Sunday
Jun292014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill The BBC's climate problem
Jun 29, 2014 BBC The juxtaposition of the two parts of David Rose's article in the Mail on Sunday today does much to illustrate the BBC's shattered credibility on global warming. The first part is about the BBC Action Aid, the corporation's in-house charity, which has been campaigning vigorously on the climate change issue.
The BBC has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money asking 33,000 people in Asian countries how climate change is affecting them.
The £519,000 campaigning survey by little-known BBC Media Action is designed to persuade the world to adopt more hard-line policies to combat global warming.
Reader Comments (62)
And thank you to Richard Betts for this comment:
Take a look at the questions in the survey, here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/climateasiadataportal/dataportal#?
Abolish the licence fee and privatise it.
"the BBC's editorial position on global warming starts to look very ugly indeed"
The BBC's position on AGW has always been ugly! It has spend huge amounts of tax payer's money on propaganda (e.g. Climate Wars) and has denied viewers any real complaints procedure. The BBC and the BBC Trust take complaints about their coverage, procrastinates and finally ignores them.
The public is forced to pay £3,500 million for this service - Pravda ia a lot cheaper!
And thank you to Richard Betts for this comment:
And Dr Richard Betts, head of the Met Office Climate Impacts section, said: ‘Unlike the person who complained to the BBC, I don’t have a problem with Lawson or anyone else being given air time to voice their opinions.’
Jun 29, 2014 at 9:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger
Careful ! He didn't qualify the statement. There are words missing! Remember his continued employment relies entirely on the continuation of global warming and Climate change models.
The BBC are breaking their charter by not being impartial - so we have no obligation to pay the license fee - so don't
The BBC is not long for this life - at least the dinosaur organisation we see at the moment isn't.
My kids hardly ever watch the BBC, they hardly recognise it as any different from E4, or any of the dozens of other channels.
When they grow up, they will be very reluctant to pay for something they don't use.
So, who might they have on their side? The older generation who grew up with them. Except they now treat us like scum and whether your a climate skeptic or someone wanting to walk in the countryside without seeing industrial bird mincer parks, they have insulted us all.
I have a major problem with irrelevant right wing nuts like Lawson being given air time on the BBC. The idea is to make everyone who questions AGW look as deranged as Lawson and the other right wing crazies at the GWPF.
Does anybody watch or listen to the BBC news or any BBC documentary programme any more and expert to see or hear the truth? I don't believe anything the BBC says; in fact the reverse - I tend to take the view that the opposite of what the BBC tells me is more likely to be the truth.
The BBC's Fraser Steel said in his 'judgement': "...evidence from computer modelling..."!! Does he not understand what he's said there?? Models are NOT and can never be evidence.
Does he not also realise that many models are 'parametrized', i.e. have guesses used as inputs, not data?
Does he not also understand that models cannot handle thunderstorms, one of the largest vehicles for heat energy movement between the surface and atmosphere, and throughout the atmosphere?
Does he not also understand that much of the surface station temperature data going into the models is incomplete, and has significant but unexplained 'adjustments', always to favour a warming trend?
Does he not also understand that as model resolutions become higher, which the modellers say improves them, they actually get worse, as the input real data density reduces, because there is no additional data going in?
Does he also not understand that the more recent, well distributed and sited US ground temperature station network now in existence for 10 years, shows a 0.3 degC COOLING over that period, adding confirmation to the hiatus?
Basically, the only evidence he has demonstrated is blind faith in the politically motivated 'consensus' and an inability to think.
I didn't see a picture of Bob Ward. I guess some people are more irrelevant than others.
And in his ruling, Mr Steel said: ‘A false balance should not be created between well-established fact and opinion. Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by evidence from computer modelling.
This about says it all really !
The GWPF are part of the same agenda to promote AGW as the BBC. I'd like to ask Mr Montford why he doesn't cover real science stories like Tony Heller or the Pielkes and instead concentrates on promoting tabloid right wing idiots like David Rose.
And meanwhile our support for wind and solar in particular goes up and up:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10931986/Green-energy-cost-hits-record-high-as-expensive-turbines-built-at-sea.html
"Green energy cost hits record high as expensive turbines built at sea
Annual bill for consumers to subsidise renewable technologies has soared to more than £2.5bn as more plants are built and the cost for each unit of electricity rises"
A day rate for an Indonesian laborer is about $10 USD / day - which would equate to 85,000 Indonesians for a day ...
and so on.... about 15 quid each....
