Guest essay by Eric Worrall
I’ve just listened to the entire BBC radio series “How They Made Us Doubt Everything”, which compares climate skepticism to rejecting the link between tobacco and cancer.
Episodes 1-5, all I heard was details of how the tobacco industry sowed doubt about lung cancer – interesting but largely irrelevant to the climate debate.
Episode 6 starts with a few details of Ben Santer’s custody battle for his son, then segues straight into saying how his life is also tough because he is a climate scientist. The episode then dives into Myron Ebell’s battle against the Kyoto Protocol, claiming Ebell’s plan to oppose Kyoto was just like the “white coat” campaign against tobacco regulation.
It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on some of the reasons why Ben Santer has encountered a few frustrations in his career. Ben Santer became a Climategate star because of his email fantasy of perpetrating violent assault against Pat Michaels, but this is not all that Santer did. Ben Santer also seems to have spent a fair bit of time thinking up excuses to fend off requests for data referenced by his published papers, while writing angry emails to colleagues about the persecution he was enduring. “Can any competitor simply request such datasets via the US FOIA before we have completed full scientific analysis of those datasets?” (Climategate Email 1231257056.txt). Stephen McKintyre describes Santer refusing a polite request for data on the Climate Audit website.
Of course none of this was mentioned by the BBC.
Episode 7 contains a quote from science communicator Susan Hassol, who seems to think ordinary people don’t understand the word “uncertainty”.
Episode 8 talks about Jerry Taylor. Jerry used to be a climate skeptic, but changed his mind after talking to Joe Romm in the changing room after a live debate about James Hansen’s work. Jerry discussed what Joe Romm said with Pat Michaels, about Hansen producing more than one scenario, but was unsatisfied with Pat’s response; Jerry left with the impression he had been “duped” by climate skeptics.
I’m not sure why Jerry feels he was misled; according to our Willis, Hansen’s Scenario A underestimated CO2 emissions by 25%, but predicted double the observed global warming. The other Hansen scenarios were a better fit for the observed temperature trend, but drastically underestimated CO2 emissions. Hansen got it wrong.
Episode 8 also mentions the BBC advising their journalists “we do not need a denier to balance the debate“.
Episode 9 focuses on smearing Dr. Willie Soon. In my opinion the BBC attempted to make funding for Soon’s research look like Dr. Soon received a million dollar bribe from the fossil fuel industry. The part the BBC leaves out of this grossly misleading attack is the grant was paid over a period of ten years. Lord Monckton estimates Willie Soon received less than $60,000 / year after the Smithsonian took their cut – not exactly life changing money.
WUWT published Willie Soon’s excellent response to the BBC’s biased questions, which Soon received from BBC producer Phoebe Keane a few weeks ago.
Episode 10, “Leaving the Tribe”, discusses former Republican representative Bob Inglis being dumped by his district after he embraced climate alarmism, though looking at other sources it is unclear whether climate alarmism was the primary reason Inglis was dumped – Inglis did plenty of other things which likely upset his supporters.
Producer Phoebe Keane then complains in episode 10 that when Willie Soon responded to her biased questions, she also received angry emails from other people Dr. Soon copied into his response. Keane then wastes listeners time discussing her disdain for the people who wrote to her, but doesn’t actually present what Dr. Soon said in his response.
What can I say – this is not the BBC I grew up listening to and watching. In my opinion “how they made us doubt everything” is an innuendo heavy smear, rather than a genuine attempt to enlighten BBC listeners.
The BBC “How they made us doubt everything” series spent two episodes of their 10 episode series vilifying Dr. Willie Soon, then failed to present Dr. Soon’s response to their attacks.
Regardless of whether you think Dr. Soon is right or wrong, Dr. Willie Soon deserves better than this one sided gutter press assault on his reputation from the BBC. Even dictators and murderers are often given an opportunity to argue their case on the BBC. But this is a courtesy the BBC “How they made us doubt everything” series has so far failed to extend to a mild mannered law abiding climate scientist, who was unfortunate enough to be a prime target of their latest ugly smear campaign.
Update (EW): h/t Dr. Soon – Corrected the spelling of Susan Hassol’s name. Naomi Oreskes has expressed her support for the BBC series.
Dwindling number of people taking any notice of the BBC.
dwindling number of people believing anything scientists say. And it is the fault of scientists for not decrying ClimateGate malfeasance for fear their own field may get the spotlight.
Amen, you can count me as a dwindler.
This should have been about TV journalism: “How they Made Us Doubt Everything we see on telly.”
So true HotScot – indeed, its ‘journalism’ is now so openly biased that many can’t stand even having the radio on. One thing is for sure…if you are poor, white or – heaven forbid – MALE there is no interest in you from the BBC.
