Tactical change of climate
>> Sunday, October 11, 2009
The above video shows what could be called the power of nightmares- a form of Governmental abuse. The BBC yesterday published an article questioning the reality of global warming. One of the sickening things about the BBC is its ability both to change the climate of opinion, and use its journalistic license and political antennae to change course and retain its reputation. When will we get the apology for the rush to declare the debate on warming over? When will they admit they played a part in creating the hysteria which politicians like eager and brainless vampires feed on? Is it ever right to "abandon the pretence of impartiality" as Paxman claimed the BBC had? Now will they be returning to a semblance of impartiality? Why was this only a "pretence" in the first place? Will they not now still hanker after being proved right and keep pushing the MMGW hypothesis as "news"? The BBC's coverage of climate, and its consequences in the political discourse of this country, represent one of the most powerful arguments against the BBC's existence.
19 comments:
I saved that BBC page in case they quietly remove it.
What did the Coronation St. crowd make of being told that " climate change is real and it's all your fault " ?
how can you quietly remove the most read story?
anyway, I was intrigued to see how this one would be spun here - damned if you do, damned if you don't, it would seem
I turned the central heating up a degree, and threw open a window.
Bob,
It's a very small step in the right direction. But the piece still oozes bias. Those who question AGW are referred to by the pejorative<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--> label "climate change sceptics" (except in one case, where Piers Corbyn is called a solar scientist). Those who believe in AGW are labelled "scientists".
wow, sorry all about that last post - mods, please remove
Kanburi
You can delete your own posts if you are logged in.
<span style=" color: #3a3a3a; line-height: 16px;">Kanburi
You can delete your own posts if you are logged in.</span>
Click on the Delete after Flag - Reply
Please leave it. Makes more sense than most of the stuff here.
I don't think Ed is damning the BBC for publishing this. It's the previous denial that there is a debate about global warming that's the problem. If it is accepted that a debate does exist then it bears out our past criticism. (Although I have to say that one article alone does not convince me that the BBC mindset may have changed.)
However if the BBC now accepts there is a debate, it must accept that there has been a breach of its charter obligation to be impartial. Unless it deals with this openly, we must ask ourselves how it monitors this obligation, how effective this monitoring is and where else the charter is being breached.
I, for one, welcome our new big black carbon monster overlords. I never liked anthropomorphic bunnyrabbits anyway. Always prostituting themselves for some pseudo-scientific leftfag agenda. Disgusting.
Thanks for the advice Larry
Bob,
It's a small step in the right direction, but the article still oozes bias. Those who express doubts about AGW are referred to by the pejorative label "climate change sceptics" (except in one case, where Dr Piers Corbyn is called a solar scientist). Those who support AGW are called "scientists".
The subtext is that scientists are convinced of the AGW theory, but there are some "sceptics" who don't agree with them.
Well, here's at least one BBC PC idiot who hasn't heard that the debate is not over:
Part 1:
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span>I’m not clued up on the climate change debate but it was instructive to listen on the World Service on Thursday to a typical BBC hack conducting an "interview" complete with his neatly arranged prejudices and his eagerness to accept the views of his interviewee, prof whatshisname from Wales who was part of the team awarded the Nobel Prize for Propaganda along with Al Gore – who could probably light and heat half of Ethiopia with the electricity consumed in his mansion.</span>
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--></span>
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span>Paying lip service to the requirement to challenge his interviewee, the hack did ask one or two mildly-controversial questions, such as, "What does the Nobel Peace Prize have to do with climate change?" But it soon became apparent that he was simply collecting ammunition to fire at the man-made climate change sceptics with the following give-away question:</span>
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--></span>
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span>I paraphrase – "Every day the BBC gets e-mails doubting man-made climate change and stating that the science is not proven. WHAT DO I TELL THEM?"</span>
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--></span>Part 2:
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span>Evidently he wants to know not how he can best inform his audience about differing views on climate change but how he can best indoctrinate them in the BBC position on the matter. Yet another BBC campaigner masquerading as a journalist.</span><span></span>
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span>This was part of a climate change campaigning hour: America and China both need to reduce emissions but America's efforts are not good enough (bad, bad America) while China's promises to reduce look so rosy and positive (Hooray China we’re with you before you even accomplish anything.)</span>
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span>Then they drag the listener off to some remote community where an ancient farmer relates how the snow on a nearby mountain has been steadily receding upwards in the last 57 years to the extent that in coming generations there will be no run-off of water to irrigate the crops.</span>
<p style="text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed;"><span>The BBC-sanctioned "professor" said sea levels would rise one metre this century and half a metre the next. How does he work that one out? Or is he, along with so many other "professors" in the academic world, simply an idiot - or is he just pushing the line he's been paid to push?</span>
<span style="">They say that higher education broadens the mind. Maybe so, but it helps if you have a mind to begin with.</span>
It is encouraging to see that a proper weatherman with a first in geophysics and planetary physics has been recruited as a climate correspondent.
By the way - if you look at the Wikipedia entry for Roger Harrabin you can find this gem:
"the media, he believes, ... have given the wrong level of prominence to a range of risks including including MMR, dirty bombs, child abduction, transport safety, exotic diseases, UK National Health Service “crisis”, the Brent Spar oil platform, nuclear power and genetic modification."
Comedy gold.
Meanwhile, co-science and eco genius Richard Black and his moderators seem to have given over, Jo Abbess/Harrabinning-styly, his 'blog' to an interesting cabal of folk who see no problem with using it first as a meeting place to 'get together' in the first instance, but then try to drive away any voices that do not suit their narrative with what a appears to be an 'off-piste' site to discuss how best to crush dissenting voices.
And OK in the view of the BBC's merry band are notions that those who do not share their views, and are impudent enough to question them, should be jailed.
Oddly, when the subject of this BBC piece was raised, and dark muttering took place between the junta about the home team being 'off message', various posts were whipped off quick smart.
Possibly the BBC grasping, a bit late, that if you get in bed with the wrong kind of itch-scratchers, you can also end up with fleas.
It reads to me as a grudging acknowledgement, recognised as an attempt to look at other aspects, if a very lone one in the firmament.
And some here are accepting it as such. Damned if you do...
Trying to call any opinions generated on that as 'how it gets spun' says a shed load more about where you are coming from.
Not everyone is part of a tribal group that coordinates its actions before jerking its knees to a pre-ordained script.
Much as some seem only to rationalise it. Or try and make out... in a very, at best, clunky way.
I'd say how it gets spun is a fair comment when we have rather a lot of suggestion - an unrelated video referred to as 'the power of nightmares', words like 'sickening' and the usual general assumptions that the BBC says the debate is over - I'd call that spinning
the reason I say 'damned if you do' is because critics lambast the BBC for not giving them any space, and I have yet to see any comprehensive evidence of this (it may well be the case, but I like to have proper evidence) - then of course when they actually do show critics' opinions they are legitimising your claims further
- it's a win/win for you, Ally Campbell would be proud
Post a Comment