Just fantastic to see the state broadcaster putting folks telly tax to such good use innit?
At least the BBC has brought attention about Prince Charles trying to influence the Labour Party on Climate Change
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10933558/Prince-Charles-consorted-with-Labour-on-climate-change.html
God help us if he ever becomes King!!!
How this works is guilt by association. If you claim to be an AGW sceptic, the average person will run away screaming and holding their nose. The Guardian continually promoted Lord Monckton who is either half mad or is pretending to be. To associate AGW scepticism with insanity. Monckton said he believes global warming is an attempted communist plot to take over the world. Similarly with Delingpole, Ridley , Lawson etc.
The debate between Delingpole and Paul Nurse was like matching Jimmy Savile with Nelson Mandela. That is how silly it was.
It would certainly have been better if the beeb had found a scientist to discuss the science and Lawson just adds to the polarisation of right vs left when we really want discussion of right vs wrong.
But whether there is a link between the floods and AGW or not (and '13 degrees' Myles Allen seems to be the only one so far who has found a tenuous link using models) this then surely means that the scientists can no longer link droughts in Britain to global warming as they did a mere 18 months prior to this new contradictory claim. Nor can they say that 'weather is not climate' so it is fair game to remind the beeb of the 3 previous winters that were far colder than normal.
Lawson should remember to quote actual scientists, not give his own opinion. The most effective skeptic tool in the box is simply to throw back at them their own ridiculous contradictory BS! About Hoskin's certainty about the 'missing' heat being swallowed by the ocean all Lawson had to do was mention the other 12 reasons also postulated for this hiatus and quote James Hansen that if it has gone in the vast heat sink of the ocean then it isn't coming back and hence isn't anything to worry about.
JamesG
Exactly. In fact there isn't one single aspect of AGW that stands up to intelligent scrutiny. The reason scientists don't speak out is the nasty, bullying culture that exists in the community as evidenced by recent attacks on Pielke Jr. Thankfully Tony Heller has now spoken out.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/27/real-sciencess-steven-goddard-outs-himself-reveals-true-identity-my-name-is-tony-heller-i-am-a-whistle-blower/
A few decades ago, I was proud of the BBC. It earned respect throughout the world for its impartiality and credibility. Today, I despise the Corporation. It is filled with the liberal left and eco-fanatics and managed by Luvvies who live in a fantasy world. They would like to impose their views on the rest of us.
Those who determine policy, approve content and commission external productions ensure that the output is compatible with the BBC world view on such matters as politics, the environment, foreign policy, employment, social benefits, the health service, immigration, the EU, political correctness and ethnic diversity to mention just a few. The result is bias, propaganda, campaigning and withholding of news and facts that do not fit with their views.
The consequence is that most of the Corporation's output has become contaminated and in some cases such as climate change, dominated by their internally created guidelines and policies. The management, over paid, over staffed and all from the same mould, do not recognise that the BBC brand has now become toxic.
The opportunity for reform of the BBC has long gone. I doubt if privatisation would detox the brand. It should be shut down. The problem is that no political party has the guts to challenge this monopoly that wields so much influence on public awareness and which shapes public opinion.
Apart from breaking the law by refusing to pay the licence fee, it seems that we are powerless to act. That is the greatest frustration of all.
JamesG: The funny thing about the 'oceans swallowed my heat' meme put out by the warmisotas, is that if that is true, then CO2 cannot be trapping it, so they defeat themselves!
There are scientists who have opposed the orthodoxy. Often retired or near retirement. We rarely hear about them here.
Physicists vs the global warming industry http://goo.gl/70tzt
esmiff: "...right wing idiots like David Rose."
As I can see neither of these epithets being a disqualification for opinion (yours included), I wondered whether you thought David Rose was 'right wing' because he's and 'idiot'; or an 'idiot' because he's 'right wing'. In any case, surely his views are as relevant and welcome as yours - notwithstanding that he makes them so much more eloquently?
Oh dear, Harry. And here I was about to congratulate everyone on not feeding the troll!
Harry Passfield
I was making a point about the continual promotion of tabloid quality, right wing views on this blog and the virtual absence of the views of real scientists.