The programme is comically and aptly named ‘How they made us doubt everything’. The ‘THEY’ is the BBC. The propaganda, bias and distortions dished up daily by the BBC and their fellow travellers have made us doubt everything. They could have called this programme ‘An example of how we at the BBC produce fake news and destroy trust in the media!’
Glad I missed almost nothing but more smears. Thanks for the report, Eric.
Is that true? Or did you hear it on the BBC…….
Government owned-and-run media conforms to government-supported narrative. Surprised?
For all its faults and bias, the BBC is NOT government run
It is leftist run, far worse.
And leftists run the government.
It is government-owned, but theoretically independent management and editorial-wise. It is dependent upon the government for setting the fees that fund it. So how independent does that really make it? Considering that for the most part it remains compliant with the Progressive mode of the government, I’d say not very. Does anyone doubt that if the BBC became heavily critical of the agendas of the sitting government and Houses of Parliament that their funding would remain stable?
Is John the Econ a troll account ?
He completely misrepresents the reality
It is not government owned
The government gives some money to the BBC to run the World Service broadcasting to other countries.
Strangely the BBC WS is relentlessly lefty woke
even though the Conservative government elected in December has a massive majority
The BBC throughout has a groupthink that hates the Conservative government, hates Brexit
and devotes massive amounts of time to hating Trump.
All news is like the way that CNN treats Trump
The headline will run “Boris Defends”, and then they’ll put on a Labour Party voice.
The BBC charter was last year renewed for the next 8 years
The poll tax that you MUST pay unless you prove you never watch ANY live TV or UK internet TV broadcast, even if you never watch BBC
cannot be magically cancelled
that’s how come the BBC constantly gives the government the finger.
Why does not a conservative government repeal the poll tax and force the BBC to support itself? Does argument ever come before Parliment?
I will take notice that we have a conservative government in the U.S. when PBS/NPR are defunded. Don’t expect to see it before I’m 6 feet under.
You are making the fatal mistake of thinking that the Blue Labour Conservative government is actually conservative. It is not and the party has not been for decades which leaves conservative people in the UK with no party to vote for. Unfortunately, they have continued to vote for the Conservative Party, which only won the election because the Red Labour Party was even worse, which perpetuates this centre-left liberal party.
The BBC exists by government warrant – if it didn’t you wouldn’t have to pay a licence fee.
Not government run – but beholden to.
The biased corpse has only continued to survive thus far because it gave some pretence at political “neutrality” whilst daily insulting ordinary people. That came to an end when the politicians finally realised that in order to get into power, they had to support the policies that the people wanted (like Brexit) – and ones that the biased corpse loathed so completely it used to destroy any politician or party that dared to entertain these “popular” policies.
It is now de facto at war with those parties who dared go against its dictat and support the people (i.e. its viewers) which it had hitherto thought it had managed to brainwash into believing its vile political bullshit.
In other words, it is now at war, not just with its own viewers, but against its paymasters in the political classes, and I don’t think it takes a genius to work out what is going to happen to it.
A very good example of how the BBC goes about reporting politics was a recent Panorama programme. This had various ‘health experts’ commenting on (ie. criticising) the policies of the Conservative Government. Deliberately or otherwise, the BBC just forgot to mention that all of these ‘health experts’ had a record of being critical of the Conservative government and all had connections to the Labour Party or pro-Labour organisations.
Unlike the Canadian CBC and most of Canadian media now receiving dollops of “government” money AKA my money and thatof many other unwilling Canadians.
$1.3billion direct subsidy, some of it likely filtered thru the WE charity scam artists
You are correct, it is not government run. Nor, surprisingly is it leftist run, although one would be hard put to see the difference at the moment. The BBC has always and will always be the voice of the Establishment, that shadowy conglomeration of all the competing interests that have power and influence, the people that have always directed and controlled the political and governing classes. It used to be that these hidden powers would wax and wane in influence and so political direction would from time to time change as the changing powers sought what was best for them and their interests. That all changed post WW2. The British Establishment was subsumed into what has become an international Establishment, currently in the Western democracies the globalist elite, variously called the 1% or the 3% or the deep state. This Establishment has also subsumed what used to be independent powers in that club, the MSM media in general. That is who the political class, the MSM and the BBC, the intelligence services and the governing services now work for, not so much entities to be nudged, directed and guided from the shadows as previously, but more as tools used to bend the world in the direction they desire, that world is you, me and the man in the street by the way.
So it is leftist, glad you cleared that up.
This defines the Overton Window, where for any ideology, the goal post are shifted to the advantage of the elites. Also, it is written by Marx and Engels in their opinions.
Nio, its not government run. But it is financed through a regressive tax, and like all taxes, non-payment of the tax is a criminal offense.
The way it works is that to watch any live TV without paying the BBC tax is a criminal offense. Its as if to be allowed to shop at a supermarket you had to pay a tax to get a permit. And the results of this tax are then paid to one particular supermarket. So, for instance, you shop at Tesco without paying the tax. You are breaking the law, committing a criminal offense. Pay the tax, you can shop at any supermarket you want, and the proceeds will go to (eg) Waitrose.
Waitrose shoppers will then find that things are very good value there, despite its high overheads, wide aisles and, and lots of minority interest stock, and argue vehemently for keeping the system. Look, they will say, even baked beans are cheaper at Waitrose, you see what good value you get for paying the license fee?
Right. And what is the value the Tesco shoppers are getting?
In many ways its the worst of all possible worlds. The management is an uncontrolled self appointed oligarchy, and it does not have the usual constraints of businesses, the need to keep the customers onside, because the source of funding is guaranteed regardless.
So the management is incented to do what it currently does. Part of it is to run lots of lowest common denominator entertainment, to keep up the audience numbers. The other part is, with that as a justification for the continuing tax funding, to run its own activism program based on the personal ideologies of the management. Which recruits only like minded colleagues.
You could see this on plain view, if you were looking, during the recent series on Murdoch, which was pure propaganda. The radio climate series referred to in the piece, I have only heard a couple of episodes, but its basically channeling ‘Merchants of Doubt’. It too is straightforward activist propaganda.
There are two media groups in the UK who are only masquerading as news organizations, one the BBC, the other Guardian Media. Both think or at least claim that they are independent. Both are run by self appointed oligarchies whose priority is to get certain policies and views promoted. The BBC is tax funded, the Guardian by a foundation. But the results and the management style are just about the same, as are the objectives.
Amusingly enough both fulminate regularly about fake news and the Murdoch empire….!
The solution, in the case of the BBC, is to make the license fee voluntary. That is, fund it from voluntary subscriptions. A first step in that direction would be to decriminalize the license fee. That would clarify some minds.
How right wing global warming deniers support the BBC thesis by denouncing the BBC thesis
No surprises there, then.
They certainly made me doubt the BBC a long time ago.
I hope Dr Soon finds the time to demand a right of reply.
I hope he find time to sue them !
That is completely out rageous writting asking him for comment then refusing to air any of it and slander him instead.
Religion is about faith, science is about doubt. Nullius in Verba.
The biggest con of course is the greenhouse effect and that geothermal is negligible.
Geothermal is less than 0.0001% the power of solar. It’s negligible.
You will never learn. Will you?
Nonsense is still nonsense, no matter how many times you repeat it.
BTW, have you finished that paper yet. If even one tenth of what you claim is correct, you’ve got at least a dozen Nobels in your future.
In that “market”?With all the financial thimble-rigging around all “renewables”, starting with their very spread and ending in tangible effect on products present (or smelly effects, in case of methane “monster digesters”)?
Its place in a market that isn’t even allowed to work like a real market means nothing at all, beyond the obvious “those who regulate the market don’t want this” (because if they wanted, it could be “big” whether it makes much sense or not, just like those giant windmills and giant sludge-bomb digesters).
Which is what Zoe Phin claims (among the other things), after all.
Ah off-topic Zoe strikes again.
The only surprise would’ve been if this aggressive posturing wasn’t the central point of the series. The BBC have long-since abandoned any sense of climate balance. It’s obvious this hit-piece series of TEN (!) episodes was commissioned to smear Dr Soon in particular and climate sceptics in general.
The series’s title alone betrays their bias. Today’s journalism consists of writing the narrative first then getting quotes from people to fit that narrative. If you don’t give them the quotes they want, you’re ignored. Sloppy, lazy journalism. The only thing worse is just going to Twitter to find quotes you want. That way you don’t have to even talk to people.
CNN: Fake News. BBC: Fake News With An Accent. Dr. Willie Soon: The Real Deal. Next?
Oh, well, no CNN or BBC anymore there.
Only BBChi and ChiNN..
The title of the podcast could easily be interpreted as a phrase coined by a member of the general public, where “they” could legitimately be referring to BBC, ABC, CBC, CNN, MNSBC, etc etc.
Make no mistake, large sections of the established mainstream and social media platforms have dedicated themselves as rabid disciples of the CAGW religion, where heretics are to be cast unto the flames of hades.
(Well, I suppose it’s easier to just run climate ooga-booga stories every day than go out and find actual relevant topical news that requires proper investigation & research)
I miss the BBC, it was a reliable source of news for so very long and now it is just more leftist crapspew. How sad.
Which begs the question – why the leftist crapspew from the top of the pyramid of command? I just don’t get it. Are they just totally unable to climb down from their high horses. If Boris wasn’t such a media toadie, he could fix the problem overnight, as could I.
Leftist political ideology is a destructive mental disease, like syphilis, and contracted in much the same way.
