Rona
Ref: In A Warming World? CAS-3804754-4BMKZY, CAS-3823472-HT8CSo, CAS-3834353-KBPPY8, CAS-3837243-N96JZ9. Appeal 001/DRW.
Hypocrisy. President Obama the High Priest of catastrophic Co2 warming leading to a climate change apocalypse fuels Air Force 1 complete with 2 C17’s, four helicopters, 500 security staff and enough bomb proof Beasts to consume the planets remaining resources just to fly from Washington to Seattle for a $1500 a plate fund raiser for Hilary Clinton.
David Attenborough and Neil Oliver fly to Australia to enjoy some blue water scuba diving then relax under similar blue skies to weep buckets about bleached coral.
Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio transit the planet in private jets to collect environmental awards for their prolific promotion of scaremongering rhetoric.
40,000 delegates including most of the UN, UNEP, UNFCC, IPCC and Presidents of Atolls all flying first class at our expense to pontificate about catastrophic warming that is not happening and damage from Co2 induced climate change for which there is no evidence.
Christina Figueres had to redefine the purpose of the GCF because when asked Atolls could not provide any evidence of damage caused by Co2 induced climate change because their climate had not changed and there was no damage. So now we have to pay trillions to Atolls to adapt to climate change by building wind turbines. I am so pleased.
Presumably none of these people know that a 747 consumes 4,000 gallons of aviation kerosene just to take off and for a round trip UK/Australia burns 144,000 gallons of kerosene whilst Obama’s trip consumed 500,000 gallons and emitted Co2 as a result.
But all of this is OK because these scions of virtue are saving the planet which means that they can side step accusations of gross hypocrisy and conspicuous consumption and hopefully avoid the strictures they advocate for ordinary folk desperate just to heat their homes in winter and feed their children at a price they can afford.
After four decades of BBC scaremongering about Co2 causing warming:
1. Sea levels have risen since the end of the last glaciation 11,000 years ago
2. But there has been no acceleration in the rate of rise for 90 years
3. Tide gauges show no acceleration despite Co2 up from 0.03% to 0.04%
4. Worst case scenario 6” rise by 2100
5. The Arctic is not ice free as predicted
6. Antarctic sea ice continues to grow
7. The Polar bear population has risen from 4,500 to between 30,000 & 50,000
8. Ocean PH remains at 8, 7 is neutral
9. Global average temperature is 1.4F warmer than 165 years ago
10. Atmospheric Co2 has risen by 1 part in 10,000 over 200 years
11. Global average temperature is 1.8F warmer than 200 years ago
12. Ocean warming is 0.02 C per decade, 0.16C by 2100
13. 8,000 years ago temperature was 2C warmer than today with Co2 at 200ppm
14. Today we are 2C colder with Co2 at 401ppm
15. Minoan, Roman & Medieval warm periods were all warmer than today
16. Antarctic ice cores show temperature always rises before Co2 rises
17. How does Co2 creep out from under ice half a mile thick to warm the atmosphere to melt the half mile thick ice?
18. Temperature rose at the same rate between 1910 & 1940 as between 1970 & 2000
19. Co2 could only have been an issue after 1980
20. 25% of all Co2 ever emitted was emitted between 2001 & 2010
21. Gavin Schmidt of NASA said for the Co2 hypothesis to hold water the lower troposphere needed to warm first, it has not.
22. No indication of Co2 induced warming in 35 years of satellite monitoring
23. Divergence between modelled predictions and observations continues to grow
24. 2015/16 El Nino ends with La Nina expected
25. Sea temperatures falling in response to the end of El Nino
26. No proven relationship between forest fires and warming of just 1.4F
27. IPCC confirms no evidence to support claims of more extreme weather
28. Hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, storm, flood, drought, tornadoes and loss of life from natural disasters all down
29. Insurance claims have risen only because there is more infrastructure at risk
30. Atmospheric Co2 remains at just 0.039%
31. Co2 is not carbon pollution because you cannot have oxygen free Co2
32. Vibration rotation spectrum of Co2 15 micron band
33. Atmospheric methane CH4 is just 0.00017%
34. Water vapour remains constant – no rise – 99% (78% nitrogen & 21% oxygen)
35. UK emits 1.1% of global Co2 emissions
36. 96.6% of Co2 emissions are natural just 3.4% is the result of fossil fuel usage
37. 7.5 billion people breathing emit 23% of all Co2 emissions
38. Global energy consumption equates to 160,000 TWH’s annually
39. Only 21,000 TWH’s consumed for electricity generation
40. Therefore 13% of 3.4% equates to 0.0052% of Co2 emissions related to electricity generation
41. Therefore closing down all fossil fuelled electricity generation across the planet would only mitigate 5 thousandths % of Co2
42. Hence the reality that even if all Paris COP mitigation is put in place maximum temperature reduction by 2100 would not exceed 0.02 degrees C
43. This number is not measurable and even if it was we could never say whether it was the result of spending trillions of dollars and devastating people’s lives and economies or the result of natural variation
44. 3.8 billion people across the planet still have no reliable source of electricity and cook their food over dried animal dung, fact
45. Yet the BBC cite 30k, then 40k then 50k people in the UK suffer a premature death from air pollution without being able to name one single mortality
46. 4 million die across the planet from COPD because Obama and the World Bank deny developing countries the funds to build low cost super critical fossil fuelled electricity generation based upon the idiotic belief that Co2 has the potential to cause catastrophic warming leading to apocalyptic climate change
47. The BBC in 1974 said that Co2 would cause the next ice age, it did not, they it said that Co2 would cause catastrophic warming it has not
48. Every time the BBC’s predictions fail to materialise they and their alarmist green environmentalist cronies just move the goal posts hoping that we would forget the malignancy of their paranoid delusion, we have not
49. Wind turbines and solar panels the supposed solution to a problem we don’t have today are generating just 3.65 GW’s which I suppose for an investment of £100 billion the BBC would say it is a bargain
50. For the previous two weeks 7,000 wind turbines have not managed to exceed 0.8GW’s
51. Without gas coal and nuclear the lights would have gone out
52. Based upon output turbine generated electricity when related to capital cost is 16 times more expensive than gas or coal hence £10 billion each year in green subsidies and £13.9 billion in environmental levies.
53. Just because someone does not believe in your God or what he wants you to believe does not give you the right to use the word sceptic as a term of abuse
54. You have the right to your own beliefs but not to manufacture your own facts or present your beliefs as facts and if you don’t know the difference between fact, fiction and belief then arguably you are not a fit person to indulge in the pursuit of the scientific method.
55. Shooting the messenger does not invalidate the content of the message
56. Ignorant pontificating about recent weather trends is misleading & a scientifically illiterate exercise. Especially true when related to the instrumental record that covers just 25% of the globe for at best 120 years. Earth is about 4.54 billion years old so the sample size is 0.000002643172%. Our atmosphere weighs 11,710,000,000,000,000,000 pounds, Co2 0.039% of that positive feedback or not this number is insignificant.