I associate the Daily Mail with idiocy. I am quite possibly suffering from permanent brain damage, thanks to spending so much time on the Guardian internet forums a few years back. Thanks for alerting me to that possibility.
I haven't watched (or listened to) a single BBC current affairs programme in about 15 years.
Harry Passfield
+1
:)
Oswald Thake
Don't call smiffy a troll. He's a blog treasure. He reminds us that even unreconstructed lefties can sometimes be right and keeps us from getting too big for our boots.
The fact that in terms of his language and dyed-in-the-wool views on the political spectrum (which reads to me like "everyone to the right of Denis Skinner is a rabid fascist") he is every bit as biased as those he attacks doesn't alter his value.
If he didn't exist we'd need to invent him!
"I haven't watched (or listened to) a single BBC current affairs programme in about 15 years."
I know that feeling. I never bothered with doing subtractions in maths at school (it was just soooo negative); I only did additions. For all that, I am convinced I am more than a match for the likes of Steve Mc. and his ilk. I mean, what does he know? He probably listens to the BBC!
;-)
Harry Passfield
You are Biggles and I demand by ten bob note.
"You are Biggles and I demand by ten bob note." Nah... More like Algy, old chap. But perhaps you're 'The White Fokker' (Biggles' first adversary - and not to be pronounced with a Roy Jenkins speech impediment though!).
BTW....this post was really about the BBC Complaints Controller thinking that the output from models was 'evidence'. I haven't seen your thoughts on that one...
'Evidence from computer modelling' - That's enough to disqualify anything else climate-related offered up by the BBC. Biased, simple as.
As for Bob Ward, Donna Lafromboise had him sssssussed ssssssome time ago.
Paxman, late of the BBC Newsnight programme, has their number: 'Look, Newsnight is made by 13-year-olds. It's perfectly normal when you're young that you want to change the world.'
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10929289/Newsnight-is-made-by-13-year-olds-says-Jeremy-Paxman.html
This is all very sweet until you realise these folks with the mentalities of children have massive budgets, and malevolent intent since their wish to change the world dramatically and quickly is, as ever with the left, based on hatred of the world as they see it.
So, three cheers for David Rose, and three cheers for the Daily Mail for employing him and publishing his revelations!
The BBC is a degenerate, decadent organisation with far more money than sense. A BBC Trust which recognised this would have some chance of improving things, or at least reducing the worst excesses such as this survey expenditure, and the conceit that they are enlightened players in the game rather than merely reporters of it. It seems the government may be keen on appointing Lord Coe to chair the Trust. His track record as Chair of the Ethics Committee of FIFA (I know, I know, please stop laughing) is not seen as an encouraging one by Peter Oborne in this article in the Daily Telegraph: 'As the chairman of the BBC Trust, one of Lord Coe’s central obligations would be to set a moral framework at the BBC. His record at Fifa suggests that this would be beyond him.'
I repeat. My view of the quality of BBC journalism can be summed up in two words 'Jimmy Savile'.
I could also add 'Northern Rock' .
There is no such thing as a free government funded media, in any sense of the word "free".
Esmiff (10:53 AM): a bit of a nutty comment, there. Be careful you do not fall into the trap of projection; others having a differing opinion from you does not automatically qualify them as “nut-cases” – however, taking the opinion that it does could qualify you thus.
My opinion is irrelevant. The vast majority of educated, grown up people will see Delingpole, Monckton, Heritage Foundation et al as right wing nuts. That was the point I was making.
Delingpole is a public school educated, upper middle class Oxford graduate (comedy writer) who has created a caricature of a Muslim hating, right wing loony.
And Dr Richard Betts, head of the Met Office Climate Impacts section, said: ‘Unlike the person who complained to the BBC, I don’t have a problem with Lawson or anyone else being given air time to voice their opinions.’
-----------------------------------
To be really equal then sceptics would have to be frequently interviewed with no opposing view put forward - not even implied by the fawning interviewer. There would have to be the odd "Climate Wars" type series fronted by a sceptic and frequent mentions implying that a sceptical view was a total given in all types of programmes from Natural History series to comedy shows, to Horizon, to children's programmes.
Richard Betts OK with that, too?
esmiff: "My opinion is irrelevant." Well said that man! Ten out of ten for observation!!
