Josh 77

Comments

[Green Sand]

Yo dude! In certain quarters that is really going to sting! Just like a thorny rose.

[BBD]

Very dry; very droll. Excelllent.

Thanks Josh.

[golf charley]

A lot of people, seem to want to shoot, a lot of arrows through, a lot of peoples hearts.

But love is not in their mind!

It has been a lorra lorra larfs though!

[Frosty]

Very good Josh,

Death Warrant signed 13 December 2007 in a dingy back room away from the glare of the press, death sentence carried out 1 December 2009.

RIP British Sovereignty.

[Robinson]

Anyone else get a reply to their BBC Horizon complaint? Surely you all made one :p.

Dear Mr X

Reference CAS-562503

Thanks for your correspondence regarding ‘Horizon: Science Under Attack’ , broadcast on BBC Two on 24 January.

I understand that you feel this edition of the programme was biased in favour of the theory of man-made climate change.

Your concerns were raised with the producer of the programme – Emma Jay who replies as follows:

“I’m sorry you felt the film was biased. In reply can I first set out a little of the background to the film and how we approached the subject.

The purpose of this film was to examine public trust in science generally - not just in the area of climate change - reflecting both the role of scientists and the influence of the media, the internet and bloggers. There does seem to have erosion in public trust in some key areas of science - judging by some opinion poll data - and we thought this was an interesting and important area to look at.

We asked Paul Nurse to present the film. The reason for this is not just that he is the new President of the Royal Society and a Nobel Prize winner, but because he is very interested in how science and society should relate in the 21st Century.

It is this dynamic - how society and science connect, and how that is influenced by the media, both old and new, that formed the central argument of the film.

In the course of the programme Paul Nurse argued that scientists need to focus on the science and keep politics and ideologies out of the way; that scientists need to be more open in the way they do their science, and be more willing to communicate the uncertainties that are sometimes inherent in their work.

A substantial part of the film did use the example of climate science to look at this dynamic between science and society, and at the question of public trust. But I don’t accept that the film was biased in its representation of the state of the scientific debate about anthropogenic global warming. The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions accept the link; in scientific terms it is not controversial and the programme’s approach reflected that.

I fully acknowledge that, even now, not everyone accepts this view and that there is still a continuing political debate. That is why the programme included Professor Fred Singer’s views on the primacy of solar activity and James Delingpole’s views on ‘Climategate’, the perils of scientific consensus, and how peer review in science was being challenged by peer-to-peer review. These were significant parts of the film.

I hope I have been able to go some way towards addressing your concerns.

We’re guided by the feedback that we receive and to that end I'd like to assure you that I've registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, programme makers, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

Mark Roberts
BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

[BBD]

Robinson

Thanks for this, but it exemplifies exactly why I can't be bothered to write to the BBC.

[Gendeau]

"The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific institutions accept the link; in scientific terms it is not controversial and the programme’s approach reflected that"

plus

"there is still a continuing political debate"

Damn! I thought that there was plenty of scope to criticise the 'science' of climatology, but apparently I'm mistaken and can only be arguing from political bias. I don't see how you even start getting through to someone with his head so far displaced netherwards.

The bbc is a disgrace, we need to privatise it. I'm happy not to watch it, but don't see why I should be subsidising these watermelons.

[BBD]

But back to Josh.

Even as I watched the beurre aux aioli et fines herbes melt over the filet mignon, I knew something was wrong.

[HaroldW]

Oh sure Josh, you say "share the love", but where's the love for Andorra? ;-)

[Phillip Bratby]

Robinson

The last four paragraphs (starting "I hope I have been...") are standard BBC words for every complaint. These words are the reason I have given up wasting my time complaining to the BBC. It makes no difference at all registering a complaint because the BBC always knows what is best for the licence fee payer. Listen to any of the feedback programmes and hear programme editors explain why they are always right and the viewers/listeners are always wrong.

The only cure is removing the licence fee and selling the BBC off.

[Robinson]

Yes, I'm starting to recognise the futility of complaint!

[Viv Evans]

Brilliant as always, Josh!

Regarding the Beeb complaints, I got a nice little piece regarding the 'Meet the sceptics' fillum, which didn't address my questions at all and was made up entirely of pre-formulated text blocs.

So yep, there'll be another complaint winging their way for sure.