No conspiracy theory needed, MSM world wide has been bought by the Marxists. It’s part of their plan towards domination. Look into the Marxist ideology and you’ll find media control is necessary to squelch the opposition and spread their vitriol.
Journalism in most universities is part of the arts faculty … aka leftist boot camp. So those that graduate are more likely to be lefties.
All of EUs and US schools were corrupted back in the 1880s when Engels and his armies invaded them. The rest of the world was next.
How much do the Brits pay for this “service” again?
A UK TV Licence costs £157.50 (£53 for black and white TV sets)
90% of which is spent on the BBC
It’s a criminal offence to watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer unless you have a valid TV licence. Without one you risk prosecution and can be issued a fine of up to £1,000, plus court costs.
Guess they will be coming for me! I listened to BBC for years without paying any Royal tax, then again my ancestors fought a fairly nasty war over Royal taxes. 😉
Nothing for the radio, we pay a licence fee for the box, I dont know anyone who pays the licence.
‘They’ made us doubt everything by lying to us.
Didn’t Ben Santer completely rewrite an IPCC report in a way that completely reversed what had been agreed by the working group?
The 1995 IPCC Report:
Broad Consensus or “Scientific Cleansing”?
If you look up “noble cause corruption” in the dictionary, I’m told you get a photo of Ben Santer.
The lunatics took over the BBC asylum long ago …
You can make a complaint here :
Don’t waste your time
They just palm you off
You have to stick at it for months and follow the whole process through to get results.
The best way is to publicly tweet the presenter/producer before or during the broadcast.
Apparently the only fishery in Great Britain with no take limit is red herring.
Does the BBC not realise that their title “How they made us doubt everything” applies as much to themselves, the BBC, as anyone else? How sad that they cannot even ask themselves that question, at a time when many are suggesting “defunding” the BBC altogether, and the government is seriously doubting the need to continue the “broadcasting tax” at the end of the current settlement.
That sort of self-knowledge would at least help one think that they are part of this difficult business of divining truth from so many conflicting propositions.
I write as a BBC pensioner, after 22 years as a TV and radio producer…
I remember your name from various credits!
Thanks for your support Ken. The BBC descending into performing one sided hatchet jobs risks undermining any remaining support. You don’t have to agree with Dr. Soon to feel concern about what the BBC did to him.
If you look up “noble cause corruption” in the dictionary, I’m told you get a photo of Ben Santer.
In your note about episode 8 and the BBC “not needing a denier to balance the debate”, this is now a regulation througout the BBC, they are now not allowed to let “climate deniers” say anything. As you say, almost anyone else can say what they like, within reason, but not “climate deniers” under any circumstance. I am in fact surprised that they invited Dr. Soon to give an opinion, they must have known that they would not have been allowed to broadcast his reply.
I haven’t listened to any of the programmes, my high blood pressure wouldn’t let me.
Dr. Soon shared her email requesting a reply to charges with all of us. It was obvious from the phrasing of her questions that she was adversarial and looking for Soon to provide something incendiary rather than asking for his rebuttal of charges. She had to contact him, journalistic rules require it, but she didn’t do it in good faith. I hope some day someone dies the same to her.
Is there no British law or regulation which forbids the BBC to behave this way? Is there no regulation or law being enforced that mandates a balanced and unbiased presentation of all issues the BBC discusses? If there indeed is, why is the BBC allowed to ignore it? If British taxpayer pounds are used to fund the BBC, it seems the BBC should be obligated to be neutral and disinterested third parties in any debate.
These questions might well apply in Australia and Canada as well ( with the ABC the CBC). Here in the U.S., most news outlets (save for PBS and NPR) are not funded by govt tax dollars, so no such obligation exists and the constitutional right to a free press protects them from govt mandates. U.S. outlets can be biased as hell… and they are.
As an American, this is something I’ve wondered about for a long time, and I would appreciate some enlightenment here.
The irony, is that probably a far higher percentage of climate sceptics now watch the biased corpse than the general public. That is: older middle class and educated, whereas, most people don’t care about the Biased Corpse, because they have already found their entertainment elsewhere.
So, ironically, the people most likely to support this relic of a bygone age: are the people that the biased corpse spends most time attacking. They don’t seem to be able to help themselves LOL! The less support they have, the more they attack the few people who still support them.
I don’t think they need any help to self-destruct.
I stopped watching BBC after the last episode of Eastenders.
I didn’t even watch the first one…
The BBC has very strict impartiality rules and an external regulator Ofcom
but they are both stuffed to the gills with Woke-supremacists
so the BBC chooses to breach that charter all the time
and gets away with it.
The BBC must have a mass of Kompromat on Boris and his government cos they never take action;
all they do is refuse to appear on shows.
And the same for commercial stations cos they also have Woke-supremacist groupthink.
Only a couple of shows on a digital only radio station Talk Radio are different.