I really don't know why folk insist on linking this particular episode of propaganda antics to "journalism" - it really doesn't qualify any more than say the shenanigans that I saw in Asia (Hong Kong) some near 15 years ago when two entrepreneurial BBC managers sought to swindle some Chinese toy manufacturers by flogging them the rights to make items based on some afternoon TV CBeebies characters and double crossed the wrong guys - cue extradition and porridge IIRC ...
This is peculation, it's stealing, it's larceny, it's propaganda, its a few other things besides - but it ain't journalism in any way shape or form to what's left of my mind. No doubt the Indians have duly noted the spending of this money on their turf .... 8000 attempts to recruit climate activists there alone :-)
esmiff@12:07 - are you offering that as a "pick any two out of four"?
'Take a look at the questions in the survey, here'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/climateasiadataportal/dataportal#?
I've been part of a few 'surveys' in my time. There's usually a bit of to and fro on what to ask and how to phrase things.
But often you can gain an insight more into those commissioning such 'research' than anything else.
So I had a quick go (starting left to right and clicking on interesting lines of inquiry) and selected Pakistan > Communication > Select Your Question >Trustworthiness of media information sources > Trustworthiness of TV as an information source
I got "There is no data available for this question"
That was half a mill well spent, then.
Apart from breaking the law by refusing to pay the licence fee, it seems that we are powerless to act. That is the greatest frustration of all - Jun 29, 2014 at 1:01 PM | Schrodinger's Cat
Frustrating indeed. I am sure you know, but others may not, to clarify this statement, currently it is possible to refuse to pay the licence fee quite legally. You can even still watch a considerable amount of TV too.
Just, not live, as broadcast. Hence BBC iPlayer, online, ironically, is actually free and legal.
A few BBC mandarins are trying to resolve this as more and more are taking advantage of it, and there are more than a few complicit or ignorant politicians trying to help them. Some quaint notions include popping the 'fee' as an extra poll tax on internet use or, amazingly, council rates. Even more guaranteed money with near zero chance of opting out on any basis, and even less chance of accountability.
Many are becoming less and less than keen.
But for now, so long as you don't watch or record live: not breaking the law.
timed out on edit - the BBC managers in question sought to retail those toy rights for themselves... I see little difference between that and retailing Climate Change to the aspiring middle classes of seven Asian counties plus doing their bit for Kashmiri nationalism according to the map.
It's a shame the BBC can't afford a science editor for Newsnight, I hadn't realised that they cost so much more than £500K.
If it helps, I would be willing to do it for them for £490K, for a short while.
Last time I installed iPlayer, it started with my having to affirm that I have a current TV license.
Of course I don't, because where I live they refuse to sell me one.
Outside the lefty/AGW bias, the BBC really isn't that bad. If you are not convinced, try watching US TV for a couple of months.
I strongly disagree with Oswald Thake:
and with Mike Jackson:
Of course he's a troll and Harry's done a wonderful job of showing his idiocy for what it is in this thread.
At some point I would advocate stronger measures. Blog treasure my foot.
Smiffy certainly doesn't seem like a troll to me. I focus more on the points where I agree with him. He is part of the clear evidence that this blog is not simply the haunting grounds of people from the political right.
esmith@ 3.59: smiffy you have established yourself as the premier Sceptic troll on a sceptic website! Congratulations, but a word of advice, do not use the phrase "vast majority", "overwhelming evidence" or "97%". This is the fallacy of Argumentum et Populum" and aligns you with the entire CAGW industry.
"the majority is never right....who are the largest proportion of the population....the intelligent or the fools"
Henrik Ibsen :" The enemy of the people."
diogenese2
The 97% figure came from Australian Viz magazine.
Fathered by a wombat, raised by dingos as a fundamentalist Christian on a former British nuclear test site in Woolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoolawoomeragong. Professor of birth abnormalities at the Rolf Harris Memorial great outback university, John Cook.
michael hart: I'll take Geoff Chambers as sufficient proof we're not all righties but I don't care anyway! Insensitive off-topic nuttiness - the need to mention Delingpole on this thread, as one of countless examples - is trollery. Bad commentary drives out good and that's what really bothers me. Not the only example.
So anyone any ideas on which opinions of Lawson are so blasphemous?
Mailman
esmith 827: Smiff - I don't dispute your genealogy of John Cook, it looks quite precise, but you did say "the vast majority of educated, grown up people". How the fxxx do you know who they are or what they think, or for that matter , care.
You need to raise your game a bit.