57. BBC weasel words: – can, clearly, could, conjectured, considered, expected, may, might, perhaps, possibly, projected, robust, unprecedented. – “Experts suggest…” “It has been said that …” “Research has shown…” “Science indicates …” “It can be argued…” “Scientists believe….” “Scientists say..” “A high level of certainty” “Models predict….” Catastrophic, apocalyptic, dangerous warming, rising sea levels, typhoons, cyclones, flood, drought, extreme weather and tornadoes. Context, as if?
58. Drip feeding suffuse generalisation across the BBC’s wide spectrum of broadcasting could easily be recognised as subliminal messaging for the purpose of brainwashing intimidation and indoctrination, why should we pay to be brainwashed into believing that Co2 is the ultimate 21st century antichrist when there is no evidence to support that myth?
The agreement made at the COP in Paris did not include air and sea travel being a cynic I must assume that this means President Obama and maybe Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Klein, David Suzuki, Christina Figueres and every other political elite across the planet will be able to continue burning kerosene to tell us that we should not because otherwise we are putting Gods work at risk, as if.
There have been no plagues of lice or frogs in fact not one single claim made by alarmists to persuade ordinary folk to believe that Co2 is the 21st century antichrist has come to fruition but the BBC continue to use terms such as “on a warming planet” and “scientists say” but these terms are never qualified by data, the issue is never put into context.
If it is not the intention of the BBC to propagate scaremongering rhetoric on behalf of the green donation and rent seeking fraternity allied as they are to the private equity funds, rich land owners, foreign wind farm operators and grant reliant pseudo scientists desperate to persuade gullible vested interest politicians easily bewildered by the mere mention of the words climate change and the effect it might have on their already tarnished reputations especially if Co2 is exonerated. Then why does the BBC never put its suffuse generality into context by citing the numbers which are easily available?
If there was no intent to deceive license fee payers into believing that Co2 had the potential to cause an apocalypse, then why did the BBC on numerous occasions stand Roger Harrabin in front of a back lit coal fired power station hoping that we would believe that white steam exiting the steam turbine was in fact black carbon pollution? This was an act of deliberate and premeditated misrepresentation with an intent to deceive which if practised by a Plc would result in a criminal conviction for misrepresentation or in the case of the BBC could be seen as an abuse in public office.
When the BBC responds to a complaint it tries to give the impression that everyone is entitled to their views and opinions in an attempt to avoid admitting that facts do indeed exist. In the past the BBC has said that within the average news broadcast there just is not enough time to cover all of the issues that would take at least two hour long documentaries. Maybe the BBC should contact President Obama because he has spent the last 8 years and $80 billion trying to prove that Co2 and humanity has the potential to cause a climate apocalypse and failed so knowing the BBC could resolve the issue in just two hours would be a revelation beyond his wildest dreams.
Then we have “consensus” “settled science” “97% of scientists agree” claims that have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method just pure political manipulation to advance the political initiative promoted by Maurice Strong to use Co2 as the vehicle to mobilise his intent to redistribute wealth and resources from the poor in the developed world to the rich in the developing world. In the same way that wind turbines in the UK recycle hard cash from the working poor to enrich the already rich private equity funds, land owners and foreign wind farm operators. Dong are proceeding with a £10 billion float on the back of £10 billion being paid each year in green subsidies by UK home owners and another £13.9 billion in environmental levies plus the carbon floor tax which is 4 times the EU average.
Alarmists switched their narrative from CAGW to climate change simply because their hysterical rhetoric was easily contradicted by 35 years of satellite monitoring.
Now alarmists could abuse their opponents as climate change deniers which really is not very clever because their opponents had never denied that our climate had changed they just questioned the belief that Co2 had the potential to cause run away warming.
Metaphorically speaking Al Gore and his green acolytes needed to shoot the messenger because they didn’t like the contents of the message and trying to get a gullible public to believe that denying climate change was the same as denying the holocaust seemed like a good idea except that it didn’t have the desired effect. Though the BBC condoned this offensive behaviour for quite some time before they realised it was offensive. Though the more offensive alarmists still believe that this type of abuse will eventually win through but I doubt it.
When NASA, NOAA shout it’s the warmest year “Eva” they like the BBC never refer to the satellite data because that data contradicts what NOAA and NASA want us to believe because they are 100% reliant upon federal funding. They have to deny the evidence provided by their own instrumentation on their own satellites because it is in their interest, support President Obama or die from lack of funding. In fact, Gavin Schmidt goes out of his way to critique the work of Dr John Christy of Alabama State University and is always proven wrong.
Advanced micro wave sounding units mounted on NASA and NOAA satellites monitor temperature across 360 degrees of the planet twice daily from ground zero to 8 km’s including oceans, deserts, forests and both poles land based station coverage does not. It is recorded fact that land based station data is affected by land use change, UHI and has been updated and edited to create a warming trend which the raw data does not reflect.
Rod Liddle and Peter Sissons have said that the BBC really does believe that all it needs to do to push a particular story line is to pay someone with a PhD to front the program and mouth a bunch of rhetorical gibberish completely absent of any substance and then if anyone complains they just act stupid and blame the guest.
If the BBC had nothing to hide then why did it pay Jones and Nurse – two geneticists – to rewrite its editorial standards to try and make license fee payers believe that its prejudice and bias towards anyone who contradicted their global warm propaganda was entirely justified because “there was a consensus” and “97% of scientists agreed” that 1 part in 10,000 extra of Co2 would cause an apocalypse when 4 decades later not a glimmer.
Deception is deception and deceit cannot be disappeared just because the BBC employs to members of the Royal Society to try and legitimise its deceit. The Royal Society has a long history of trying to demonise Co2 as the harbinger of our doom and they are just as guilty of deception in that respect as the BBC.
Is There a “Consensus” in Science? Remembering the Late Michael Crichton. “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . .
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. .”
Dr Tim Ball. “I was as opposed to the threats of doom associated with global cooling in the 1970s because it was bad science as I am today about warming. Compare the similarities of impending doom in Lowell Ponte’s 1976 book The Cooling with what alarmists are saying today.”
“It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”
Change the seventh-word “cooling” to warming and it is the same hysteria designed to panic people and prevent logic, but 180 degrees removed. One promoter of the book wrote,
“The dramatic importance of climate changes to the worlds future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. (Really?) But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive worldwide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte’s provocative work is a good place to start.”
These words of warning exploited the false threat of cooling were written by Stephen Schneider, the person who became the major spokesperson of global warming just a few years later. The IPCC dedicated the Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment Report to him. They wrote,
“Steve Schneider, born in New York, trained as a plasma physicist, embraced scholarship in the field of climate science almost 40 years ago and continued his relentless efforts creating new knowledge in the field and informing policymakers and the public at large on the growing problem of climate change and solutions for dealing with it. At all times Steve Schneider remained intrepid and forthright in expressing his views. His convictions were driven by the strength of his outstanding scientific expertise.”
“Lead Author, Coordinating Lead Author and Expert Reviewer for various Assessment Reports and a member of the Core Writing Team for the Synthesis Report of the Fourth Assessment Report (FAR). His life and accomplishments have inspired and motivated members of the Core Writing Team of this Report.”