Thank God for Fox News, NewsMax and One American News.
Hard core Texan, retired engineer & USN vet, Fort Worth.
Read how Olivia De Havilland went off script to expose the con of communists leading a Hollywood group to attack Truman and democracy in the WSJ today. It takes a few brave souls to expose the groups and their scripted extremism leaving the architects as the only members. Today’s scripted groups are like invasive weeds and serpents.
A better title regarding the BBC would be “how they made us believe everything”.
1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!
You should send that to the BBC.
A GREAT List to copy
I still trust the BBC to report cricket scores accurately. Not much else.
England won the cricket!!!! ….. hang on that can’t possibly be true can it?
compulsory lady commentators now.
As well as mass pushing of women’s cricket and women’s football.
The BBC compares climate skepticism to rejecting the link between tobacco and cancer
It reflects the kind of logical fallacies one finds
in Why are fire engines red?
Because they have eight wheels and four people on them,
and four plus eight makes twelve,
and there are twelve inches in a foot,
and one foot is a ruler,
and Queen Elizabeth was a ruler,
and Queen Elizabeth was also a ship,
and the ship sailed the seas,
and there were fish in the seas,
and fish have fins,
and the Finns fought the Russians,
and the Russians are red,
and fire trucks are always “Russian” around,
so that’s why fire trucks are red!
Works for me.
But I’m Irish 🙂
Could have used the analogy of rejecting the link between socialism and crimes against humanity.
Good One !!!!
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” – Richard P. Feynman
When I first approached the Climate Change issue, my first read was that the alarmist side of this were acting like the statisticians at the Tobacco Institute.
“How they made us doubt everything”
The beeb and Boot boy Benny Santer’s use of the word “everything” is illuminating.
In regard to scientific hypotheses we don’t actually doubt everything. Here’s some things were quite happy believing:
Even Heisenberg’s uncertainty
Evolution by natural selection
Tectonic continental movement
Nuclear fission and fusion
Respiration and photosynthesis
Photoelectric absorption and emission
When these sleazy hacks say “everything” what they mean is the minuscule subset of “scientific” hypotheses that are loaded with political motivation and interest. Such as CAGW, transgenic crops are evil, nuclear is evil, cows are evil etc..
The only “science” that registers the slightest brain activity response in these people is politicised dystopian pseudoscience that has a left wing ulterior motive. By contrast scientific topics listed above would elicit no reaction or interest whatsoever.
All that is made abundantly clear in the phrase “they made us doubt everything”. It means “we’re curious about nothing”.
Yeah, but what about the Sturdlefish???
What about the Babelfish?
One of those in yer ear makes you hear the converse of everything they propagandise.
Don’t use two Babelfishes – you’ll end up just as mad as they are.
I am happy to go along with all on your list except Heisenberg’s uncertainty, I am not sure about that….
Incidentally, I wonder who the “us” is, in the program title? If it was referring to the BBC then we as realists would have achieved a result. Sadly as the BBC refuses to even allow an alternative climate change view to the one they own and cherish, I guess the “us” did not include the BBC itself did it?
The long march through the controlling institutions, identified as necessary by Gramsci to enable societal change, is happening on the grandest of scales. The project advanced by the Frankfurt School was always going to be a multi generational endeavour, and so it has been.
Just three generation on and the ministry of truth is out there, let no one challenge its rights because it is always right, the BBC has spoken.
Fortunately only about 20 people will have heard this.
The series was selected for prominent trailering
Twitter shows that many Radio4 shows often have a very low audience now
What I would like to see is a BBC series on the “inside baseball” of the BBC.
You transparency and all that.
climate science by character assassination
” Hansen got it wrong”. Ha ha ha.
The now expunged from the internet theory of oceans boiling from CO2 back-radiation is probably the most wrong calculation in the history of science. Even cosmology isn’t big enough to come up with a more wrong calculation.
The BBC is now
The Propaganda Bureau
More like the adjustment bureau
P@edophile Propaganda Communists is the term I usually use.
It’s suitably offensive. Only just…
Twilight faith, Pro-Choice religion, liberal ideology, diversity dogma, political congruence, social justice, social exemption, and conflation of logical domains.
Ben Santer is also the guy who corrupted the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report to say there was a “discernible human influence on global climate.” It was a knowing lie.
There was no discernible influence then; there is no discernible influence now.
From the article: “Jerry left with the impression he had been “duped” by climate skeptics.”
Is that possible?
The comparison of Skeptics/Climate Realists with the tobacco industry is an old, pathetic, hackneyed attempt to smear. It is laughable that they still do this, but I guess they really don’t have much else. Their attack on Soon is, of course outrageous, and based on Lies. But this is what they do. Same old, same old.
The comparison with the tobacco industry is intentional because of the tobacco industry settlement. Governments are eager to tax energy use as a vice. Necessities are taxed at 5-10% of retail prices whereas vices are taxed at 4-5 times that rate. Why else would governments be so enamored with pot legalization? They expect to get a quarter to a third of the revenue from retail sales.
You could definitely mount the argument climate true believers are closer to Pravda or McCarthyism, it’s all smear and innuendo.
How many watermelons are shills for Monsanto, Big Pharma, etc? Even some of the dissenting Greens are (Patrick Moore was shilling for Monsanto). Mainstream ones, probably slightly less than completely — they are in goosestep with the General Line of Party, just specialize in one paragraph thereof.
How they made us doubt everything
The sting in the tail is it’s ‘progressives’ and their allies: environmental activists who make us doubt everything by telling us it’s all toxic. For the modern progressive, literally everything is toxic: the air, plant food (CO2), society, the family, interpersonal relations, white people, black people who disagree with them, …
BBC have become Neo-Marxism Broadcasting Services?
A disgraceful but hardly new example of the cancel culture. It is why public regard for the media has sunk below that for used auto salesman.
“Dr. Willie Soon deserves better than this one sided gutter press assault on his reputation”
Unfortunately, excluding rebuttal (and, hence, discussion) has become par for the course – in major part because public officials have stood by in silence or, in the case of Boris, in tacit approval.
There’s no reason to expect things to change so long as public money continues to flow to one side.
I wonder if it could be that putting the two viewpoints together causes doubt in alarmism?
Even after decades of controlling the message?
“The BBC “How they made us doubt everything” series spent two episodes of their 10 episode series vilifying Dr. Willie Soon, then failed to present Dr. Soon’s response to their attacks.”
Exactly as I predicted on WUWT July 13.
“It won’t change one thing about this broadcast.
This is by the same producer Phoebe Keane on The Why Factor? Why is climate change so politicised?
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/why-is-climate-change-so-politicised/id561904920?i=1000436061869 made in 2020.
Keane’s new BFF is none other than Naomi Oreskes aided by a stream of political and psychological BS from Daniel Sarewitz and Sander van der Linden. Democrats came out as heroes and Republicans came out as ditherers on climate change.
This podcast was totally one sided and that’s what will happen to the Willie Soon podcast.”
When will people learn that the BBC is not their friend and never will be?
Taylor was never a sceptic. He just believed there was plenty of time. Nothing he has done seems to suggest that this guy can’t actually be a real sceptic rather than a cynic.
I’m sure a few people in the Biased Corpse can see it is now in a vicious cycle of self-destruction that will inevitably lead to its demise, but I’m sure most of them are completely deluded and I don’t give a damn what happens to them.
I was going to ask, Who is “us”?
Then I was going to comment that the BBC is just Fake News 24/7.
Then I remembered a pretty good quote that we can apply to the BBC:
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
The BBC is opening its mouth daily and removing all doubt that everything they say is a lie or, to be generous, misleading.
Rep Bob Inglis was dumped by his district in his primary election in favor of Trey Gowdy. Those who know how Rep Gowdy rose to fame afterward for his prosecutor-style questioning in U.S. House hearings readily see why Rep Inglis was dumped. Contrast that with how Rep Inglis, in his last House hearing, attempted to illustrate what was happening in the world’s oceans by dropping an egg into a jar of vinegar.
I sent the BBC another formal complaint about ‘Phoebe’s scurrilous, insulting, ignorant, biased ad hominem series of questions to ‘Willie’ Soon. (her rather rude and ignorant quote marks). No reply yet. Soon’s response is irrefutable and masterly. But I don’t suppose self-important, ignorant ‘Phoebe’ ever read it nor got up the references. Shoddy.
unless you follow through it means nothing
See my post up the thread.
Always tick the box asking for a reply and you will get one in the end. It will be word processor boilerplate saying scientific consensus da da da. Then complain about that too.
“compares climate skepticism to rejecting the link between tobacco and cancer”
The appeal to tobacco is standard procedure.
The BBC is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the British ruling elite. It has been so since its creation and i don’t believe any person with an ounce of critical thinking ability would ever believe a single word they say.
Luckily they become more and more irrelevant as time goes on, as their viewing figures illustrate. I expectitis time for the powers that be to pull the plug on this expensive shambles and invest more in social media propaganda outlets.
This is the tweet from the shows producer
#1 See who she thanks
#2 See the tweets traffic in a country of 66 million people
25 likes and zero replies
Climate change is just one aspect of the BBC’s embrace of all things lefty. They have also gone all pro-activist on the BLM/Antifa riots (“peaceful demonstrations disrupted by violence from the far-right”), also anti-Brexit and pro- gender identity politics.
We are now seeing “defund the BBC” calls from people who don’t pay much attention to climate change. The “defund” idea being that the Beeb should pay its own way like the private-sector broadcasters do, by advertising, or by making the annual fee voluntary.
Commercial-free radio and TV were great for a while but by going full-on activist on multiple fronts, they are managing to antagonise larger and larger segments of the population.
If we could rid the world of the BBC and the Guardian, it would be a step in the right direction.
I think the smoking/cancer issue had two parts. One was cancer. The other was whether cigarettes were addictive.
The problem with both is that not everyone that smoked got cancer, nor became addicted.
Family members chided Mother by accusing her of quitting smoking 7 times. She did get and die of lung cancer. Might have been smoke, or x-rays. Father announced in his early 40s that he was quitting. And so he did. He died at age 86 of unrelated issues.
The leaders of the cigarette industry were hard nosed about these things – perhaps a sense of fiduciary duty? Don’t know. Mystery to me.
The relationship of CO2 and a warming atmosphere is of a totally different sort. Producer Phoebe Keane, and friends, are AGW religious zealots. Their morals are corrupted.
IIRC, smoking did increase the risk factor for lung cancer, yet there is >50% chance you will get it.
Living beside a trunk road did the same, as did driving a Diesel truck for a living.
Of course, if you smoked, lived by an A-road and drove a wagon, you’d be loading your risk factors considerably.
I understand that applied to many respiratory problems, not just lung cancer.
Hence the recent pressure for ‘clean Diseasels’.
So in the Tobacco industry’s defence, they did have a fiduciary duty to kick back.
What seems odd is where is the fiduciary duty with other industries and AGW..?
Ever watch the BBC produced documentary about battlefield hazards that claimed that bullets gain inertia over time because they accelerate away from guns?
That’s when the BBC went to abject shit and became retarded entertainment telebabble.
I simply cannot believe it’s the same entity that created *The Power of Nightmares*
Are you sure? Maybe they just gone one step further and got somewhat more crude.
Did they have no mentions ever about how the Dreaded Ozone Hole will devour us all?
The part which upset me most was they way the BBC admitted they received a reply from Dr. Soon, but just tossed it away without providing any details of his response. The old BBC might have been a bit biased, but they usually made at least some attempt to ask someone from the other side to present their views, especially when their program attacked a specific person.
Betz limits eliminates 1/2 the wind values because if Eunstines 1905 noble for infinate values relative to the natural winds and tides values and oil discoverd in Texas and Okclahoma.around 1919 no facts just scientist opinions and bribery of oil finaced elections of us presidents .now include nuclear hells of ways to boil water that bogus betz owes 1/2 the winds and tides values to mankind since Einestines relativity
There is no doubt the science is settled. It’s just that the methane and the microbes makes the predictable climate change more unpredictable-
You aint getting out of the dooming that easy deplorables.
‘Regardless of whether you think Dr. Soon is right or wrong, Dr. Willie Soon deserves better than this one sided gutter press assault on his reputation from the BBC. ‘
Well hang on: they told him in advance of the programme and invited him to respond – I know that because Watts published their letter and his response… that’s clearly an attempt to let him put his side of the argument.
And whether he took the money over ten years or in one lump, he took the money…
BBC “journalist”: “You’re an idiot, Griff, please respond”
Griff: “No, I’m not”
BBC “journalist”: “Griff was given the opportunity to respond”
Get it, Griff?
Does the Watts site (and do we commenters) ask people to respond before we call them idiots?
I think it would at least be polite.
so you don’t get it
griff, they invited Soon to respond, received his response, then b*tched about his response instead of actually publishing what he said. IMO that is not most people’s idea of giving someone a right to respond.
The BBC has abandoned journalism and descended deep into climate change activism.
The Guardian, too.
The whole of the media in the West now appears to be driven by a climate agenda.
Don’t get too worried, the Climate Alarm instrument of change has given over to the Virus threat instrument of change. The Institutions national and international are finding it so much easier to convince people to be afraid of what they tell them and hence much easier to control when deploying the virus scare.
Expect Virus scares to become the new preferred tool of world control. Its initial roll out has shown it has great potential. Face masks don’t lie, look all around you! Woe betide anyone, caught carrying or supplying that illegal substance Hydroxychloroquine, without a medical prescription/authorisation….
The BBC is now just another communist mouthpiece. They learned much of their business model from Pravda. A once great company has been ruined by the left. They need to wake up. The left destroys everything it touches. Add BBC to the list.
As a former reader of Pravda I would say that their business model is quite unlike the BBC’s – they simply had an editor who was close to the President of the time, and were the official channel through which announcements were made by the Party leadership. These days the BBC is excluded from Boris’ Twitter and Facebook announcements. Moscow Times – perhaps – or even Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, the one with all the tractor statistics. I don’t think the Russians really ever mastered propaganda: they simply relied on fear, making propaganda redundant. Even the huge advertising hoardings plastered with slogans like да здравствует КПСС! (long live the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) were simply a reminder of who was in charge. As the Russian joke has it в «Правде» нет известия, в «Известиях» нет правды – there is no news in Pravda and no truth in Izvestia (the Russian makes clear the play on words).
Griff-“-and invited him to respond. ” But did not use any of his excellent responses!
“-he took the money”.He was paid a salary by his employer – let’s say ,as a reasonable estimate ,Lord Monckton’s $60,000 a year over 10 years-by no means a fortune for a scientist with a degree and Phd.
Do you think this is unreasonable? Maybe as a critic of Climate Alarmism he should grovel on welfare benefit or preferably just shut up?Most of the BBC employees above their lowest grades earn as much- many more are paid fabulous pensionable salaries.And Willie Soon has more brains in his left toenail than most of their “Climate experts ” have when added together. Have you ever listened to any of his lectures?
Julia Hartley-Brewer needs to interview Phoebe Keane
Eric- how did you hear all ten episodes?I thought they were to be broadcast weekly but with two episodes this week? And- do you consider Willie to have been libelled\slandered by the BBC? (Any legal eagles out there?)
Just wondering about a crowdfunding effort to help Wille sue the ratbags.
All available on the website, or it was when I tried it – https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q0
I don’t know whether what they did was actionable, but IMO it was pretty ugly.
Thanks you Eric.
The BBC was once a great program maker and broadcaster and the nation was proud of the Corporation.
Today, it has legions of bureaucratic management, it is left wing from top to bottom and its audience is fast disappearing. It is obsessed with everything woke, spends millions on ethnic diversity, hates Boris, hates Trump, hates Brexit and makes no attempt to hide these prejudices even though its broadcast charter requires impartiality. It is 100% biased on climate change and will publish anything fed to it by its alarmist friends. Scientists who question global warming are not welcome. Greta and ER are given a platform.
The compulsory licence fee and criminal record for those who are caught not paying it are unsustainable. A different funding scheme will soon be needed. Complacent BBC management thinks that the BBC is loved and respected by all. It is ironic that this was once true but they, themselves, have unwittingly, systematically destroyed every decent aspect of the Corporation leaving not just disappointed viewers but angry ones who want to see the whole thing torn down.
It’s the same deal with Aunty in Oz and that old furphy about the millions/billions in subsidies that fossil fuels get-
According to lefty pea brains any normal biz deductions from gross revenue is a subsidy where fossil fuels are concerned but note the bit at the top as Aunty gives you the RMIT ABC FACT CHECK with something they don’t want to hear.
Now RMIT is an Institute of Technology set up in 1887 with the goal of furthering the Industrial Revolution but it wouldn’t be too hard to find the correct flavour of fact checker within it nowadays although there’s a quick segue with the usual international suspects to give the puff piece gravitas with name dropping and appeal to authority-
When do you ever see Aunty ‘fact checking’ their lefty pals and taxeaters like that nowadays? Fact check or query a climate changer? In taxpayer dreams.
Like.roundup ads bury purpose to get compensation and betz limits phyics law eliminating 1/2 the winds value un hun sure help oil and nuclear interests sheep to slaughter, to protect portfolios now thorium reactors instead of clean ups of ongoing triple meltdowns and chernoble ignoring Einstines infinate relativity of winds and tides values because bad for stock markets hell with planet .
The BBC compares climate skepticism to rejecting the link between tobacco and cancer.
this is not bad actually. the statistical link is very weak and Lord Fisher never believed we have evidence to conclude tobacco causes cancer. this is a biased recount:
that war was fought and won in the political arena, same like the climate war. Again, there was a big prize, shake down the tobacco companies and it was fought by litigation and propaganda. The target now is the fuel companies money, but the weapons are the same.
So let me see if I’ve got this straight. The BBC doubts everything, but yet somehow is still 100% certain.
Hmmm, I’m now not sure they are in command of the English language.
BBC has a porn acronym that is more fitting
Hadn’t looked into this until this late evening, 7/29. Episode 6 is titled “Reposition Global Warming as theory, not fact’” and refers to the supposedly leaked strategy memo which is also supposedly attributed to the “Information Council on the Environment” (ICE), all of which is spoken about starting at the 10 minute part of the broadcast. The narrator says at the 12:57 point that this document is the one of the most revealing things he’s seen while making the series. There’s a monster problem with that which he is unaware of: that “reposition global warming” strategy memo and the targeting memo concerning “older, less-educated men” and “young, low-income women” were all part of a rejected proposal to the ICE campaign and were NEVER implemented by the officials of that public relations campaign and were never even seen by the top official overseeing it. At My GelbspanFiles blog, I detailed all the fatal problems of using those worthless documents to indict skeptic climate scientists of colluding with corporate people – see: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=7477
The Jerry Taylor conversion was a fake: