Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > BBC & Media Bias re :climate/energy/green issues ..new thread

So we see that EM is merely a pathetic long winded execrable strumpet thinking he is superior, but is really just a banal example of miasma.

For EM, a paradigm is simply an excuse for him to stop thinking and to go into echo chamber mode, which is facilitated by his confusion of the terms "open mind" and "empty mind".

May 17, 2016 at 12:00 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Golf Charlie

I don't see the Minoan and Mediaeval Warm periods, or the LIA as separate periods with gaps between them. I see them as stages in an ongoing orbitally induced cooling process which began about 5000 years ago. This was then reversed by the Industrial Revolution.
I know you haven't a clue what caused them, which is why there is no point in putting you and yours on television.

Martin A

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

paradigm - "the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time"

In science a paradigm is a group of linked theories which describe how a system operates. For example, sea floor spreading, subduction, earthquakes, vulcanism, mountain building, weathering, erosion, sedimentation and the geological carbon cycle are all theories which together make up the geological paradigm of plate tectonics.

In physics there are theories describing the behaviour of a wide variety of electrical components from capacitors to Josephson junctions. Scientifically they would be part of the paradigm of QED. The engineering application of this paradigm would be called electronics.

The climate paradigm includes plate tectonics theories relating to the distribution of continents, vulcanism and mountain building. Include the geological and biological carbon cycles, the water cycle, direct variation in insolation due to solar cycles and indirect effects due to orbital cycles, OLR, greenhouse gases, thermohaline circulation, ocean currents ice shett and glacier dynamics and any other physical theories which impinge on climate.

May 17, 2016 at 12:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, you take arrogance and a lack of honesty to new levels. You continue to consider yourself an expert in lecturing others on climate science, but can't admit you don't know the cause and end of the MWP and LIA, as they do not fit with your irrational belief system.

I am happy to be honest and admit I do not know the cause of the MWP, whereas you remain in denial.

May 17, 2016 at 1:50 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

" A low budget reality TV or studio news programme costs about £3000/ minute. Climate sceptics have nothing that is worth a TV news programme spending that amount of money on them.

Remember that there is no Free Lunch here. Television lives by ratings and advertising revenue. Any guests have to be informative, relevant and entertaining. Climate sceptics usually score 1 out of 3. They are not informative or relevant, but it can be entertaining to watch them wriggle." Entropic man

Since about roughly 50% of the public poll as being partially or wholly sceptical of CAGW, I think the numbers alone suggest that it is relevant. Given that your side have wild ideas about what scepticism is, it would also be informative. However, since a great deal of television is not informative, relative or entertaining, I don't think they should be a barrier.

The only reason to not allow sceptics on tv is because the other side are already losing badly, even with the communication stitched up.

May 17, 2016 at 7:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2, do remember that Global Warmists have defined what sceptics think. With their typical arrogance, and dwindling logic, they never asked any sceptics, just made up the answers, and declared themselves experts, with a 97% confidence limit.

May 17, 2016 at 9:06 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Too true Golf Charlie, that's where the 'it's all a hoax' meme comes from. Ironically, a great number of the disinterested beleive it because it's repeated so often by the other side.

May 17, 2016 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

EM: I have offered you a link to this graph – http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Easterbrook-Natural_global_warming – before, and, while it is obvious you have not looked at it, it shows quite clearly that there have been rises and falls in temperatures over the past 10,000 years, with the past 3,000 years showing a distinct downward trend. Now, what caused those rises and falls? As yet, only one has managed to come up with a reasonable hypothesis for this, and the data presented does show a remarkable correlation. However, give the man some credit – he does NOT state that this IS the case, he merely offers it as a hypothesis, as he knows that correlation does NOT necessarily mean causation, and admits that more research is required. While the cost of more research might run into the millions, I doubt that they will run into the many hundreds of BILLIONS that the barmy scheme you advocate has already cost us, with nothing but the deconstruction of science to show for it, as well as the potential for the destruction of civilisation to come – for which some appear to be eagerly striving for!

The only reason to not allow sceptics on tv is because the other side are already losing badly, even with the communication stitched up.” +100, TinyCO2

May 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

It is lucky that Climate Science runs courses on how to communicate Climate Science, just think what a mess they might have got into otherwise.

Nobody has ever thought to run courses on questioning the logic of climate science, there has never been any difficulty.

May 17, 2016 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Free solar advertising again
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/bbc-are-a-disgrace-professor-david-campbell/#comment-69351

May 17, 2016 at 12:12 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

The climate paradigm includes plate tectonics theories relating to the distribution of continents, vulcanism and mountain building. Include the geological and biological carbon cycles, the water cycle, direct variation in insolation due to solar cycles and indirect effects due to orbital cycles, OLR, greenhouse gases, thermohaline circulation, ocean currents ice shett and glacier dynamics and any other physical theories which impinge on climate.

May 17, 2016 at 12:37 AM | Entropic man

But none of that lot (apart from CO2 produced by man) was ever mentioned by climate scientists before, when they determined that the science was settled, without telling anyone else.

The consensus conclusions of climate scientists seem to depend more on cash flow, and political whim, than science.

May 17, 2016 at 10:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"You accuse the BBC of leftist bias. At the same time it is accused of bias against the Labour Party.

If both right and left are accusing the BBC of bias against them, then the balance is correct."

Even by your low standards of analysis this is a doozy. It is biassed against the Labour Party because the Labour Party has been taken over by the oiks and is no longer run by the Notting/Islington luvvy left that pervades he BBC.

As for bias on climate change I don't understand what we expect from them. I think we can all agree that the staff of news and current affairs and Trust consist almost entirely of bien pensant interconnected Oxbridge types with Arts and PPE degrees. What they see is an entire scientific community, not just in the UK, but worldwide, telling them that the world is warming, this will change our climate and here will be catastrophic consequences. From their point of view, and that of Sky and ITV, why would they want to challenge this, and where would they muster the information to challenge it? The blogs?

Even worse, when they do come across scepticism it is the very people for which the organisation finds most revulsion who are challenging the paradigm (mostly), elderly right wing curmudgeons, who they regard as a very small minority.

Finally, if they ever do let anyone have any say, on any topic, that might suggest the theory, or solutions proposed, might not be 100% correct they are inundated with complaints from an army of greens on the lookout for the slightest deviation from the party line.

In their position would anyone here go out on a limb?

They are biassed towards a leftish wing worldview, big government, EU, UN etc. but that's the new establishment position in the UK even on the left wing of the Tory Pary.

May 18, 2016 at 3:52 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

"why would they want to challenge this" cos it's a journalists job to challenge and test assertions.

And a number do, unfortunately we can't name most of them in case they too gte kicked out like Johny Ball and David Bellamy etc.

Anyone with nous should be aware of scientists who challenge CAGW and find their arguments credible.
The BBC do go against the establishment on things such as fracking, and GMOs
yet on nuclear after shaming themselves with Fukushima hyperbole , they have since gone to air firm science voices that say it and other nuclear aren't in practice very dangerous.

May 18, 2016 at 7:24 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I should say that link I posted last night about a BBC biased solar prog
..is PH's coverage of a GWPF item by Professor David Campbell, Lancaster University Law School covering that particular BBC prog

"An episode of the BBC Radio 4 Costing the Earth programme broadcast on 11 May and repeated on 12 May enthusiastically described the extremely vigorous growth of the Chinese solar energy industry "
"this claim is extremely misleading"
He basically says that China's renewables solar/wind is so so small it's growth in coal vastly dwarfs it, tho that is not the impression you get from listening to the BBC prog, which focused on such renewables doubling without mentioning that when something is almost zero it is easy to double it. Compounded with them making out coal is declining when its actually increasing vastly in the long term.

GWPF item There has been no departure from China’s policy of expansion of coal-fired generation capacity, and the rate of installation continues at the astronomical rates.

May 18, 2016 at 7:43 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

In regards to the BBC's view that because both political sides complain it must be getting things right - I listened to one of Radio 4 comedians talking about the audiences at private gigs. He said that right wing audiences (judged by where he was performing eg a bankers evening) were good at laughing at themselves, where left wing audiences couldn't abide the performer poking fun at them in th slightest. The producers of Question Time have admitted that they can't attract right wing audience members. What they don't understand from these examples is that right wing audiences are so used to being kicked by the BBC that they either shrug it off or just avoid them. So if they're getting equal abuse from left and right, It's because they've pushed way beyond just normal levels of anti right bias, but could only be mildly criticising the left.

They are conflicted over Corbyn. On the one side he's spouting everything they've ever wished from a Labour leader but on the other they can see he's unelectable. I also wonder if they are coming to realise that if hard left policies to impact the wealthy elites were in place, they themselves would be in the cross hairs.

May 18, 2016 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

geronimo, I agree with you summary of how the BBC see the climate debate but with a few exceptions. 1) 50% ish of the public are sceptical and it's their job to reflect their audience. Even being politically biased, it doesn't excuse ignoring sceptics altogether. And 2) they love presenting anti establishment views. They give more time to homeopathy and terrorists than climate sceptics. They excuse talking to terrorists and their friends on the grounds that discussion leads to understanding which leads to solution - why don't they apply that the CAGW? The reason is the BBC does whatever it wants irrespective of the scientific evidence or a desire to solve the problem. Like the dirtiest tabloid it enjoys muck raking.

May 18, 2016 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

May 18, 2016 at 7:24 AM | Registered Commenter stewgreen

The BBC do go against the establishment on things such as fracking, and GMOs yet on nuclear after shaming themselves with Fukushima hyperbole , they have since gone to air firm science voices that say it and other nuclear aren't in practice very dangerous.

That's an interesting observation. In the past I have observed that the BBC is innumerate and technically incompetent when it comes to science news.
Yet you seem to have identified a resultant bias.

The BBC is risk averse to the point of paranoia.

As the BBC can't assess evidence (observations) except by weighing sources (opinions) they cannot distinguish between improbable speculation and reasoned caution.
There's always a crazy out there. Indeed Green charities live off feeding the fear.
The BBC gives those view equal probability. But bad news is more newsworthy than 'nothing much happening;'. That gives their news coverage a bias towards the ludicrously pessimistic.

This explains why every predicted catastrophe has been not as bad as predicted, since the Black Death anyway

May 18, 2016 at 10:17 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

stewgreen, after the BBC's official decision to be biased about climate science, as established by 28Gate, has any politician raised proven BBC bias in the current media debate?

It is the sort of story the BBC would prefer the public not to be reminded about, especially as D.Trump represents everything that scares the BBC witless, and the BBC may use climate science to portray him as 'unbalanced'.

May 18, 2016 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

This explains why every predicted catastrophe has been not as bad as predicted, since the Black Death anyway

May 18, 2016 at 10:17 AM | M Courtney

Even the BBC's leaked predictions of doom about the BBC, turned out to be over exaggerated.

Meanwhile the BBC continues to broadcast predictions of doom about leaving the EU and Global Warming. There may be a pattern, but I would be branded a conspiracy theorist, by the EU, BBC and Global Warmists if I made the connection.

May 18, 2016 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

TinyCO2 "geronimo, I agree with you summary of how the BBC see the climate debate but with a few exceptions. 1) 50% ish of the public are sceptical and it's their job to reflect their audience. Even being politically biased, it doesn't excuse ignoring sceptics altogether. And 2) they love presenting anti establishment views."

I can only guess what they know about the percentage of the public are sceptical, so I won't go into that, however I suspect that they are empathetic with the climate change story, anyway, Don't forget ITV, and Sky who I pay near the yearly licence fee to every month don't cover it either. Yes they are the mouthpiece for the right on virtue signalling part of the establishment, but I doubt there's much support for fracking in that group.

They are merely the broadcasting arm of the Guardian, staying in business because outside of politics they make some good documentary and entertainment programmes.

May 18, 2016 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

what keeps the commercial media onside?
Well if they go against Greendream religion they can say goodbye to a lot of advertising dollars.
also companies like to get credos from claiming to be green and the media wouldn't want to go against that.

May 19, 2016 at 2:19 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Microbial resistance - the BBC's new CAGW?

- Must act now
- Must spend billions
- An economist speaks.

Superbugs will 'kill every three seconds'
By James Gallagher Health editor, BBC News website

Superbugs will kill someone every three seconds by 2050 unless the world acts now, a hugely influential report says.

The global review sets out a plan for preventing medicine "being cast back into the dark ages" that requires billions of dollars of investment.
(...)
Lord Jim O'Neill, the economist who led the global review, told the BBC: "We need to inform in different ways, all over the world, why it's crucial we stop treating our antibiotics like sweets.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36321394

O'Neill obtained a B.A. degree in 1977 and an M.A. degree in economics from Sheffield University in 1978.[4][5] He subsequently earned his Ph.D. degree from the University of Surrey in 1982, with a thesis titled An empirical investigation into the OPEC surplus and its disposal. O'Neill began his career in finance working at Bank of America in 1982. From 1988 to 1991, he was in charge of the fixed income research group at Swiss Bank Corporation, and he served as SBC's chief of global research.[6] He joined Goldman Sachs in 1997 and he was appointed as the head of global economics research in 2001, which is also when he published the seminal BRIC paper. No candidate yet has been named to replace him as Chief Economist.[7]
(...)
On 2 July 2014 he was appointed by UK Prime Minister David Cameron to head an international commission to investigate global antimicrobial resistance.

Wikipedia

May 19, 2016 at 9:14 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A, he makes a convincing case for more taxpayer funding, for big pharmaceutical companies, in order to save the world.

Gordon Brown thought he saved the world, a complex ought to be named after him as a tribute.

May 19, 2016 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Media silent on Official Polar bear report Nov 2015 saying they are not in vulnerable status.

only WWF actually updated its website

May 20, 2016 at 2:35 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Watched BBC TV News after lunch today, there was an item about a record temperature in an Indian City beating a record several decades old. So checked the wbsite and found this:

A city in India's Rajasthan state has broken the country's temperature records after registering 51C, the highest since records began, the weather office says.

The new record in Phalodi in the desert state comes amid a heatwave across India.

The previous record for the hottest temperature stood at 50.6C in 1956.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36339523

Which would have been fine had it been balanced by any of following about equally unheard of places:

UPDATE: Grand Forks airport breaks 71-year-old low temp record

“This is the first year since the early 1960s that we lost our peach crop,” said Lawrence of the Lawrence Farms Orchards. “We had such a mild winter that the trees weren’t ready for the cold.”

Full vinter i Bodø

But it wasn't, so we're under the impression that the World is catching fire. (Unless we're living in Limousin at the moment).

May 20, 2016 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

SandyS, was any reason given as to why it was so hot in Phalodi in 1956? Did it make the BBC news? Or even India's news?

Do we know what was done to make sure it did not happen again? If they did nothing, perhaps we should do nothing again but twice as hard, and no doubt hundreds of times more expensively.

Is there any mention of the cooler temperatures in the early 70s during the ice age scare, that climate scientists are adamant never happened?

Climate scientists don't like to pick their frozen cherries.

May 20, 2016 at 11:23 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie