Bishop Hill Historical horizon
Mar 5, 2015 BBC So, I have now managed to watch the BBC Horizon show looking back at the way the corporation has covered the climate change issue since its beginning.
The first thing to say is that it was clearly from the same propaganda-lite stable as Climate Change by Numbers, with official lines on the climate issue repeated dutifully and unquestioningly from beginning to end. The only point at which the litany was interrupted was a segment on the effect of clouds from Tomorrow's World which was interesting and scientific and - icing on the cake - was even rounded off with presenter Helen Czerski noting that the effect of clouds was still unsettled.
Despite this, the programme was quite interesting as a history of the BBC's decline with the more sober and scientific programmes of the 1980s giving way to sensationalism, dogmatism and environmentalism in more recent years. One could also do a interesting study of the way the corporation has used innuendo to further the green cause.
The worst bit was probably the rerunning of Paul Nurse's naked disinformation about Climategate, which really must rank among the most shameful pieces of the BBC's scientific output ever broadcast. But at the end of the day, and as I noted above, this was clearly part of the BBC's campaigning efforts ahead of the Paris climate summit. In that vein it's interesting to note not only the overlap between production teams for the two shows but also another remarkable similarity between the two shows, with both ending by telling the viewer in essence: "The science has spoken. Now it's up to us to decide what to do about it".
Back to their old ways I would say.
Reader Comments (31)
No new evidence or proof after all this time and money.
How about some kind of gadgety giszmo on this blog, recording the number of avoidable deaths through hunger, thirst and disease, that could have been prevented if global warming money had been spent on something useful.
You could record it in terms of the number of people who died in Hiroshima in 1945. Cheap, tacky and alarmist, I know, but some people are bored with made up statistics, to support unproven theories, when real deaths keep happening in the real world.
About 10 minutes in we switched channels.
There should be an ombudsman or some such to whom we could complain about this politically biased unscientific drivel but the BBC answers to no-one.
Talking about the effects of clouds. This seems to be the dominant factor looking at met office's own data for the UK (see 2 min video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijs73YivmLw
Death by Bogus Climate Science is already the big killer of the 21st century. It probably gives Malthusians a sense of smug satisfaction, to have engineered the results of their own prophesies.
You could also record it in terms of lives saved by the Hiroshima Nagasaki bombs.How many Japanese civilians and Allied troops would have been killed in a full scale invasion of Japan.
Favorite Climate Change Conspiracy Theory.
After the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded and we have just had the 30 year anniversary of the end of the Miners Strike and that Mrs Thatcher with her speech at the UN promoting Climate Change panic, was basically to get the public to accept more Nuclear Power and an excuse to close the pits .But she unintentionally opened a gateway for the left who had retreated from defeated Socialism to Radical Environmental Activism.Then everyone else opportunistically jumped in on the act..
My favorite Climate Change Conspiracy Theory because its the most plausible.
Perhaps we should start looking at Climate Change Historically also.
John Yarnold, climate scientists are predicting dark clouds overshadowing Paris, if world leaders don't agree with them.
The whole alarmist bandwagon can be summed up as follows:
A gas produced by the evil capitalists/fossil-fuel corporations can warm the world. The world has warmed a bit in the last 100 years, therefore it must have been the evil capitalist gas what did it, we can't think of anything else.
A very depressing state of affairs. No doubt the EU and other decadent entities will make expensive and futile promises to change the atmosphere, but the rest of the world won't. Even if they did would the promises come to pass? Even if they did would the atmosphere respond as intended? Even if it did would the climate respond as intended? Even if it did, would the outcome be better or worse?
Those questions are what the BBC should be tackling, not acting as the broadcast propaganda wing of the anti-capitalist Green Blob.
But at the end of the day ... this was clearly part of the BBC's campaigning efforts ahead of the Paris climate summit.
I think that's true. But why does the BBC think such programmes might make the slightest difference? The reason Copenhagen failed and Paris seems likely to fail is that the developing economies, responsible for over 65% of global emissions, are determined to prioritise economic growth and poverty alleviation over emission reduction. Does the BBC really think such programmes are even remotely likely to cause the Chinese and Indian governments for example to overturn that priority? If it does, it must believe these governments are comprised of children or fools. Which would be arrogant - and disgraceful.
I suggest the left-ist/greeist BBC are more likely to think they can prepare & pave the way for significnat losses of freedoms & life-styles of the general public, (not themselves you understand, they're the elites after all), more than trying to change China's India's industrialisation. The rank hypocracy is amazing, for years these elitists have carped & bleated on about poverty, starvation, & death in the third world, so when the Third World starts to do something about it, like develop, they want to either prevent it, or in accepting it insist we in the west have to pay a price by de-industrialising! As said, the elites will be the only ones who will be able to afford a decent living standard!
