Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Are BHers out to kill the BBC ?


Who is this @Bob you keep mentioning?

He seems to have quite a good handle on the situation, I would suggest listening to him a bit more, rather than exhibiting your overwhelming desire to win every argument.

Sorry just my honest opinion.

May 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Stewgreen. Your argument is that because the BBC is a voice of authority it should be reformed, and I have no argument about that. My argument with you is that the Royal Society, which provides expert support to the BBC about climate change, needs to be reformed first. It is true the BBC will get advice from other purveyors of dodgy science, but if the Royal Society gave a more balanced view, the BBC deprived of its expert advice, would be forced to change. It could hardly continue with its bias, if it were to be challenged by members of the Royal Society.

I also think the Royal Society might be induced to change from within, well before you could enact changes within the behemoth that is the BBC.

May 7, 2016 at 11:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Firstly yes the RS needs to reform ...but the BBC can do simultaneously, if you think that is a behomoth task, well then it needs to start earlier rather that later.

Now this ties in to something i just mentioned "The ring around to get the most alarmist quote trick" I put on Unthreaded
( - Also common in other media bust used by the BBC and actually mentioned by a scientist in a R4 programme. Whereby on a climate story the BBC reporter rings around saying "will this mean disaster in X years", that prof said no the BBC guy hung up. The prof then revealed how on the evening news the reporter brought on another scientist saying "yes")

What will happen if only the RS reforms is that corrupt BBC will just ring some one more alarmist.
Unless @Bob has some good evidence that the BBC's stance is anchored to the RS .
(I use Bob of course cos he always asks me to keep his real name out of it)

May 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Reforming organisations is not impossible but it requires extremely strong leadership with the authority to do what is needed.

As a general rule, much more likely to be successful to build a new organisation from scratch and leave the old one to wither away (or be closed down in stages).

May 7, 2016 at 3:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

I think you or someone else said that before Martin. (It's been buried in a mountain off of topic guff)
but it is a seriously good argument.

BTW yesterday i came across some good old articles about corrupted BBC

Peter-Sissons in the Mail

Robin Aitken on the biases of the BBC 2007

May 7, 2016 at 3:16 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen


Roger. I'll leave you to it.

May 7, 2016 at 6:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Good one, EM – you realise you have been filleted, so just surrender the stage, rather than answer the questions. You never fail to not surprise; how sad.

May 7, 2016 at 8:09 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent

Stewgreen , as de facto moderator, wants this discussion to stay on topic.

I am complying. It is called courtesy.

May 7, 2016 at 11:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

If you say so, Entropic man. If you say so. Odd, though, how your sense of courtesy did not prevent you from knocking the discussion so far off topic in just one post (May 5, 2016 at 3:44 PM). While most people will allow the subject to wander amiably around, you took it to a completely different sphere, only acceding to returning to topic when you realised you have been given questions that you cannot answer.

May 8, 2016 at 2:24 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, stewgreen

Sorry, stewgreen, the old bag insists.

On polar population, nobody know. The uncertainties are too large.
On the other points, the data disagrees with his statements.

May 8, 2016 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

…the climate system involves countless, poorly understood complexities, such as cloud cover and water vapor.
The data disagree? Well, you are wrong, there, as almost every true scientist will say the data agrees with that.
…“man’s influence on the climate still cannot be filtered from the climate noise even today” and that today’s climate and weather changes are no different than what was observed hundreds of years ago, citing the IPCC itself:

There is not a single bit of scientific justification to claim: Here we are seeing unusual climate developments that can be only attributed to humans.

The data disagree? Well, a quote direct from the IPCC shows you to be wrong, there, too
…elevated concentration bring a number of advantages to the ecosystems, foremost a greener planet with better plant growth.
The data disagree? Haven’t there been quite a few reports from such organisations as NASA that agrees with that? Wrong again, EM.
…ocean acidification is another myth of the alarmists. Every chemists you talk to on ocean acidification being a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 will roll his eyes. […]

Also the supposed sensitivity of corals to CO2 in sea water is an alarmist myth.

The data disagree? Have a chat with Mr K. on that one; I have a feeling he will inform you that you are mistaken. What the old bag insists on is determination of facts; the old bag has no beliefs to defend, and, if any suppositions are proved wrong, will no doubt meekly acknowledge such. To date, there has not been sufficient evidence for any firm conclusions that suppositions on the power of humans over nature have been greatly exaggerated.

May 8, 2016 at 6:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

(If it is any consolation, I’m not sure I understand that last sentence, either.)

May 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Suggest you might need yet another BBC discussion thread. "Have the tories bottled it?"

May 12, 2016 at 8:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

RR (May 8, 8.07pm). After several months decyphering Ayla's communications, your last sentence is crystal clear.

May 12, 2016 at 8:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Why should anyone give a fig if the BBC lives or dies? At the end of the day, it is just another aging company. Information wants to be free, it has been said. The BBC has failed in making information more free. So it either stops being part of the problem or it will stop, eventually.

May 12, 2016 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

I'll give a fig.

May 12, 2016 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall