Some background on BBC Climate Change balance, The Party Line and the Message We Get Balance - The BBC has made a false dichotomy and thrown the baby out with the bath water. With such a complex subject, balance is difficult. It invites scientists onto programmes who completely agree with IPCC that 1. the Earth is getting warmer and 2. catastrophe will surely happen, kept off the cranks who don't believe 1., but rarely airs the fair proportion of scientists who agree on 1., but aren't sure about 2. the certain catastrophe part. Cranks filtered out : In the old days the topic was Global Warming and in discussions the BBC used to balance the debate with 1 person who took the IPCC line that the Earth was getting warmer, with one who said it wasn't. It became apparent that almost no scientist would say in the next 30 years the temperature would stay the same or cool so the BBC conceded it only needed to get IPCC scientists on. Only IPCC Extremists kept in : But the IPCC line has 2 parts 1. that the Earth will get warmer 2. That Climate Catastrophe will happen. A fair proportion of the scientists would say that they are not sure about the Catastrophe part, but agree with the IPCC on the first part. How : So the BBC is under the impression that 90% of scientists broadly agree with the IPCC. So the BBC never calls a crank, they only call people who they are sure are IPCC supporters. Now even if they call a catastrophe skeptic scientist, he may decline to appear for fear of being ridiculed for not being 100% confident in the IPCC so he will decline. If you have 100 scientists in a room there will be varying degrees in belief in catastrophe, but ones who are most sure of catastrophe is what the public get to hear. Taking a Party Line The scientific Way is always be sceptical, just let the data speak and not to take sides: but for politicians with a policies to decide it's more tempting to pick a side. Taking the Catastrophe side is a Win Win Situation 1 - You get all the green votes. 2 - If disaster happens .. then you were right. 3 - If disaster doesn't happen, then it was your clever actions that prevented it. 4 - People are frightened. Great you get to control them. 5 - You can put up taxes and say you are being green 6 - Even if you are skeptic inside, you can still drag your heels and wait for new data anyway. Not taking a position is a negative for a politician. It makes it look like you are too weak & stupid to work it out. 2 years ago a UK government directive said people were getting confused about all the sceptical stories, so all reports should just take the IPCC line. Seemingly there is a party line that people have to stick to : be earnest, don’t show have any doubts, don't let skeptics into the argument, seems there is a possibility this has sneaked into BBC training manuals. Certainly BBC World Service is paid for by the government, so has to take a government line. UK BBC claims it has no line, but it is difficult to remain independent for a number of complex reasons including that there is a government machine pushing the IPCC line. But taking the Catastrophe line works the same for the BBC as it does for the politicians. You'd have to be stubborn not to go for the Catastrophe line. This is more of an accidental conspiracy than a real one. So The Message Listeners Get is the Party Line So it seems the government the BBC and the presenters all believe in Manmade CO2 Climate catastrophe theory. The impression they give us is .. - That " it's the biggest problem mankind has ever faced" - That man has put too much CO2 into the air and that is the principle cause of any climate changes and that these - climate changes are very likely to bring huge catastrophe. And most importantly YOU CANNOT WAIT ! for the data to come out as is scientifically normal. - Manmade CO2 Climate Catastrophe Theory may be true. I'm certainly not in a position to disprove it. Maybe the science is so complicated that I can't understand it. However I fell that they haven't explained entirely satisfactorily the science to me, so I remain sceptical.

There are many similar complaints on BBC messageboards

Not my views, but other peoples from BBC Editors Blog Exactly how much of a carbon footprint is it costing nature for you to make this report?. I read with amazement from a FOI release that the BBC who keep banging on and on about 'man made global warning' made zero carbon offsets last year!. To my ind the BBC is a typical green hypocrite. tell us what we should do but never practise what they preach and preach and preach. The only 'idiots' are the naive bunch of lemmings who think that if the BBC say something is true it must be. Seems to me that the BBC have become a self appointed Global Warming doom & gloom reporting machine.That is, when they are not going on about the benefits of Multi-culturism on Radio 4/ BBC1 TV for instance, but thats another story! I strongly object to being obliged to pay for a license so that the BBC can peddle their wares onto us in this fashion. How about the next ********** bringing in a 's**** the BBC license fee' as part of ther manifesto, so that we TV viewers can have a choice as to where we pay our money, just as we do for SKY TV, etc? Surely that is fairer to everyone? Mind you, New ****** wont stand for this, after all, the BBC has proved a very good mouth piece for them over the last 10 years... As part of the BBC’s evangelical mission to spread the word from the Church of Climate Change, the World Service is running a season of programmes called "Taking the Temperature". The centrepiece of this latest manifestation of green mass hysteria is "Bangladesh River Journey - charting the course of climate change" which invites us to "[f]ollow the BBC's voyage through Bangladesh, looking at how a heating planet is changing people's lives." http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservic...bangladeshboat/ As recently as 2003 an article from AFP examined the conflicting theories behind increased flooding in Bangladesh and managed to avoid any mention of "climate change" or "global warming". Deforestation, random variations in the intensity of monsoon rains, and urban development were the main reasons for increased flooding back then. But that was a long, long time ago, before the cult of Gore had taken over the world. Four years on and the BBC is stating boldly that its all about climate change. Joining them for the boat trip is Dr Saleemul Huq, "one of the key authors of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". His mind is certainly made up: "The only explanation that is consistent across all these events - droughts, floods, cyclones, ice melt, temperatures across the spectrum - is that we are already in a man-made climate-changed world." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south...sia/ 7078327.stm That’ll be the same man-made climate-changed world that has seen another prediction-defying below-average cyclone season in the northern Atlantic and record ice growth in the Antarctic this year. Oh, I was forgetting - that which contradicts the Book of Climate Change is just a weather anomaly.

BBC = British Bad Cience I hope not ! 14/11/2007 "No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance" - The BBC has allowed a skeptical member of the IPCC to speak his mind. - He spoke of been at meetings where people had a political agenda i.e panel members saying "We've really got to give the Americans a strong message" etc - I hope this isn't a one off for the BBC !

Sunday 11/11/2007 an Stew Green Opinion (actually spell checked, but the grammar is my own style !)

- next story Climate Panic Stories are a waste of time and disection of King's comments
- My Climate Change Blog

TRAVEL BLOG PAGE .. TRAVEL INDEX

<-- PREVIOUS PC

HOME

ESSAY INDEX

note/comments

NEXT -->