BBC Climategate: aka "impartiality my arrse"

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Blogg, Nov 13, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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.
     
  2. 123

    123 LE

  3. 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.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  4. Man-made Global Warming (I forget what the actual word is for 'A' but it means man-made).
     
  5. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    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.....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. 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.
     
  7. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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.
     

  10. 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.
     

  11. 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 *****, manipulated by people who wish to use this panic as an excuse to introduce control of people lives. Communism is dead. Long live environmentalism.
     
    • Like Like x 15
  12. 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.
     
  13. Grumblegrunt

    Grumblegrunt LE Book Reviewer

    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 :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 6