I’m sure Biased BBC readers will be familiar with the shocking news concerning the fiddling and misrepresentation of statistics at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Naturally this represents a problem for the BBC which has been to the fore in promoting AGW. So this morning we had an item @ 7.35am on this issue debated by Lord Lawson and Prof Robert Watson and I felt that Watson was given much more time than was Lawson and his strident assertions contrasted with Lawson’s moderation. Given the last word, Watson asserted that there is “no uncertainty whatsoever” that humans have been responsible for climate change over the past fifty years! In what sense is fifty years an appropriate time period to come to such a conclusion and in what sense is there incontrovertible evidence for such an AGW claim. We’ll never know – the BBC did not pursue it!

Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to GAIA WORSHIP

  1. AndyUk06 says:

    The Beeb are in a quandiary. They have to report this to counter claims of bias by ommission, so their next line of attack is let this “Professor” monopolize the debate and let him have the last word.

    Unfortunately for them, the internet does not allow them to destroy truth as easily as they can hold make-belive debates.


  2. AndyUk06 says:

    Sorry that should have been “quandary” and “omission”. My spelling is appalling today.


  3. cassandra king says:

    Certainly Watson didnt come over as what we would all think of as a scientist with a scientists usual caution, in fact he came over as a bit of an ideologue and a gobby one at that.
    His point about there being no uncertainty about the causes of the fifty year blip of less than a degree sounded hollow and unconvincing, even the IPCC admits some uncertainty.
    Watson was trying just a little too hard to peddle his wares I think, he raised his voice and the undercurrent of anger tinged with not a little desperation.
    The man who admits no doubt is either a fool or a liar or both, he did actually make an interesting qualification about the supposed causes, he introduced the new concept of deforestation to partner the AGW line.
    So to recap, there is no doubt(yes there is)about the causes of the 50yr blip in temperatures and it could only be caused by CO2 emissions and deforestation and the Milankovich cycle and the PDO/MPDO and the solar cycle and the magntic flux of the sun/earth and urbanisation/heat island and volcanic activity!

    So our Mr Watson is so sure that CO2 is the sole demon is he? It reminds of the Monty Python sketch about PFLP ‘what have the Romans ever done for us?’


  4. NotaSheep says:

    I note that even the single BBC piece reporting the hacking of the emails has disappeared from the Science and Environment home page. It’s af it was all a bad dream and the BBC can now get back to pushing the MMCC agenda as hard as ever.


  5. David Preiser (USA) says:

    There’s no question that Naughtie and his producers are Orthodox Warmists.  Right from the start Lord Lawson demonstrated that by correcting Naughtie’s characterization of his position.  I believe the Beeboid used the term “scientific consensus” at least three times, and always presented “skeptics” as people who were closed-minded.

    I did laugh when Watson stated that the CRU scientists don’t manipulate the data “in a bad way”.  But never mind.

    The worst part was at the very end where Naughtie said that Lawson’s claim regarding the flattening of temperatures in the last decade “confused” the public, and asked Watson to clear things up.  The supposedly impartial BBC employee gave one of the most leading questions I’ve ever heard.  He practically spelled out what he wanted to hear, because he’s a believer himself:  overall trends versus cyclical, please explain where Lawson is wrong so that the public aren’t “confused” by his claim.

    The BBC is like L’Osservatore Romano for the Church of Warmism.


  6. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Of course Justin Webb made sure to point out that the Environment Agency accepts Warmism as real and in fact adjusts their own plans and projections accordingly.

    They even need £20mil per annum more from the government to account for the increases in “Climate Change”.  It’s fact at the BBC, and skeptics will only confuse the people away from the one true path.