The drama in CAGW is in the debate they refuse to acknowledge. The BBC can’t tell a convincing tale because they’ve infantilised the issue. Why would anyone tune in to hear the same propaganda that neither addresses the questions people have nor says anything substantially new? BBC science has turned into BBC party political broadcasting.
Paradoxically such programmes may make agreement in Paris even less likely. A major factor in negotiations is the demand that the West pays huge sums to the developing economies as compensation for having caused the alleged problem - a demand the West is reluctant (and unable) to meet. Such propaganda could well make that demand louder.
Why do we think the BBC is campaigning before Paris? The UK isn't a big player in the world.
However, the BBC is a big player in the UK. And we have a General Election coming up.
My guess is that this is about shouting down sceptics (UKIP maybe?) before the oxygen of publicity they are legally bound to be provided.
When the truth outs it will be very bad for the BBC.
"Does the BBC really think such programmes are even remotely likely to cause the Chinese and Indian governments for example to overturn that priority?" Robin Guenier
Do they think they are remotely likely to influence anybody, anywhere? Like most BBC output these days, the shows are about pandering to like minded people not exploring a range of opinions. All they do is stroke the egos of people who think CO2 is somebody elses fault.
MCourtney, the BBC still sells its programmes abroad on the basis of its former glory, and perceived respectability.
It now seems to place its faith in the sensational ethics of tabloid journalism, and wonders why BBC audiences now learn more about the BBC, than the intended subject.
I learnt how much I appreciated the BBC, 30 years ago, working and living in the USA. Now, I am not so sure.
If there was anything to be impartial about the BBC's o/ps then any programme that put a particular view forward should show another o/p that was counter that. At least something that would calm any worry that alarmism will induce. They clearly don't care about that responsibility which is part of their broadcast remit. BBC Trust of course...nothing. Should change that to BBC Thrust really. Same for C4
Anyway, their o/p of rolling repeating news/cooking/soap/sewing junk and most else deflects me from watching most anything they shove out. Paying their tax is intolerable and I do want a TV to watch vids/web stuff in quality format. Not have to ditch broadcast receivers because of their insanity. And it is indeed insane!
If I was a paid shill for the British Global Warming Broadcasting Corporation I would offer up this in their defence. They are not the first to have their confused and tenuous grip on science loosened in the 1980s/90s by advances in information technology. The point of a speak-your-weight machine is still mainly that it weighs you, not that it speaks.
Now the BBC themselves have become like one of those irritating British Leyland/Rover type cars that would irritatingly tell you in a metallic voice what your estimated (and hopelessly inaccurate) MPG was at a particular instant. Or some other snippet of information that was hectoring, unhelpful, distracting, and more truthfully obtained from other existing sources.
" A gas produced by the evil capitalists/fossil-fuel corporations "
I assume you meant a gas produced by driving down to Ikea at the weekend or flying to a climate conference... I have never driven in my life so like it when someone wants to point out my evil fossil fuel ways.... I do fly quite often but at the extreme low price end so I can't see the evil airlines make much off me.... ie the 6 1p (all in) flights with Ryanair I reckon I can safely say is a loss for them.
The aim of the programme was clearly to try to manipulate public opinion, as indicated by the final line
"Now the real question is what do we decide to do with all this new information".
It was a relentless stream of misleading spin, scaremongering over coral, methane, extreme weather, and even, comically, alleged decline of Antarctic sea ice. Climate models were described as 'incredibly impressive' and there was no mention of their failure over the last 15 years or so.
I came across this website by accident, and won't be bothering to return very often.
I note the absence of any serious argument or evidence on any of the relevant elements of the AGW debate. Taken with the quality of the comments, which also rely mainly on abuse, I take it as further evidence that the debate is, for all practical purposes, over. The science, with all its residual caveats and uncertainties, is clear and becoming more clear every year, as presented by the BBC.
The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
prester john:
'The science, with all its residual caveats and uncertainties, is clear and becoming more clear every year, as presented by the BBC.'
You are obviously new here?
prester john, oh but we'll miss your interesting contributions...
There never was a debate and the public have wandered off in search of something more interesting. Since the programme was yet another vehicle for the BBCs biased opinions, what kind of discussion should there possibly be? They don't say anything new, they just keep hoping that if they polish it better and harder than before, suddenly everyone will see the light. It's not going to happen. Give up and resign yourself to more CO2 and whatever is going to happen as a result.
Prester John - a fantasy character - how appropriately quaint.
If prester john has found a climate debate somewhere perhaps he could come back and tell us where it's hiding. Insofar as there is a debate it appears mostly to be carried out on the sceptic blogs (try looking at the 'Discussion' pages) where abuse is reserved for warmist trolls and even there they have to try pretty hard before we take offence.
prester john (Mar 5, 2015 at 2:38 PM)
Or, to quote another Arab proverb (from the Mardrus translation of the 1001 Nights) “the journey isn't over until the cameldriver has buggered his camel.”As an alternative to all the rightwing theories of the dumbing down of the Beeb offered on the previous thread, here's my explanation for Auntie's Alzheimer's.
For the first fifty years of its existence the BBC was overtly reactionary and élitist. Around the seventies an authentic popular leftwing movement took shape in Britain, and it was the job of the Beeb, aided by other enlightened pseudo-leftwing media like the Guardian, to snuff it out. Witness the treatment afforded to the labour movement and its representatives by the so-called leftist BBC and Graun at that time. The Livingstones and Benns and Scargills were treated with the kind of sneering contempt reserved today for climate denialists, while the SDLP was welcomed as the saviour of civilisation.
Having seen off the danger of genuine popular democratic reforms, as a sop to popular opinion, the Beeb and its imitators offered, first satire by decent public school chaps, then more and more rude words and naughtiness from and for the plebs. Nowadays, not surprisingly, the brightest and best of youth aspire to be stand up comics, leaving science to the humble plodders and ex-members of boys' bands, and politics to the troughers. We have socialism on the screen in the form of reality shows and tv presenters with provincial accents, as a consolation prize for having outlawed socialism in real life.
And yet still the BBC is better than the telly in other countries.
geoffchambers having spent some evenings in Italian bars/restaurants, outside the tourist areas and seasons, about ten years ago, I can vouch for the "quality" of BerlusconiTV, and I don't speak Italian.
I think the ancient Romans would have liked it, a combination of Page 3, Up Pompeii!, and It's a Knock Out, in a TV studio, during the early evening.
I really hope the BBC can get a grasp of reality, before it is embraced by Reality TV
Prester John, a slightly sinister fantasy character involved with struggles over different beliefs and faiths. Quite fitting really.
I wonder why the BBC decided to put this out on BBC4? If they wanted maximum propaganda then surely it should have been prime time on BBC1.
HistoricalHysterical Horizon. There,sorted.prester john
So you're up to speed then on climate science? Good man.
An important archive of temporal-δuckwittery for future generations. The subtitle will one day read: "A complete absence of Hilbert and Poincaré" (apologies to Vladimir).
"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." (Poincaré)
Colouring-in degrees need more calculus and less applied punditry (particularly the wide-eyed-and-legless variety we saw recently).
Countering two decades of indoctrination is urgent. Hope destructive hand-wringing has inspired lives of colouring-in for too long. Never on crayon tin lids everywhere was so much deranged by so few for so many. Consumption of colouring books cost us dear and is no longer sustainable. Evolution denial is rife.
Born again in Rio '92, it now infects academia across the planet. Inoculation against H1-UN common FUD is needed to arrest the epidemic. Halting decline into another era of ducking stools and witch burnings: The Anthropoevil Period of colouring-in.
No more leather-bound potty seats, homeopathy and discourse with plants. Religion or world view won't foster re-enlightenment. Arguments are polarised but imagine what the infected would get up to if ever let out of academic sanatoria unfettered. Aside from witnessing bio-fuelled starvation of the world's poor, many in Somerset already know about green zombie apocalypse.
Protect food and energy supplies from green lunacy. Back to straightforward calculus.
Forget temperature, during the "hiatus" period there has been zero acceleration in the rate of change of CO2 concentration, despite vastly accelerated human emissions. The mass balance argument is a pastiche: Absence of data for the ~96% of CO2 interchanged annually by natural sources & sinks and maths that would reduce Henry to tears.
CO2 concentration evolves with temperature, not the other way around. Unless of course you believe marked deceleration in 1991 was down to Pinatubo and Hudson eruptions sequestering CO2 or biota holding its breath for two years. Get the maths straight and everything follows, including causality. No SRN with a suppository of wrong-order linear extrapolations and a crowd control barrier required for insertion during editing.
Will reformation take root before Paris? Not amid prayer vigils to Gaia for a Kanban Modiki. A nice backdrop for relentless smear and retouching of dog-eared colouring books in green felt tip. More hot air for Renouf (BSc colouring-in) to panegyrise and bag another bauble: The Green Blob Award for Δuckwittery.
Who cares if "normal" temperature wanders up or down slightly, we'll live with it as always. The universe is awash with chaos everywhere you look, why would Earth be different? When was it ever different? There's sweet Fanny Adams anyone can do about it, least of all political colouring-in artists wearing BBC anoraks and doleful Guardian proprietors bearing Marxist panacea.