BBC Climategate: aka "impartiality my arrse"

#1
Ohh dear. Never mind trifling matters like kiddy fiddlers and corporate stupidity, here we have a real stinker.

In Jan 2006 the BBC held a meeting of “the best scientific experts” to decide BBC policy on climate change reporting, i.e. to freeze out the AGW deniers and sing only from the Green Gravytrain Songsheet, expressed thus:

“The BBC held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”

Silencing dissenting views. How very impartial.

After FOI requests, the BBC has been in court with many a lawyer spending our money to try and block said FOI request to get the list of the 28 attendees at this great meeting of impartial scientific minds.

Why? If functionaries of the BBC have made a policy decision to ramp up one point of view and rubbish another, the basis on which that was decided should be in the public domain. Unless of course it was all yet another crock of BBC shit to be covered up at all costs.

But sadly for them, nothing really ever goes away on t'internet.

Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Woe, woe and thrice woe, the reason for this legal effort and cost turns out to look like another case of something stinking at the BBC: only 3 of the 28 were actually scientists and, yes indeed, AGW fundamentalists. All of the others were AGW activists or journalists.

The BBC sent their finest including Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden & George Enwistle.

Any of those names sound familar? Should do: all four have resigned over the paedophilia accusations aim at Lord McA. as a result of what comes down to piss poor journalism.

As expressed on the Bishop Hill Blog:

"We now know that the BBC decided to abandon balance in its coverage of climate on the advice of a small coterie of green activists, including the campaign director of Greenpeace. This shows that the "shoddy journalism" of Newsnight's recent smear was no "lapse" of standards at all. BBC news programs have for years been poorly checked recitations of the work of activists."

Whole sad tale here

Revealed: who decides the BBC

It does not matter if you think AGW is "settled science" or the greatest scam in the history of mankind. It is the continual political bias and institutional distortions from the BBC that are the issue.
 
#4
There is no doubt about the existence of global warming - I assume you want creationism taught in science classes as an alternative to the 'theory' of evolution.

The only rational debate is as to why it is happening.
 
#6
Plenty more about this on The Register which has been tracking the story since the court case started.

You're right though the whole thing stinks. For an organisation that is funded by us and committed to transparency it needs to get a grip.....
 
#7
Anthropogenic global warming.

Personally I don't like using silly words and would rather call it man-made global warming (MMGW). Even better get the full implied meaning with catastrophic man-made global warming (CMMGW).

However, AGW has become a widely used acronym.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
especially when in the 80's they produced plenty of horizon programs about the coming ice age, something thatcher came around to after she rejected global warming science - sometimes its handy having a proper scientist as PM.

the latest stuff out of sweden is interesting as they reckon that our co2 production is all that's holding a mini ice age at bay. one side is arguing that peat is going to give up millions of tons of methane and the other that peat bogs are expanding and will swallow up too much co2.
 
#9
AGW is Anthrophomorphic (sp?) Global Warming meaning 'man made' as compared to natural (volcanoes popping off etc). We all knew the slant was there from the Beeb but nice to have it confirmed.

Accounts for the 59,000 copies (so I was told) of the Grauniad that the BBC gets in all its offices daily.
 
#10
Take it all back. It was 59,000 over a 10 month period. Knew that even those sweaty palmed lefties couldn't get through that many copies of the Guardian.
 
#11
There is no doubt about the existence of global warming - I assume you want creationism taught in science classes as an alternative to the 'theory' of evolution.

Global temperatures may be rising but is it wholly down to CO2 as the "Green" activists, Governments raising Carbon Taxes and the CO2 trading industry have claimed so loudly for so long or are some other as yet unknown effects at work? (Like, say, solar variations, which just might have something to do with it since that bright thing in the sky drives the whole bloody planetary ecosystem but are discounted?)

Also the biggest problem facing the AGW camp (and a lot of people are starting to get shit scared about) is that although the long term trend may be up, very likely that the planet is about to dip into a 20 year cooling cycle. Which is going to be a tad difficult

It does not really matter though. The point here is that a state broadcaster has conspired with activists to have a legitimate debate supressed.
 
#12
There is no doubt about the existence of global warming - I assume you want creationism taught in science classes as an alternative to the 'theory' of evolution.

