ZDB

Right wing, lacking creativity and imagination, well you seem to be indicating that I have a particular leaning that should be taken with a pinch of salt, I'm surprised that there is no mention of funding from certain oil companies. You really have taken up the methodology of the moment.
Perhaps upon your approval I should include a disclaimer at the bottom stating that 'the views expressed within this post are those of a suspected right winger and should be read with the knowledge that there will be nothing creative or imaginative within the content to those of a consensus viewpoint.'

Or would you prefer a tag of a single word to indicate my position on the current issue.

Please, if you don't have the backup of sufficient evidence to create an imaginative argument then don't resort to ad hominem attacks, it doesn't add any credibility to your standing and belittles the effort that the Bishop has put into this site in order to create an informative area of debate and discourse.

FFS Zed!

Don't waste your talents defending the indefensible ;-)

Seriously - do you know anyone working for the BBC? I do - and I can assure you that, how shall I put this? There is a pervasive left-liberal bias in the corporate culture, ably enforced by a fair degree of PC.

But good comment - funny (not derisive funny; funny ha ha).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/wind-farms-nimbyism

The times are a changing.......

A guardian article criticising windfarms, railing against PC (ie can't criticise them) mentions you can't store energy, mentions when the wind does not blow (specific example last December) , mentions that have to have coal fired to back up wind farms, and even quotes the Daily Mail ! - POsitively. the recent article about the toxic waste in their productionin China

Who would have though this article was posible...

the comments are fun!

"Is this the beginning of the end for the left leaning bias or a means to ensure that the right type of people work at the Beeb?"
Feb 6, 2011 at 10:03 AM | Lord Beaverbrook

Mmm, all those left-wing programmes like Top Gear, Antiques Roadshow, and Trooping of the Colour. Often, as I watch the BBCs staunchly Tory chief political editor Nick Robinson, I think to myself that this left-wing bias has gone too far.

Something in the centre, when viewed from far enough to one side, appears to be on the other. It's a matter of perspective. To me, Auntie often seems a little Conservative for my tastes, but I have the objectivity to realise that's probably just me. Put it this way, it's rare to hear someone moaning about left wing bias in the Beeb who's not right wing.

Creative and imaginative people, are better at empathising with others, and as a consequence are often left-leaning. People who are less creative and imaginative, tend to empathise more with people who are similar to them, go to golf clubs, drive the same type of car etc. There's therefore a tendancy to be more Conservative. As a Media company, the BBC is naturally chock a block with creative types, and it's testament to the way the remit is enforced, that it's as impartial as it is.

Auntie is washing her underwear in public!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354112/BBC-boss-charge-Manchester-commutes-4-000-miles-UK-U-S--avoiding-income-tax.html

Is this the beginning of the end for the left leaning bias or a means to ensure that the right type of people work at the Beeb?

Cumbrian Lad

I'm inclined to agree as the extent of 'Oil-Funded Denialism' is greatly exaggerated these days. Not to say that it did not, and does not, go on, but as you suggest, let's not get bogged down.

Zed/BBD I think the issue of source of funding has been pretty much nailed by now. 'Oil' is funding all shapes and sizes of science, including climate studies and if you were to ignore or discount anything with fossil funding then we'd be back in the self funded vicar type of science. Let's concentrate on the quality of output, not the who pay's whom.

Zed

Should you look back in, you can see the clear difference in trend between UAH and RSS here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

UAH has the higher trend.

While you have your doubts about Spencer's integrity, perhaps this will dispel them at least a little?

Zed

No problem - happens to me a lot.

Thanks for the tip on following up the funding.

As I said earlier, I don't automatically accord Spencer a clean bill of health, nor am I comfortable with some of his political affiliations. But he could still be right about clouds. And if he isn't then someone will come along with a convincing demonstration of why he is in error. Until that happens, I will wait and see.

I'm pretty sure you know I am a 'lukewarmer' rather than a flat-out contrarian, so you will know that I don't want to pick a fight with you about the essentials.

I'm going to guess that you acknowledge that there are misrepresentations on both 'sides' and that the war of attrition debate is not helped by them. Likewise the strong language.

I really do appreciate you efforts to come up with an alternative to the d-word. Hopefully some of the more excitable language here might be shamed away, in time.

Although I'm probably succumbing to wishful thinking here...

BBD - sorry, crossover posts.

Look at the organisations he's part of, and click on them for details of Exxon funding. You can be fairly confident it's right, simply because they'd get sued every which way since Sunday if it wasn't accurate. Can one point a finger and explicitly say that Roy Spencer is paid money to counter AGW science? Of course not. But to be that involved in so many groups paid by Exxon to, y'know, that word Andrew doesn't like which I'm still looking for a replacement for, is surely sufficient to paint what must be an accurate picture.