The IPCC brought him back to help write the deceitful FAR Synthesis Report because of the disasters exposed by Climategate and the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol. He explained why he was the perfect person for the job in a 1989 Discovery magazine article
(This is what the BBC have swallowed hook line and sinker.) “On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.
That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Dr Stephen Schneider, Discover, October 1989.
Here is what former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 said.
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,”
Schneider likely knew, or should have known about Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, who said.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
Clearly the BBC have remained committed to every word that Dr Stephen Schneider has written. In 1974 The ice age is due now anytime” – Professor George Kukla, Columbia University, 1974, The Weather Machine. In 1989 its Co2 induced run away global warming, does anyone in the BBC have even a remote clue what they are talking about?
Conclusion. There is no verifiable evidence that Co2 has caused runway or catastrophic warming that could lead to a climate apocalypse. Unless the BBC can provide evidence which is verifiable that is not couched in suffuse vague generalisations of cant and humbug then the BBC should in future to resist the temptation to spend licence fee payers money on the proliferation of empty rhetorical scaremongering propaganda.
The BBC needs to state exactly why it believes that paying fees to minor league celebrity pseudo scientists who relish in plastering their ego’s across the internet to promote themselves as really lovely people whose interests are blue water diving, exploring the Arctic and Antarctic and living their dreams but at our expense. When their main purpose in life appears to be undertaking research that allows them to cultivate new and meaningful scare stories that will encourage HMG to give them another grant and persuade the BBC to pay them more money to foster the illusion that Co2 is the ultimate antichrist and therefore ordinary folk will have to suffer even more pain and misery at the hands of HMG just to try and eke out a living. This behaviour is inexcusable. Why should we pay the BBC to be lied to?
As Maurice Strong said and Ottman Edenhofer confirmed this obsession with Co2 and climate change has nothing whatsoever to do with the protection of our environment and wind turbines can never ever be a solution to Co2 induced warming even if Co2 did cause catastrophic warming.
Wind turbines can kill millions of birds and bats but believing they are a reliable source of electricity generation is just as bonkers as believing that Co2 has the potential to cause an apocalypse.
As Angela Merkel has proven beyond reasonable doubt after four decades and nearly one trillion euros Germany still generates 81% of its energy from coal and only 2.8% from wind and solar and that is why Merkel has gained an exemption from the EU to mine and burn lignite until 2070 and is moving whole towns and villages to get more of it, whilst continuing to import more coal from Russia, South Africa, Australia, Columbia and America.
Wind turbines generate about 1.3% of our global electricity demand and solar is estimated at about 0.3% and this is after spending globally $2,687 billion on wind turbines since 2004 by the time we spent another $2,687 billion to reach 2.6% the original 250,000 wind turbines will be beyond economic repair because they only last 20 years.
Google engineers after two years of research have confirmed that during its short life of about 20 years a wind turbine can neither mitigate enough Co2 of generate sufficient energy to compensate for the volume of Co2 emitted and energy consumed during its manufacture and deployment so in simple physical terminology they represent a net loss to the planet. The only reason for their existence is to impose upon ordinary folk the all consuming ideology that Co2 is entirely detrimental to all life on the planet.
This stance is a complete fantasy without Co2 life on planet earth dies the same day we cannot exist without it. Plant osmosis begins shutting down at just 180ppm and had we not began consuming fossil fuels there is good reason to believe there would not be sufficient atmospheric Co2 to allow crops to grow and life on earth to continue. To imply differently is pure environmentalist gibberish but what else would you expect from the scientifically illiterate BBC made clear by the pompous bellicose meanderings of David Attenborough’s YouTube pontification, all form and no substance.
Being green is a huge speculative rip off funded by subsidies paid overwhelmingly by ordinary working people who gain no benefit whatsoever from handing over huge sums of cash to private equity funds, Siemens, Vestas and green speculators whose profit is guaranteed from here to eternity by governmental diktat.
Why does the BBC believe it has the right to take money from its licence fee payers to fund bellicose scientifically illiterate propaganda to the benefit of private equity funds, land owners, foreign wind farm operators, Bob Ward, Grantham Institute, Guardian, George Monbiot, Naomi Klein, David Suzuki and Al Gore when the net effect is entirely detrimental to the people who pay the BBC’s wages?
What does the BBC believe that the supposed rights of hard line environmentalists and those who make extreme profit from environmentalism and pseudo scientists specifically “modellers” whose very existence is entirely dependent on being able to get another tax payer funded grant which does mean they have to create another speculative scare story to comply with the current environmentalist bleeding heart UN need to impose Agenda 21 with its complicit reliance upon IAM’s to impose their climate based mechanisms one world rule for all mentality.
The elite are never at risk from their own deliberate manipulation and deception but the ordinary family in the eyes of Ehrlich, Malthus, Gore and the BBC’s own humanity hating Attenborough remain the focus of their attention, the root cause of everything that is wrong with the planet, they have to be subdued at any cost and if the demonization of Co2 can help them accomplish that task then so be it.
The 2050 obligation under Ed Milibands climate change act means ripping out every gas fired central heating system across the country to be replaced by inefficient unreliable and expensive electric heating totally reliant on the unreliable and intermittent generative abilities of wind turbines and solar panels. Before that time smart meters will be installed in every house whether we like it or not to allow our electricity supply to be cut off if the wind turbines fail to generate sufficient electricity to meet demand. All of this nonsense was put in place when alarmism convinced muddle headed illiterate superstitious politicians and greenies that the planet would go so warm that winters and snow would be something of the past so that turbines and solar panels could supply our moderate need for heating. Under the Maurice Strong green model industry would not exist so there would be no need for a reliable and consistent form of electricity but unfortunately for us and for their Alice in Wonderland fantasy the planet and our climate has not connived at their conspiracy.
The BBC swallowed this myth and the idea that to maintain its audience ratings it needed to distribute misleading propaganda that supported the green myth whilst at the same time avoid complaints from greenies who complained bitterly and violently every time sometime tried to make them aware that their beliefs were contradicted by fact. We know that you can never argue with a belief but the BBC have an obligation to educate, inform and entertain not a self serving right to lie cheat and deceive.
Maurice Strong and Stephen Schneider cultivated the fantasy and the UN, UNFCC, UNEP and the EU recognised the opportunity to exploit environmentalism to their one world one rule equality for us whilst behaving themselves like a worst case example of the Chinese Communist Party and Stalin. Like Obama and American preaching to the planet about human rights people have been locked up in Guantanamo Bay for 20 and 30 years without a trial relying only on a belief that they are dangerous. Whilst even though drugs for capital punishment have mostly become unavailable leading to States searching the internet for black market drugs to enforce the death penalty when there is explicit evidence that a large percentage of people on death row did not commit the crime they were convicted of.
Summary justice based upon belief enforced by the don’t do as I do, do what I say mentality gleefully promoted by the BBC – David Attenborough is a classic example – which as a prominent leftie organisation is only too happy to comply with whilst making grandiose claims of wanting to be independent, as if?
For the BBC there never was an ambition to be judged as the gold standard for journalism, it long ago rejected all traces of intellectual curiosity and a healthy scepticism and replaced it with a deranged appetite for bias prejudice and blatant hypocrisy which has resulted in treating every issue from a different starting point with programming related to our climate being treated as a substance light frigid ideology immersed in glib generality where reality never sees the light of day and that is not science. It is ghoulish infantile propaganda and license fee payers should not be asked to support this level of insane immorality, it is unacceptable and it is beyond time for the BBC to accept this fact and move on.
There may be typographical errors and my grammatical abilities might not reach the BBC’s extremely high standards in this respect but they are not good reasons to dismiss my appeal and by comparison with the BBC I use numbers, give specific references and put subjects into context. If you can state specifically where the data I have provided is inconsistent with data that you might rely upon as a means of dismissing my appeal then you need to identify exactly what the issue is, the source of your data and why you believe your data is more relevant than the data I have provided if you cannot do this then you are toast.
Yours sincerely
David Wells
Supporting documentation relevant to Appeal 001/DRW is provided in following emailed attachments.
Meanwhile in retrospect:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/11/one-of-the-very-first-global-warming-films-the-greenhouse-conspiracy/
Rod Liddle has said that the BBC deliberately sets up interviews with people it knows will say exactly what the BBC wants us to hear so that subsequently it can disassociate itself with what has transpired whilst in secret rejoicing at the outcome of its contrivance believing that we are too thick to recognise and understand its deceit.
“We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side. With a big story, like shale gas for example, you would choose the aspect where your case was strongest: the dangers of subsidence and water pollution, say, rather than the transformation of Britain’s energy supplies and the abandonment of wind farms and nuclear power stations. And you could have a ‘balanced’ summary with the view you favoured coming last: not “the opposition claim that this will just make the rich richer, but the government point out that it will create 10,000 new jobs” but “the government claim it will create 10,000 new jobs, but the opposition point out that it will just make the rich richer.” It is the last thought that stays in the mind. It is curiously satisfying to find all of these techniques still being regularly used forty-seven years after I left the BBC.” (Sir Anthony Jay)
“I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the NHS, state welfare, the social services, the environment and state education. But perhaps our most powerful antagonism was directed at advertising. This is not surprising; commercial television was the biggest threat the BBC had ever had to face. The idea that television should be financed by businessmen promoting their products for profit created in us an almost spiritual revulsion. And when our colleagues, who we had thought were good BBC men, left to join commercial broadcasters, they became pariahs. We could hardly bring ourselves to speak to them again. They had not just gone to join a rival company; they had sinned against the true faith, they were traitors, deserters, heretics.
This deep hostility to people and organisations who made and sold things was not of course exclusive to the BBC. It permeated a lot of upper middle class English society (and has not vanished yet). But it was wider and deeper in the BBC than anywhere else, and it is still very much a part of the BBC ethos. Very few of the BBC producers and executives have any real experience of the business world, and as so often happens, this ignorance, far from giving rise to doubt, increases their certainty.” (Sir Anthony Jay)
CAS-3843673-020C5J. Full Complaint: CAS-3837243-N96JZ9, CAS-3823472-HT8CS0, CAS-3834353-KBPPY8, CAS-3804754-4BMKZY, CAS-3707407-MRSKS8, CAS-3691043-KX56F2, CAS-3690744-8XQ0C7, CAS-3689289-XM732K, CAS-3687285-F089K2, CAS-3713299-CL8QKP, CAS-3691043-KX56F2, CAS-3690744-8XQ0C7, CAS-3695656-171GHJ, CAS-3710768-ZYQG6K, CAS-3613914-Q54SVR, CAS-3695656-171GHJ, CAS-3689289-XM732K, CAS-3687529-2X2FSK, CAS-3687285-F089K2, CAS-3686266-9S0NN0, CAS-3686007-3L35KX, enough or do you want more? BBC weasel words: – can, clearly, could, conjectured, considered, expected, may, might, perhaps, possibly, projected, robust, unprecedented. – “Experts suggest…” “It has been said that …” “Research has shown…” “Science indicates …” “It can be argued…” “Scientists believe….” “A high level of certainty” “Models predict….” Catastrophic, apocalyptic, dangerous warming, rising sea levels, typhoons, cyclones, flood, drought, extreme weather and tornadoes. What the BBC and its paid contributors never say is what exactly constitutes extreme weather, where did it happen and when and why is it extreme now when before Co2 mania it was just weather. If sea levels are rising, then the BBC should say by how much over what time period and the same with temperature otherwise the BBC is just guilty of scaremongering. Leonardo dicaprio accused of hypocrisy because of a private jet round trip of 8,000 miles to collect am environmental award. Al Gore, Attenborough, Klein, Figueres, Neil Oliver, David Suzuki, 40,000 COP delegates then all fall into the same category. Yes or No?
CAS-3707407-MRSKS8: 3634267 3612773 3695656 Did the BBC pay 2 geneticists to legitimise the BBC’s want to deceive its audience, yes. Do atolls float yes. Is there evidence to support the assertion that atolls have suffered in any way from a temp rise of 1.4f in 165 years NO, hence the GCF was amended to pay for adaptation not compensate for damage. Has the BBC adopted a drip feed mentality devoid of rigour & detail to impose belief that Co2 causes climate change without causing warming first YES. Spare me the false sympathy why would I be disappointed when your response is so easy to predict? Only recidivist crybabies run to Mummy Trusts ample bosom begging for absolution for sins of omission, gutless pathetic. How is it possible the we should be required by criminal sanction to pay for 17000 misbegotten halfwits incapable of recognising the fundamental difference between fact and faction between religion and science and be comfortable with being lied to on a daily basis to promote the mawkish fiction of human inspired global warming which needs to ignore 4.54 billion years of history in order to promote its cause. Just explain to me in detail why I should have to pay the BBC to lied to by the BBC. Simon Reeve in Greece OMG the Greeks are burning lignite infecting the atmosphere why instead of buying German tanks didn’t they invest in solar panels instead complete forgetting that solar panels only work for a few hours a day. Why does the BBC use our money to pay technically illiterate imbeciles to promote its green paranoid obsession? If you want to spend my money responsibly then just admit your infantile stupidity what could be cheaper than that?
CAS-3691043-KX56F2: Ashton Jones Nurse V 64 million licence fee payers
Full Complaint: 3676207 Steve Jones “BBC wedded to false balance” John Ashton “BBC should explain how its decision to give a platform to (Bob) Carter serves the public interest. Otherwise it will be undermining its “friends” – ? – when it needs them most and throwing scavengers a piece of its own flesh”. Steve Jones “This goes to the heart of science reporting – you wouldn’t have a homeopath speaking alongside a brain surgeon for balance as that would be absurd. It’s just as absurd to have a climate sceptic for balance against the work of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists”. Pots kettles and black. Neither would you expect a geneticist to pontificate about climate science. Bob Carter produced evidence which contradicted what the BBC IPCC Met Office wanted us to believe. The IPCC was not formed to conduct impartial research into our climate its specific remit – Maurice Strong – was to find a way of making humanity responsible for warming to promote Strong’s anti-capitalist agenda fully supported by Jones Ashton Klein Schneider UN UNEP UNFCC EU. Bob Carter was not a “scavenger” denier or sceptic his only crime was to raise his head above the parapet and provide evidence that contradicted what Jones and Ashton need us to believe in order to protect and defend the reputation and grant income of their peer group to advance their anti-capitalist agenda to our detriment. With friends like Jones & Ashton the BBC does not need enemies. Jones & Ashton need to vilify and abuse their challengers because they know they cannot contradict the evidence. It is not due undue or false balance to present satellite data & the only friends the BBC has are the millions of people who pay its wages. If Ward or Jones phone to complain just tell them to sod off, who are they anyway and who cares what they think believe or say. The only thing as Jones says that matters is evidence that is why the BBC should use satellite data, why does the BBC want to frighten its audience anyway?
Complaint Summary: BBC not innocents at large
CAS-3690744-8XQ0C7: 3670225 “We’ve reported on the various views surrounding climate change over a long period. However, it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.” So you want me to believe that the BBC having paid Jones & Nurse to rewrite its editorial standards in an attempt to legitimise its deceit related to AGW imposing due impartiality to ensure that only the “views” of those with a vested interest in the promotion of AGW were given air time now wants me to believe that it quoted a Met Office/NASA press release without attribution and that this was just an accidental act of innocents at large naive gullible unable to comprehend the significance of its malfeasance, really? It is the BBC that always every time in response to a complaint that chooses to conflate scientific fact to views & opinions in the hope and expectation that this assertion will nullify & neutralise the context of the complaint allowing the BBC to avoid censure for false representation and deceit. The BBC knows that every prediction made by the Met Office – including no more snow – has failed to manifest itself. AGW morphed into climate change simple because the Met Office & NASA recognised it could not contradict the validity and accuracy of satellite data. If the BBC were innocents at large there would have been no reason to pay Jones & Nurse to legitimise their desired deceit and use heavy weight lawyers in an attempt to silence an OAP who intended to release the names of those attending a conference organised by Harrabin. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf Just quote satellite data in future and then no more complaints, what is so difficult??
Complaint Summary: 2015 3rd warmest satellite era behind 1998 & 2010
CAS-3689289-XM732K: Let me get this right your belief is that the BBC needs to debauch and misrepresent science fact in order to appease the whim of a specific minority who believe that the only way to impose and enforce their belief upon the majority is to deny us evidence that fundamentally contradicts their belief? That the BBC yielded to pressure from this minority to the extent that it was felt reasonable to pay 2 geneticists to rewrite its editorial standards to ensure that the BBC’s allegiance to this minority was set in stone to the extent that the BBC is now 100% committed to the imposition of belief instead of accurately reporting simple scientific fact? That the BBC believes that its allegiance to this minority overrides and exceeds its clear obligation to educate inform and entertain its licence fee payers. That the BBC believes it is right and proper and to our benefit that the BBC is allowed to deliberately manipulate the way in which it exploits its broadcasting spectrum to make false representations that diminish our understanding to our detriment and to the absolute benefit of reputation privilege and profit of that specific minority who believe that it is their absolute right to distort and manipulate the behaviour of the BBC to achieve their specific political ambition? That the BBC is 100% ideologically committed to the notion that its allegiance to broadcasting data which directly benefits specific vested interests is legally morally and ethically justifiable in the promotion of their cause even though it is against the public interest and fundamentally contravenes our human rights? If the BBC wants to behave like the political wing of the IRA so be it. But if so it needs to end its reliance on the licence fee and face the world as it is and maybe then it will recognise exactly what its obligations and allegiances should be. Bob Ward & RS do not pay your wages we do.
Complaint Summary: 2015 3rd warmest satellite era behind 1998 & 2010
CAS-3687529-2X2FSK: BBC is deliberately manipulative when it states climate change without attribution in the hope and expectation that apathy will extend belief that climate change is caused by Co2 even though there is no evidence to support this supposition. Name dropping NASA & Met Office and paying PhD’s to mouth platitudes is again contrived to deceive impose belief and discourage ordinary folk from challenging their narrative and risk being slapped down by supposed authority. The BBC only resorts to self-indulgent subliminal contextualisation of the climate alarmist narrative because it is desperate to avoid getting assassinated by explicit numbers which it knows its rhetoric cannot refute. Our climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years fact but to enforce belief that Co2 is the primary cause of it alarmists need us to believe that change before 1970 was natural but everything after that date was AGW as if? Fact NASA GISS NOAA Met Office Tyndall BAS & rent seeking PhD’s rely 100% for their survival on grants and therefore have vested interest in ensuring that their output fully supports government diktat but the BBC whilst wanting to be the same is different. We have to pay the BBC for having a TV in our house and risk criminal sanction if we do not therefore its allegiance – if any – should be 100% in favour of its licence fee payers but instead it pays 2 geneticists to rewrite its editorial standards to legitimise deceit which is 100% detrimental to its audience and rejoices in defending that irony, in effect taking the p….
Complaint Summary: Minus 57 degrees 6.4 million cubic miles of ice, Antarctica.
CAS-3686266-9S0NN0: Guardian article. Mendacious Ashton’s only concern is that his duplicity might be revealed by the BBC discussing the climate fraud with Lawson & Lilley. Educate inform and entertain. False bias is a construct promoted by Jones & Nurse to ensure that free speech insofar as climate matters are concerned never sees the light of day on the BBC and the media in general. Alarmists hate the Mail because unlike the Guardian & the BBC they cannot exert any control over what it prints. The Mail allows free speech alarmists hate the very idea because they know – as does the BBC – how manipulative they need to be to advance their anti-capitalist agenda. The irony is that the BBC is so overwhelmed with noble cause corruption that it never contemplates the fact that we pay the BBC to tell us lies which directly benefit a narrow minded psychotic clique who given free reign would use Agenda 21 to deny those who fund the BBC their human rights. Bob Carter did no more than cite data that fundamentally contradicted the belief driven hype promoted by alarmism which is unacceptable to alarmist attack dogs like Ward who is paid to demonise anyone who dares to critique the orthodoxy. When someone tries to steal your money they first frighten you to suspend disbelief and then give you a simplistic solution. Alarmism uses the same technique citing every normality as an abnormality to invoke fear and then offer a supposedly simplistic solution to avoid disaster stop emitting Co2. A grotesque act of exploitation in which the BBC has been happy to participate to the detriment of the people who pay its wages, obscene. We pay the BBC not the Royal Society Guardian Grantham EU UN and we have an absolute right to get the data and if Ward & Ashton don’t like the truth, tough. Jones & Nurse are just establishment shills all sceptics do is reveal data that contradicts the hype that is not a crime. I don’t recall the BBC asking my permission to use my licence fee to fund my indoctrination?
Complaint Summary: Stupid scaremongering illiterate drivel
CAS-3695656-171GHJ: Heap of c..p! Is it climate change, will it get worse, are we all going to die?? Co2 is 0.04% of our atmosphere or 0.4% of 1% which is trace gases 99% is water vapour 78% nitrogen & 21% oxygen Co2 is 85% saturated not well mixed and water vapour has remained static with a slight downward trend which fundamentally contradicts what Heap was trying to make us believe. Co2 has no effect on the jet stream or the current El Nino & temp has risen by just 1.4F in 165 years & remained flat between 2001 & 2010 when 25% of all Co2 ever emitted was emitted. Ignorant pontificating about recent weather trends is misleading & a scientifically illiterate exercise. Especially true when related to the instrumental record that covers just 25% of the globe for at best 120 years. Earth is about 4.54 billion years so the sample size is 0.000002643172%. Our atmosphere weighs 11,710,000,000,000,000,000 pounds Co2 0.04% of that positive feedback or not this number is insignificant. Heap is intent on distributing highly politicised propaganda to narrow focus and incite fear and panic by emoting normality as abnormality without giving detail that would correct his deliberately misleading generalisations, fraudulent false representation. IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”. If you decide through free choice to live in a house situated on a flood plain, then you should at any time expect to be flooded. People have free choice where they decide to live and their free choice is not everyone else’s problem. Heap on every occasion made possible by the BBC remains intent on behaving like an ignoramus who is willing to spout scaremongering propaganda on the proviso that he gets a fat fee from licence fee payers, unacceptable contrivance.
Complaint Summary: 2015 3rd warmest satellite era behind 1998 & 2010
CAS-3689289-XM732K: Let me get this right your belief is that the BBC needs to debauch and misrepresent science fact in order to appease the whim of a specific minority who believe that the only way to impose and enforce their belief upon the majority is to deny us evidence that fundamentally contradicts their belief? That the BBC yielded to pressure from this minority to the extent that it was felt reasonable to pay 2 geneticists to rewrite its editorial standards to ensure that the BBC’s allegiance to this minority was set in stone to the extent that the BBC is now 100% committed to the imposition of belief instead of accurately reporting simple scientific fact? That the BBC believes that its allegiance to this minority overrides and exceeds its clear obligation to educate inform and entertain its licence fee payers. That the BBC believes it is right and proper and to our benefit that the BBC is allowed to deliberately manipulate the way in which it exploits its broadcasting spectrum to make false representations that diminish our understanding to our detriment and to the absolute benefit of reputation privilege and profit of that specific minority who believe that it is their absolute right to distort and manipulate the behaviour of the BBC to achieve their specific political ambition? That the BBC is 100% ideologically committed to the notion that its allegiance to broadcasting data which directly benefits specific vested interests is legally morally and ethically justifiable in the promotion of their cause even though it is against the public interest and fundamentally contravenes our human rights? If the BBC wants to behave like the political wing of the IRA so be it. But if so it needs to end its reliance on the licence fee and face the world as it is and maybe then it will recognise exactly what its obligations and allegiances should be. Bob Ward & RS do not pay your wages we do.
Complaint Summary: Manipulative mendacious duplicity
CAS-3687285-F089K2: You cannot conflate scientific fact to opinion & belief. As explained NASA/GISS/NOAA/Met Office use land station based data which covers just one third of the planet excluding oceans forests and deserts with sparse coverage of both poles & therefore subject to UHI and land change whereas satellite data relates to a 360-degree coverage of the planet from ground zero to 41kms and specifically lower troposphere which Gavin Schmidt says should warm first if the Co2 hypothesis is true, it has not. The BBC refuses to use RSS/UAH data because it does not support its alarmist cause, who pays your wages? Satellite data has not been subjected to manipulation to create a warming trend where no trend existed in the raw data and the BBC comment said 2015 was the warmest year which is not true. Minoan Roman & Medieval warm periods were hotter than today & 8000 years ago it was 2C warmer than today with Co2 at 200ppm. 2015 was the 3rd warmest year after 1998 & 2010, fact RSS/UAH confirms. The data you cite relates to hundredths of a degree the result of millions of calculations outweighed by a margin of error 20 times the supposed increase which the satellite record contradicts. We are not talking here about views or opinions we are talking about scientific fact which the BBC cannot refute. With climate the BBC adopts a fundamentally difference approach to gene cutting where specifics are discussed but with climate the approach is deliberately manipulative because the BBC knows its mendacious rhetoric can be easily contradicted by fact. Climate change only exists because RSS/UAH data contradicts AGW. What exactly is the point of lying to your audience if not to emote fear and trepidation within it for the benefit of a narrow clique of psychotic crazed green zealots? You cannot excuse mendacity by bearing false witness to editorial standards specifically rewritten to legitimise deceit, a lie is a lie not excusable by deceit.
Present the following to Roger Harrabin and ask him to analyse the content.
With the El Niño-related uptick in the February 2016 GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index, Figure 1, alarmism has reached beyond the Spinal Tap 11 volume setting, up to 20. (For those in need of a chuckle, the YouTube video of related portion of This is Spinal Tap is here. Thanks to Rob Reiner and Christopher Guest for that very funny scene.)
Jeez David that was impressive. When did you send that to old Rona, and did she reply to any of it?
Hi Rod when they finally ran out of infantile excuses eg “it would take at least 2 one hour documentaries to describe the climate” “we cannot within 3 minutes of the allotted time give a full appreciation of the climate” “everyone is entitled to their opinion” I got this:
CAS-3837243
Dear Mr Wells,
I am responsible within BBC Audience Services for the complaints service provided by our contact centre. I have been reviewing the history of your complaints to the BBC.
I apologise for the formality of this email but I have decided that the BBC Trust’s Expedited Complaints Procedure should apply to your complaints from today. In order for this to happen I need to provide you with certain information according to the protocol laid down by the BBC Trust.
The BBC Executive and the Trust may use this Procedure only where a complainant has a history of persistently or repeatedly making complaints which fall into one of the following categories:
(a) are trivial, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious;
(b) fail to raise an issue of breach of any relevant Guidelines or Policies (eg in the case of an editorial complaint, the Editorial Guidelines; in the case of a fair trading complaint, the Fair Trading Policies and Framework);
(c) use gratuitously abusive or offensive language;
(d) are shown on investigation to have no reasonable prospect of success; or
(e) after rejection of the complaint at an earlier stage (eg Stage 1), are persistently and repeatedly appealed unsuccessfully to the next stage (eg Stage 2).
I believe that your complaints fall into category (a) in that they are repetitious and misconceived, and also categories (b) and (d). In order to apply the Expedited Complaints Procedure, I am required to follow the notification requirements laid down by the BBC Trust:
1. I am providing you with a link to the copy of the General Complaints and Appeals Procedure, which contains detail of the Expedited Complaints Procedure (in Annex2 ):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/general.html
2. I have decided to apply this Procedure because of the volume of your complaints and the consequent demands they make on the time of complaints advisers when most of them have not suggested breaches of BBC guidelines:
(i) In January 2016 our records show you made 13 complaints, 12 in February and a further 6 since then. Over 140 have been made in your name since 2011.
(ii) Many of the complaints are comments or views and mostly about climate change, also with some other issues, but to which we have previously provided replies and some of which were subsequently escalated;
(iii) Most have not suggested a breach of the BBC’s published standards, or a significant issue of general importance which might justify further investigation, and have not been successful on escalation.
3. I intend to apply the Procedure from today to 15 June 2018.
4. You may appeal against this decision. If you wish to do so you should contact the BBC Trust within 20 working days of receiving this reply. Details are in the Expedited Procedure to which I have provided a link above.
I should explain that if a future complaint from you falls into any of the categories (a) (b) (c) (d) or (e) the complaint will not be acknowledged and so may be rejected without notifying you or providing any reasons. If on the other hand it does not fall into these categories and suggests a possible breach of any relevant Guidelines or Policies, the complaint will be investigated in accordance with the Complaints Procedure that applies.
I’m aware that you may still have complaints to which the BBC may not yet have replied. The BBC will of course answer those and other complaints submitted before the date this Expedited Complaints Procedure was applied.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Jones,
Head of Communications and Complaints,
BBC Audience Services.
David,
That’s not a comment, it’s an epistle.
David
Please don’t be so terse. You are almost as bad as ‘Drive-by’ Mosher.
🙂
The above is an example of me being polite to the BBC. I have made a total of 340 separate complaints numerous appeals but no answers. When I submitted a 4mb FOI request they replied saying in effect the media legislations allows them to lie and cheat. The BBC is an aberrant nonsense without morality ethics standards knowledge discipline or scientific understanding.
Sent to Phoebe by email today, this is just one paragraph to set the scene:
Inscribed on the wall of BBC broadcasting house “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. The BBC choose to misinterpret this phrase to give the BBC the right to castigate Co2, deplore and scandalise human use of fossil fuels and paint ordinary folk into the dock for causing damage to the climate. What George Orwell meant was that people had the right to tell organisations like the BBC and anyone else that they were talking through the back of their heads when the proceeded to indulge in illiterate propaganda to advance a political objective. The BBC was created because government at the time felt threatened by the idea that journalism if allowed free reign would frustrate governments want and desire to promote its own propaganda needed to distort, brainwash, intimidate and harass ordinary folk into believing that what government said was true. Now the BBC cannot get out of the habit of lying through its teeth. Free speech which is what the BBC advocates but behind the scenes it employed Prof Steve Jones to rewrite its editorial terms to widen the paradigm of false balance and due impartiality to give the BBC even wider discretion as to what false balance and due impartiality really meant insofar as the BBC was concerned. Now the BBC can be as partial, biased and prejudiced as it wants yet remain within the guidelines set out by Prof Jones who said after his deployment that the BBC needed to be even more prejudiced and biased insofar as climate was concerned to ensure the audience was completely overwhelmed and infatuated with the belief that humans were catastrophically influencing the climate posing a threat to the planet.”
When Prof Jones was interviewed by John Humphrys after the debacle over Lord Lawson saying to Justin Webb that the climate had cooled a little – at the time of speaking it had – and has not reacted to continued increases in Co2 emissions. Justin Webb was referred to Ofcom who criticised and abused Justin Webb for not ridiculing Lord Lawson sufficiently to make him recant and say that it really was warming catastrophically in line with BBC’s veteran climate analysist Roger Harrabins frequent catastrophic incantations. Humphrys asked Prof Jones for his comments about Lord Lawson and Justin Webb and Prof Jones said “I call them deniers” to which Humphrys said “thats a bit religious isnt it “. Since then Prof Jones has never been on the Today program again.
Lord Krebs is another clown the BBC leveraged for ages. On BBC Countryfile Krebs said “we have to grow plants to suck all of the Co2 out of the atmosphere because Co2 is destroying the planet” then Krebs said “we have to kill all of the cows because methane is destroying the planet” then “we have to grow plants to eat instead of meat”. I emailed Countryfile “If we suck all of the Co2 out of the atmosphere – an impossible feat – how do we grow plants to eat instead of meat”. Dr Jim Al Khalili BBC Quantum Physics “Oxygenic photosynthesis generates 16,000 tons of new vegetation every second of every single day”. But what Al Khalili because of his contractual arrangement with the BBC declined to mention that unless we have elevated levels of atmospheric Co2 the oxygenic photosynthesis is not sufficiently prolific to allow photosynthesis to function.
What ordinary folk dont understand about the BBC is the extremely tight reign they exert over any who is a guest, they are told exactly what they can and cannot say. Guests on programs are read the riot act and if they dare to contravene the BBC’s editorial standards they never come back. If guests make a gaff which is still within guidelines but makes the BBC look more stupid than it is they never come back either.
I follow up every BBC guest and point out the defects insofar as science fact allows and most of the time they do not return. Those from Grantham field their secretaries and refuse point blank to enter into any discussion which tells multitudes about their knowledge and understanding of climate, they like Greta are good at spouting rhetoric but when their rhetoric is challenged they run away.
Lol…I spit soda onto my keyboard.
D.R.W.
I really do hope that you have actually sent this to the B.B.C. If you haven’t, please do. It’s what I’ve been
wanting to say in a long while, but haven’t been able to put into words.
The BBC are so fed up with my complaints that they have banned me from making complaints so I send individual programs emails. My assumption is that they are put straight in a spam folder and are never read but what else can you do?
“…but what else can you do?”
Why, repost all those queries and responses in here for us to copy and paste, and reiterate. They can’t ban us all, at least in the short term, and not without some difficulty. Multiple complainants are much more difficult to ignore and dismiss, especially if there are Duly Elected Legislators amongst those complainants. 😏
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Eee bah gum, David !
What a Tour de Force !
Your response was deserving of an article in its own right !
“How the BBC connives with “Greenwash” advocates to lie and distort true science” ….. or some such title.
Your persistent diligence is an example to us all, yet such questioning, and responses will never be read by BBC propagandists, way down in here in these columns. May I respectfully suggest that your entire discourse be republished as an article in its own right. Please see the headings at the top of WUWT main page, and the link to Submit an Article for publication. Your logic defies any refutation it seems to me.
…. Jack
Willie is a hard worker, willing to get down in the sewer with a roto rooter and clear the pipes. Hope he gets a nice hot shower after.
Great response. I sure hope a separate letter was sent to the BBC management by a lawyer explaining that more libel against Dr. Soon will not be tolerated especially now that they have been informed of the facts.
That is a great idea, probably the only approach with a chance of making a dent in the sleek bodywork.
My favorite quote: “Are you suggesting that all scientific research into climate change since 1995 is redundant?”
Ba bam!
“… there are two sides to the climate question based on the data currently available.”
Indeed, there is an old saying that there are two sides to every story. Those, like the BBC, that only provide one side, are providing their listeners with a half-truth.
A waste of time and electronic ink…An assassin isn’t interested in the truth, merely in finding more material to quote “out of context”. While Dr. Willie Soon is basically compelled to reply (any honest scientist would) it’s not going to change one brain cell of the people involved in the character assassination plot.
Luckily, just about any decently educated person no longer believes a thing the BBC says anyway.
“Your questions are libelous in nature and, if aired on any BBC media format, will force me into legal action to protect my work and reputation. Please see my cited papers below for information regarding the issues surrounding the fraudulent claim that climate science is “settled”. Thank you for your time.”
There is the response Mr. Soon should have provided to this “journalist”.
Dr. Soon, I fear your thoughtful and educated responses are but “Pearls Before Swine…”
Y’all understand that Phoebe’s greatest claim to “Journalism” are articles on The Female Orgasm, Painful Sex, and the Highest Village in Scotland…
https://muckrack.com/phoebe-keane/articles
Forgive if posted earlier.
JTL
Only the best and brightest to deal with the most critical challenge facing our time right?
Three cheers for Dr. Soon. If they misrepresent anything you said I hope you will sue the pants off them.
An excellent response by Dr Soon. It may stop the activist BBC from maligning him but it won’t stop them propagandizing against the oil industry. The real story here – the one the y should be doing- was laid out by the Dallas Morrning News and others.
“The narrative of an organic movement of environmental defenders taking on Big Oil has been depicted by some as a David-versus-Goliath showdown. But as more and more facts emerge, it is becoming increasingly clear that Exxon has been unfairly maligned by a group of activists and lawyers driven by politics but bereft of facts.” (Aug. 3, 2018)
WOW, I just saw Joe Biden’s Climate change policy talk on TV, (all lies) a 2 trillion dollar program – Idiot !
It would do well for his people to read Willie Soon’s letter to the BBC for a start. Trump should read it !
Hope trump has some climate facts in his mind for the “debates”.
– JPP
Just saw the president’s reply to the Biden talk today.
Someone should tell President Trump not to use the word “Carbon”, that’s a democrat term for CO2.
As far as I know, carbon is not a greenhouse gas. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas.
From now on President Trump should never refer to the democrat term carbon as a greenhouse gas.
Someone should emphasize that to him, that CO2 is a gas and also that it is NOT pollution.
He should ask Biden at the debate “about what percentage of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide” !!!
He should also ask Biden if CO2 is pollution – that would get him!
Just sayin. . .
– JPP
Looks to me as though Phoebe Keane has quoted directly from the Wikipedia page of “Willie Soon”; {sic} . . .
. . . and if she thinks such pages are reasonable with respect to anything or anyone not fully into the CO2-Global Warming concept, she is a complete simpleton.
I suggest she start reading material from early 2008 from “denier” web sites. It is said that one can master a subject with 10,000 hours of trying.
18 years * 300 days/per *2 hours/per = 10,800 hours
Bless your little heart, Phoebe; get started.
Personally, I loved it when Willie corrected Phoebe over her use of ‘Willie’ (steady now!). I just so wanted him to come back and call her by name: ‘Dick’. (with the ‘ ‘)
D.R.W.
I really do hope that you have actually sent this to the B.B.C. If you haven’t, please do. It’s what I’ve been
wanting to say in a long while, but haven’t been able to put into words.
I might have included a summary of the remedies available for malicious libel under UK.
Everyone at the BBC knows that private money taints scientific inquiry, but government money does not.
Do NOT speak to the media. “No comment!” is a bad response as it implies you have something to hide. If you must say anything, a better (and safer) response is: “I don’t speak to the media.” It implies that you don’t trust them and calls their integrity into question.
The trick is to control the message
If pressed on specifics relative to you/your work, the safest response is: “I have addressed that issue on my blog/web page. You may quote that material.” Ensure your published comments come with a copyright statement that permits others to quote your material, as long as they include links to the source. If they can’t quote you out of context, it’s unlikely they’ll quote you at all. After all, they don’t want the public to know your side of the debate. The media depends on people trusting it. They need an opposing viewpoint to appear “fair and balanced”. But that opposition has to be under their control.
Mr Soon should have issued a short statement that, as Paul refers to above, contained his concern over media bias. In my opinion he has given the enemy way too much ammunition.
If they then want to quote him they will have to use his statement and they can’t wiggle out of it by saying he refused comment.
Play the b@stards at their own game.
David Roger Wells -What a warrior! Send your original comment(long but spellbinding!) to every British politician you can find.But especially send it to Dominic Cummings .He is gunning for the BBC.
DMC may well read this entire article, and the significant comments about the BBC’s chicanery by DRW. I think DMC may well have a “Spider” trawling the Web for ANY derogatory articles concerning the Balderdash Bureaucracy Channel. 🤔
Brilliant letter by Willie Soon, well done.
It seems to me that central to where they’re coming from is the idea that questioning, spreading doubt, undermining, questioning facts, experts is somehow very wrong and must be stopped and that this is also causing dangerous delays. I would suggest the opposite, that it is a most important or vital part of the process to avoid dangerous mistakes and make breakthroughs that could revolutionise our understanding and prevent future disasters.
For me the priority is getting to the truth, but also in situations like this speed is so important so I understand people’s fears of anything that appears to slow progress, but I wonder if the real delay and danger is caused by those seeking to prevent the proper process and silence others.
A request: After the BBC piece airs, could we get an article that compares Dr. Soon’s responses to what the BBC actually broadcasts?
This is scary. I live in the UK, but do not watch BBC TV and listen much less to BBC Radio than 5 years ago.
What the BBC ‘journalist’ (actually propagandist) is scary. How can the BBC pay for this sort of rubbish?
Until this, I used to say that if the BBC became a pard for service I would pay. Not any more. Defund the ideologues!
Willie,
You may be interested to know that Ofcom (i.e. the, BBC Ombudsman) is investigating a complaint I have made at the use and support of mental child abuse by the BBC in support of a campaign to promote the AGW-scare (BBC Complaints – Case number CAS-5942192-B7V5Z1, Ofcom ref. no. 889203 ).
My submission to Ofcom includes this,
“I have complained to the BBC about its support and promotion of mental child abuse being used in a campaign. The BBC has failed to address my complaint at the child abuse and has attempted to deflect consideration onto the BBC’s assertion that the child abuse is justified by the nature of the campaign. Although the campaign is egregious – and probably contravenes the BBC Charter – I am not complaining about the campaign: my complaint is at the child abuse.
I assert that
(i) child abuse cannot be justified by its being used to support any campaign
and, anyway,
(ii) the BBC’s excuses for the campaign are without merit.”
Please note that the BBC has replied to my complaint by repeatedly failing to mention the subject of my complaint but – instead – by proclaiming that its behaviour is justified by the its promotion of ‘”climate change'” alarmism.
Richard
Richard
(BBC Complaints – Case number CAS-5942192-B7V5Z1, Ofcom ref. no. 889203 ).
Can not find your case. The Ofcom website search engine is dire.
I wonder by what right or authority or mandate or law the BBC has to conduct political campaigns.
Philip,
If you email me (richardscourtney@aol.com) I will send you my submission to Ofcom. It includes this,
“I have complained to the BBC about its support and promotion of mental child abuse being used in a campaign. The BBC has failed to address my complaint at the child abuse and has attempted to deflect consideration onto the BBC’s assertion that the child abuse is justified by the nature of the campaign. Although the campaign is egregious – and probably contravenes the BBC Charter – I am not complaining about the campaign: my complaint is at the child abuse.
I assert that
(i) child abuse cannot be justified by its being used to support any campaign
and, anyway,
(ii) the BBC’s excuses for the campaign are without merit.”
Richard