Search Results for: climate change

Climate Change Change

By | |
74 Comments

 

A few notes on climate change…..

Firstly there’s a 163 page complaint gone in to the BBC about its coverage of climate change…I imagine the reply will be somewhat briefer.

Major New Complaint Submitted To BBC Over Climate Bias

A major new and serious complaint has been sent to the Director General of the BBC, regarding the Corporation’s persistent bias in reporting of climate change issues. The complaint is a massive 163 pages long, and is a joint submission from ten complainants. In addition, there are several technical annexes, totalling 125 pages.

We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.

We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.

Good luck with that.

Second, it is interesting that Roger Harrabin doesn’t seem to have used the ‘97% of all scientists‘ stick to support his climate change campaigning and beat the Sceptics with…I’ve tried to find something from him but no luck.   Now that is very telling if confirmed…Harrabin is a hardcore propagandist for the climate lobby and yet he seems to have taken a look at this ‘killer’ statistic and decided not to use it.  Is that because he recognises the stat is bogus and essentially a lie?   His non-use of the stat would seem to indicate that it is entirely worthless, and so obviously worthless that Harrabin knows he would get called out on it and he wouldn’t be able to justify its use…exposing him as a propagandist.

Third thing of note relates to that 97% claim.  The BBC has frequently reported on fraud and corruption in science, both from the scientists and those who report on it in the scientific journals….but not once have I heard the subject of climate change come under scrutiny in a similar manner….will that change? …from WUWT:

Climate science might become the most important casualty of the replication crisis

After a decade of slow growth beneath public view, the replication crisis in science begins breaking into public view. First psychology and biomedical studies, now spreading to many other fields — overturning what we were told is settled science, the foundations of our personal behavior and public policy. Here is an introduction to the conflict (there is pushback), with the usual links to detailed information at the end, and some tentative conclusions about effects on public’s trust of science. It’s early days yet, with the real action yet to begin.

This crisis emerged a decade ago as problems in a few fields — especially health care and psychology. Slowly similar problems emerged in other fields, usually failures to replicate widely accepted research.

“Men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, and that they worship even error when it affords them a subsistence.”
— Goethe, from Conversations of Goethe with Eckermann and Soretclip_image001.

With what we know about the likes of the CRU after their emails were hacked, what we know about the 97% claim, what we know about the ‘hockey stick’ manipulations, what we know about the conspiracy to hide the medieval warm period, and the ‘decline’, it is fairly obvious that the ‘science’ of climate change may in fact be more about big, big money, politics, ego and corruption.  With so many reputations, careers and lucrative research grants on the line there has long been a hard fought battle to silence the critics and those who question the status quo, the so-called ‘consensus’.  You just had to see the BBC’s science journos’ united front that marched out to defend the CRU and climate scientist Phil Jones when the emails surfaced to understand the problem…some people were more interested in covering up for the sicentists than in exposing wrongdoing or bad science.

Maybe that will change as WUWT suggests and more and more of that bad science and bad faith is exposed.  Again good luck with that.   Climate change is a massive industry worth billions which has sucked in not just the scientists but the politicians and journalists as well as the cultural cheerleaders such as artists, actors, singers and writers who so usefully give a ‘human face’ to the science that they so little understand.  They have so much tied up in climate change actually happening and being man-made that any criticism or undermining of that belief will only succeed if there is an equally massive turn of events that stops people in their tracks, radically alters their perceptions and dramatically proves the science wrong or maybe wrong.  Again, good luck with that….glaciers advancing down Salford high street would be presented as conclusive proof of global warming I’m sure…..and as I said they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their privileges and the cash flow….as noted by Matt Ridley in the Times recently …and spot the hand of the Rasputin-like Richard Black in this (You can’t keep a good man down)…..via ‘Not a lot of people know that’…

Climate change lobby wants to kill free speech

The editor of this newspaper received a private letter last week from Lord Krebs and 12 other members of the House of Lords expressing unhappiness with two articles by its environment correspondent. Conceding that The Times’s reporting of the Paris climate conference had been balanced and comprehensive, it denounced the two articles about studies by mainstream academics in the scientific literature, which provided less than alarming assessments of climate change. 
Strangely, the letter was simultaneously leaked to The Guardian. The episode gives a rare glimpse into the world of “climate change communications”, a branch of heavily funded spin-doctoring that is keen to shut down debate about the science of climate change.

 The letter was not entirely the work of the peers but, I understand, involved Richard Black, once a BBC environment correspondent and now director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, an organisation that spends more than £500,000 a year, largely trying to influence the media.

 

Of course there is one redoubt in the BBC where journalism is given a fair go…Andrew Neil holds the fort…and here explains, & his colleagues should read it, what good journalism is all about…

Andrew Neil on Ed Davey climate change interview critics

The Sunday Politics interview with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on July 14 provoked widespread reaction in the twittersphere and elsewhere, which was only to be expected given the interview was about the latest developments in global warming and the implications for government policy.

The Sunday Politics remit and interview duration means we are able to carry out proper forensic interviews on such matters.

It is becoming a hallmark of our programme, whether it’s challenging the global warming assumptions of the climate change secretary, the NUT’s historic resistance to school reforms by Tory and Labour governments, or the activities of the leader of the English Defence League.

Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview.

We did come at Mr Davey with a particular set of evidence, which was well-sourced from mainstream climate science. But it was nothing to do with advocating a “position”.

First, the Sunday Politics does not have a position on any of the subjects on which it interrogates people.

Second, it is the job of the interviewer to assemble evidence from authoritative sources which best challenge the position of the interviewee.

There is hardly any purpose in presenting evidence which supports the interviewee’s position – that is his or her job.

It is for viewers to decide how well the interviewee’s position holds up under scrutiny and the strength of the contrary evidence or points put to him or her.

Taking an opposite or challenging position from the person being interviewed is pretty much standard practice in long-form broadcast interviews.

But the contrary position has to be based on reputable evidence.

 

 

French weatherman taken off air after questioning climate change

By | |
8 Comments

 

Believe!

 

The Guardian reports……

A French TV weatherman has been taken off air after writing a book in which he questions climate change. Philippe Verdier, a familiar face on the state-run France 2 channel, said he had been told not to return to work for the foreseeable future.

“I received a letter asking me not to come,” Verdier told RTL radio this week. “I don’t know any more than that, I don’t know how long it will last. It’s all to do with my book.”

Verdier had taken time off to undertake a publicity tour for his book – entitled Climat Investigation – but had been expecting to return to work.

“It’s France Télévisions’ decision, I’m not on holiday,” he said.

In the book, Verdier throws doubt on the findings of leading climate scientists and political leaders, saying they have “taken the world hostage”. It is timed to coincide with France’s hosting of a major UN climate summit in December.

We are told that….

France Télévision’s said its rules “prevent anyone using their professional status … to push forward their personal opinions”.

That never stopped Roger Harrabin.  Then again as an english graduate I suppose he might not be classed as a ‘professional’ when it comes to climate change science.

And it is curious that the BBC, as far as I can tell, made no mention of this very significant story…from Christopher Booker in the Telegraph….

Judges plan to outlaw climate change ‘denial’

We might think that a semi-secret, international conference of top judges, held in the highest courtroom in Britain, to propose that it should be made illegal for anyone to question the scientific evidence for man-made global warming, was odd enough to be worthy of front-page coverage….But only a series of startling posts by a sharp-eyed Canadian blogger, Donna Laframboise (on Nofrakkingconsensus), have alerted us to what a bizarre event this judicial gathering turned out to be (the organisers even refused to give her the names of those who attended). 

The fact that it could be seriously proposed in the highest courtroom in the land that the law should now be used to suppress any further debate on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the history of science (greeted with applause from the distinguished legal audience) speaks volumes about the curious psychological state to which the great global warming scare has reduced so many of the prominent figures who today exercise power and influence over the life of our Western societies.

Curious that the BBC would censor that when they are so often keen to bring us news of what judges and lawyers think on subjects close to the BBC’s heart…Migrant crisis: UK response criticised by senior former judges.

Curious the BBC would censor news that judges would seek to silence free speech on climate change when the BBC along with the Guardian et al are at the forefront of protest journalism when it comes to the government trying to close down certain debates.

 

CLIMATE CHANGE BIAS…

By | |
17 Comments

A Biased BBC reader notes;

“I watched Wild Winter: Surviving Avalanches on BBC4 last night (Tuesday). A fantastic documentary, except for the following. At the 39 minute mark we have cine material showing the snowy Cairngorms in the 1960’s, and then scenes of the next two snowless decades. This is followed by news footage of the last three years of sever snow. The narrator adds a token global warming comment and then goes on to explain how weather is affected by many things. BUT, right in the middle of this a bizarre scene has been crudely inserted where a ‘climate scientist’ tells us he knows what the weather is going to be in 2080, and it’s going to be hot! Cue scene with orange glow. I have watched it again and again, and if you mute this brief segment, the narrator’s voice effortless segues, making perfect sense. I have shown this to a colleague who doesn’t share my bias, and he agrees that this clip appears to have been edited in afterwards in order to remain ‘on message’.  The programme is on iplayer now on BBC4, fast forward to 39 minutes and watch BBC warble gloaming propaganda at its finest.”

Al Jazeera Does Climate Change Scepticism

By | |
13 Comments

 

 

Climate sceptics have been debating the science and the policies of climate change…and Al Jazeera filmed it showing that Sceptics do have valid questions and are perfectly capable of questioning the science and climate policies in a credible manner and should have a place in any discussion about climate change on the BBC:

‘This series of events is a unique chance to be part of the audience of televised events on one of the world’s most influential independent broadcasters.’

Kiss Your World Goodbye

Is climate change fact…. or fiction?

Mehdi_HasanJoin Mehdi Hasan this Friday as he challenges the world’s leading climate sceptic, atmospheric physicist and MIT Professor Richard Lindzen.  Also joining the discussion is Professor Myles Allen (Oxford)

Lindzen

 “One can see no (global) warming since 1997” said Lindzen.  “Even if everyone cut emissions in the whole world, it wouldn’t make a lot of difference.”

Agree or disagree?

This event will be televised later on Al-Jazeera English

 

 

When you consider the outcome as revealed by Bishop Hill you might think the BBC would not be too keen to report this or engage further with sceptics:

‘There was in fact a great deal of agreement on many aspects of the debate – for example, everyone agreed that Hasan’s “97% of scientists” line was irrelevant (and as Barry Woods explained later isn’t true anyway). Perhaps more importantly, everyone also seemd to agree that current policy choices are foolish, the main differences being over whether emissions reductions are required.’

 

 

 

 

"Blah Blah Climate Change Blah Blah"

By | | ,
4 Comments

As has been pointed out in the open thread this morning’s edition of Today went pretty big on a Cambridge academic planning to study the language and culture of the Inughuit. By using the magic words “climate change” and “global warming”, not only has Dr Stephen Leonard secured funding for a year-long gig in Greenland, he also earned himself a couple of slots on Radio 4’s flagship news programme talking to both James Naughtie and science correspondent Victoria Gill (@1hr 07.25). Gill’s segment reminded me of something:

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

TODAY EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

By | |
9 Comments

In Mongolia, it’s sadly been so cold this winter that a million animals have died, and many of the nomadic herders and farmers are said to be in desperate need of aid. The Today programme reported this story this morning, but guess what was missing from the equation? Any mention of that dreaded phrase “climate change”. This fits a pattern. Today reporters grind on about AGW every time there is a claim – however tenuous – that temperatures are getting hotter; but never when the reverse applies. Of course, one extremely bad winter does not prove cooling, but on Radio 4’s co-called flagship news programme, the topic is never discussed properly.

Could this be because Ceri Thomas, the editor of Today, is yet another BBC executive who is a climate change activist? Mr Thomas, it transpires, is on the board of a body called the Science Media Centre, another shadowy outfit that has been created, according to its own blurb, to act as:

first and foremost a press office for science when science hits the headlines. We provide journalists with what they need in the form and time-frame they need it when science is in the news – whether this be accurate information, a scientist to interview or a feature article.

An admirable objective, if – but only if – the Centre was properly neutral on matters of scientific controversy. But it it isn’t. It’s yet another collection of warming fanatics. It runs a number of briefings for journalists which show the reverse is true; everything they do on the climate front is geared towards the AGW perspective. So when Copenhagen was looming, who did the centre choose as its speaker to make sure journalists were properly in the picture? Why, none other than Vicky Pope, of the Met Office, who might be described as one of the UK’s warmists-in-chief. Others of these briefings follow exactly the same pattern and format, for example this one on so-called carbon sinks, which assumes as the start point that AGW is happening:

Efforts to control climate change require the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which in turn depends on the balance between our own emissions and natural carbon sinks. The Global Carbon Project has evaluated all the available evidence on carbon sinks and sources, the results of which have been published in Nature Geoscience. Two of the authors of the paper briefed journalists in their findings at the SMC.

I could go on, there’s tons more, but I have made the main point. Mr Thomas deems it acceptable that he is an active member of a body which is grafting away behind the scenes to prejudice the debate about climate science towards the warmist viewpoint.I know from other sources that he also responds to complaints about the programme’s climate change coverage by using sweeping warmist statements such as that there is a “great consensus” about climate change science, therefore there is only the need for him to afford “due impartiality” to sceptics – which means in practice that they rarely, if ever, appear on Today. And, in turn, that the programme is totally biased in its approach to the topic.

I submit that because of his activism, Mr Thomas is not fit to edit Today – or any other BBC programme. He should resign immediately.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

By | |
13 Comments

I’ve become increasingly convinced that the BBC is part of an international conspiracy about ‘climate change’. It isn’t simply that the reporting is so biased; it’s also because there seems to be a concerted effort to make sure that whatever so-called sceptics discover, for example over Climategate, the warmists bounce straight back with a new set of warped theories or bent facts to support their arguments. The feed of material is relentless, as if it is coming from an organised source. Over the holidays, I’ve been doing some digging on this, and I wanted to share one of my first findings.

A BBC journalist called Peter Thomson is not a household name in this country, but he’s the environment editor of the BBC programme (made jointly with WGBH Boston and RPI) The World, which on a daily basis pushes out climate scare stories to millions of people. Mr Thomson, it turns out, is also the secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a US organisation, the main purpose of which is to spread alarmism through a ‘guide’ about ‘climate change'(masked of course, under the cloak of ‘objectivity’). There can be no doubt that this is a campaigining organisation which wants to achieve political change because it believes that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions.

Mr Thomson’s activism does not stop there. He’s also a member of the advisory board of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, yet another international organisation with alarmist goals. It, too, publishes a guide to how journalists should cover ‘climate change’; in truly chilling McCarthyite terms, the introduction explains how anyone who disagrees with “the consensus” should be ignored and that journalists should frantically pester editors to publish ‘climate change’ scare stories.

So, to recap. One of the BBC’s most senior editors responsible for environmental reporting has formal roles at the epicentre of a worldwide coinspiracy among ‘climate change’ alarmists. Not only that, he is assisting in the international propagation of so-called science communication guides, the main purpose of which are to enlist other journalists to spread the same lies in which he also believes. I suspect there’s a whole phalanx of Peter Thomsons, all feeding the BBC’s insatiable appetite to feed us with moonshine.

Update: Richard North, of EU Referendum, has kindly provided further information about BBC propagandists. Nik Gowing, a prominent – and rather humourless – BBC World Service presenter, has a no-doubt lucrative sideline in chairing ‘climate change’ conferences convened by the alarmist-in-chief, IPCC head Dr Ravendra Pachauri.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

"Of course it was climate change what done it."

By | |
15 Comments

The final part of a read-it-all post from Burning Our Money:

BOM correspondent NN suffered a seizure while watching a BBC news report on Wednesday about salt traders in Timbuktu. According to the report – a NEWS report note – said traders have apparently had to swap their transport camels for great big climate destroying trucks, because global warming has made the camels too tired and thirsty to do the work (well there is also the small matter of the always biddable truck being able to haul in one week what it takes the moody camels seven to achieve, but the real villain is definitely global warming). After a strong dose of smelling salts, NN emailed – “They sent a sodding reporter and camera crew and translator to sodding Timbuktu for this garbage. By camel? I would be willing to wager that they flew in a nice shiny aeroplane and then carted all their gear on one of the very same evil trucks that cause climate change. At least I hope so. The thought of BBC reporters earning 45 days of per diems while lugging their crap around on 1st century technology is truly alarming. What could have been a really good example of creative destruction and new technologies replacing old for the good of all involved becomes a truly loopy example of green non-thought. And spare a thought for the Tuareg salt-trader. Who wouldn’t rather spend 45 days in blistering heat and thirst with a load of wheezing camels than seven days in an air-conditioned truck listening to Timbuktu FM. Of course it was climate change what done it. Aaaaargh. I think I need to leave the country to escape the madness, – by horse.” We may join him.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.