Last week I noted that the producers of the BBC’s World Service programme WHYS were complaining that they couldn’t generate any interest in Copenhagen and climate change. Well there’s plenty of interest now, and last night the programme actually had three sceptics on: the great Christopher Booker, Patrick Michaels from the Cato Institute, and Prof Richard Lindzen from MIT (who hung up the phone in despair at the quality of argument when he was compared to, among other things, a slavery denier [new one on me] by a representative from a Kenyan NGO). There were also three believers in MMGW, plus presenter Ros Atkins who was clearly antagonistic towards the sceptics (or deniers as he called them on more than one occasion). (Download podcast here.)
This level of balance appears to have been too much for the warmists because Atkins has had to defend the decision to have the sceptics on. The alarmists are trying to close down the debate again; it is essential that pressure is kept on the BBC to ensure that the sceptical voices we’ve heard on the airwaves over the past couple of days are not just some temporary token gesture.
Update. Forgot to add – the sceptics kicked ass!
Update 2. Great piece by Gerald Warner on the BBC’s coverage of Climategate. (Hat tip George R).
Some international views:
“‘Settled’ Science?”
(inc. Glenn Beck 5 min video clip)
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/11/settled_science.php
One couldn’t make it up – I had to read the article twice to make sure my eyes weren’t deceiving me.
The BBC have now managed to achieve double bias at one go -they found research to indicate that conflicts in Africa, like the Darfur genocide are not due to a militant Islamic mindset, but global warming. How convenient! Now rather than avoid mentioning which religious group is assumed responsible for murder and mayhem round the globe, as for example they did today in the slaughter of 46 in the Philippines (guess which group – but you’d have to go to other news-sites to find out), they can just attribute it to their pet subject – global warming.
I wonder if they’ll now stop blaming Israel for the Mid-East conflict for the same reason – yeah right.
I have to admit that it’s very amusing to know that this site has been far ahead of the curve on Warmism. For at least two years people here have been arguing against it, even going so far as to draw parallels with religious belief.
I hop the next step will be to focus attention on the movers and shakers behind the origins of Warmism: the Watermelon crowd and their goals for economic and societal destruction/transformation.
But I’m sure none of this will distract Beeboid lurkers or defenders of the indefensible from continuing to claim that this blog is nothing more than right-wing extremists, mostly racist, who are only angry that the BBC doesn’t promote our point of view on absolutely everything.
DP,
These guys will just continue along their global warming ™ path, with the msm in tow and all questions shoved aside!
Its amazing watching this show unravel and the complete and utter lack of interest being shown by al beeb and pretty much every other msm organisation out there!
Mailman
I’d like to see at least some of our media turn the spotlight on scum like Harrabin and the other beeboids who are up the backsides of these eco nut jobs.
Every day the BBC pounds on and on about climate change as if the whole thing is settled.
In fact since this email stuff came out I’ve noticed an increase in climate change nonsense from Harrabin and that ethical man idiot off BBC 2.
This Global warming is very selective where it is going to cause the greayger damage- in Africa. Almost all African states are very keen on AGW, for they are the one who will get all that free money as a GIFT.
The UN is asking rich countries to pay 0.7% of their GDP as carbon tax, that the UN can disburse to poor countries – minus handling fees of course.
Andrew Bolt points out that this is the same figure that the UN has been trying to get since 1970.
What makes this demand so brazen is that the UN has repeatedly asked for this same 0.7 per cent of our wealth – but each time with a different excuse.
In 1970, the UN called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World – minus those handling fees- to ensure “human dignity”.
In 2002, it called on rich countries such as Australia to hand over that 0.7 per cent for “development” and to “protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem”.
In 2004, the UN called on us to pay that 0.7 per cent to ensure “collective security” and a “more secure world”.
In 2005, the UN told us to hand over that 0.7 per cent to ensure “millennium development goals” and fight poverty.
No go again. So the UN is going for broke at Copenhagen, demanding once more that 0.7 per cent from us, but this time to prevent “serious adverse effects of climate change”.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/ban … 5798907213
If AGW is debunked then all it will mean is the UN will have to come up with a different reason to get its 0.7% tax to disburse to poor countries and others, minus of course those handling fees(What is the % rakein the UN gets for handling?)
I sometimes think that instead of all this tomfoolery about the science being settled, when in fact there is no science to be seen anywhere in the AGW/CC shenanigans, it would be better if the politicians came out and just asked for the money. You never know, if they said please with a smile, they might even get it.
In the end its all about £££$$$ and power, £££$$$ rules the day and power gives them the freedom to make more $$$£££.
Dress the primal urge in any way you like but in the end the people with money want power and the people with the power want money, money and power, the one follows the other.
The basic urge to control, the base desires to rule and control are linked to $$$£££.
Humanity is driven by a handful of urges some good and some bad, at the moment the bad urges have gained the upper hand?
Oooops!
That post came out repeated in a very strange way, I dont know how that happened, must be a gremlin in the machine?
The link is
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/bandwagon-fully-loaded/story-e6frfhqf-1225798907213
DP111
Fascinating. Thanks for the link.
Here’s some more info about Warmism that the BBC doesn’t want you to know. Apparently not only is their database crap:
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!
but their vaunted computer models are also crap:
As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt
One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”
Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!” file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU’s code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU’s climate model.
A primary rule of programming (computer and TV) is: garbage in, garbage out. Sadly, our governments are trying to destroy and transform our lives based on this garbage. And the BBC is the loudspeaker for the Warmist muzzein.
Last week I noted that the producers of the BBC’s World Service programmeWHYS were complaining that they couldn’t generate any interest in Copenhagen and climate change.
Don’t forget how they and their political masters have warmed (sorry) to the notion that the public are thick for not buying into their spin and maybe this whole objectivity/democracy/freedom of speech thing is not really the thing to get the ‘right’ results.
This level of balance appears to have been too much for the warmists because Atkins has had to defend the decision to have the sceptics on.
I’ve now read this.
Sorry, but that does not come across as a defence of a balanced stance.
Ignoring the clear stance set by the headline, he use of ‘we’ and ‘them’ clearly speaks of one apologising to a team they are not just rooting for, but playing with, and that is not a referee’s role.
The BBC is crossing a lot of lines.
It crossed them long ago. But only now are more people noticing.
The use of ‘we’ and ‘them’ is one of the 6 techniques used in brainwashing.
#6 – Chanting Slogans
#5 – Slipping Bullshit into your Subconscious
#4 – Controlling What You Watch and Read
#3 – Keeping You In Line With Shame
#2 – Black and White Choices
#1 – “Us vs. Them”
As far as I know, the only one not used by the BBC is Chanting Slogans