The only rational debate is as to why it is happening.

Indeed. The globe is thankfully warmed continually by the sun. Otherwise we would soon be frozen solid.

There has been no warming in the last 16 years. Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have climbed by about 0.8ºC. Whooopie do. There are many thousands of times over recorded history and geological history when the temperature of the world has risen as fast or faster. The Romans were quite happy growing grapes in vineyards in Yorkshire, large parts of the Sahara desert were covered by crops and trees.

A short time later the Thames was freezing over in winter.

The climate of the earth changes. Continually. Always has, and always will. The people who scream "we are all going to fry because we are murdering the planet" are a bunch of cnuts, manipulated by people who wish to use this panic as an excuse to introduce control of people lives. Communism is dead. Long live environmentalism.
 
#13
Plenty more about this on The Register which has been tracking the story since the court case started.

You're right though the whole thing stinks. For an organisation that is funded by us and committed to transparency it needs to get a grip.....
Agreed, this is all about how the BBC rigged the debate and then tried to cover it up.

For an organisation with statuary requirements of balance and openness this is unacceptable. All the people involved should be sacked immediately.

The truth or otherwise of man-made climate change is irrelevant to this issue.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
they haven't looked at cosmic rays which are just as warming as sunshine. and we can save as much co2 as we want but one volcano and it all goes to pot, yet a volcanic eruption throws enough shit up there to help cool us down again. it has also been proven that the oceans take around 2000 years to change so the warming/expansion would have been set off thousands of years ago, probably an angry allmighty after we nailed his boy to a couple of trees.

the planet was warmer up until around 300 years ago when we had a mini ice age but they dont like to include the medieval warming period or the mini ice age because it messes with their figures and they deliberately exclude it because they cant explain that weather happens, get over it :)
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
There is no doubt about the existence of global warming - I assume you want creationism taught in science classes as an alternative to the 'theory' of evolution.

The only rational debate is as to why it is happening.
Comparing evolution/creationism with AGW/scepticism is an old trick - but it's neither logical nor correct.

Try looking at the evidence. Climate is changing, it always changes, but warming? And warming due to man's influence? Nonsense.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
james lovelock is brilliant on this seeing as how he modelled it decades before it became popular.

he says if you want to cool the planet then you dont need nice expensive mirrors in space you just put sulphur back in jet fuel and let the aviation industry do it for free.

or just let the white flowers take over for a while
 
#17
Is it not simply the case that whilst the earth rotates and orbits, it also tilts back and forth on its axis for a period (an age, perhaps) of time and that when it is at a topmost tilt, with the arctic getting more of the sun, the ice there will melt? Of course, this would mean that at the opposite pole, an equal and opposite reaction should occur - tha Antarctic, being hidden evermore from the sun, should become colder and perhaps increase the amount of ice there.

What about climate change? Climate change is a constant anyway, surely. The climate changes through seasons through the orbit of the earth, and the degrees of climate change in any given location should cycle back and forth also due to the earths back and forth tilt.

Global warming? It can hardly be said to be global - assuming the earth maintains its regular orbit, rotation and tilt, a warming in one part of the globe should see a corresponding cooling in its direct opposite part.
 

ACAB

On ROPS
On ROPs
#18
AGW is merely a scam to redistribute wealth. Once the Wall came down and Communism hit the gutter a new 'Religion' was required for all the Lefty Retards. AGW is it.
 
#19
Or, if there is an all round general trend towards a warmer climate, could the earths orbit generally be pulled inwards towards the sun more? I know the earth orbits in a more elliptical fashion anyway, like a Spirograph, like the sun is sort of playing hula hoop. Is it possible that the orbit of earth could trend evermore, but imperceptibly at present, sunward? And then subsequently more and more away from the sun, producing the opposite effect of global warming - ice age?

actually, that sounds ridiculous
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
follow the money - agw was invented by the UN ipcc which doctored the reports. the guy who did the doctoring now hides in beijing having been sacked from the UN. he is now trying to get the carbon trading schemes going.

[video=youtube;y0Kq3_NTygY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0Kq3_NTygY[/video]

okay its uncle jesse but I'd heard and read the gubbins years before I watched the clip.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top