BBC News-Why is it snowing in January.
Discussion
Blib said:
stripy7 said:
"It was above average now it's below average. Why can't it just stay at average"
f
k me sideways!!
I was just about the to post this. That comment is beyond stupid. f
k me sideways!!
except that whatever lurks beyond stupid, it's beyond even that.nelly1 said:
All this bks about 'strange' this and 'extreme' that, when it's actually perfectly normal really grinds my gears!
It's faith, y'see. We lack faith in junkscience and gigo and the BBC.ks about 'strange' this and 'extreme' that, when it's actually perfectly normal really grinds my gears!Derek Smith said:
What on earth is the problem? It was a short filler on the weather. The 'why can't it stay average' was a joke, and an obvious one at that. The woman actually laughed when she said it. It was a nice little link to the bloke explaining why the sudden changes. Someone earlier in the post said it was snowing because it is the winter. Hmm, not sure that is the reason going by the last few winters.
There was an explanation as to why this week's temperatures will be much lower than normal. It was quasi-scientific, simplified for the expected audience.
In essence it was nothing different to what the ITN might run. Why all this picking on the BBC? The Murdochs attack the BBC so that it can get more people onto it's channels. The labour party attacked the BBC in order to get Murdoch on their sides and Cameron has done exactly the same. The Daily Mail attacks the BBC in every issue (probably) because it owns a sizeable proportion of ITV.
The BBC produces superb programmes. BBC 4 is a gem but not everyone wants to watch it so it has to interest others, hence the little filler.
Just to clarify: the weather is not a leftish plot sprung by the BBC to force everyone to vote labour.
As you well know Derek, this is N,P+E on Pistonheads where attacking the BBC for no reason whatsoever appears to be par for the course. I don't get it either.There was an explanation as to why this week's temperatures will be much lower than normal. It was quasi-scientific, simplified for the expected audience.
In essence it was nothing different to what the ITN might run. Why all this picking on the BBC? The Murdochs attack the BBC so that it can get more people onto it's channels. The labour party attacked the BBC in order to get Murdoch on their sides and Cameron has done exactly the same. The Daily Mail attacks the BBC in every issue (probably) because it owns a sizeable proportion of ITV.
The BBC produces superb programmes. BBC 4 is a gem but not everyone wants to watch it so it has to interest others, hence the little filler.
Just to clarify: the weather is not a leftish plot sprung by the BBC to force everyone to vote labour.
Derek Smith said:
What on earth is the problem?
In essence it was nothing different to what the ITN might run. Why all this picking on the BBC?
Just to clarify: the weather is not a leftish plot sprung by the BBC to force everyone to vote labour.
You need to get up to speed on BBC climate science policy and their blackout on anything that suggests MMGW is a scam. And how they adopted that policy and lied about it after the event.In essence it was nothing different to what the ITN might run. Why all this picking on the BBC?
Just to clarify: the weather is not a leftish plot sprung by the BBC to force everyone to vote labour.
BBC pension schemes invested heavily in industries that rely on the myth. Figure it out.
All this CO2 rubbish is pushing up energy bills, plunging many elderly people into fuel poverty and killing them. The BBC's policy is indirectly supporting government policy that brings this about.
And, if you believe the BBC isn't heavily biased to the left, you're a dreamer.
scenario8 said:
As you well know Derek, this is N,P+E on Pistonheads where attacking the BBC for no reason whatsoever appears to be par for the course. I don't get it either.
That's because there are reasons but you either can't be bothered to find out what they are or have dismissed them for reasons personal to you (though perhaps shared by Derek and a couple of other rosy glow beebophiles).The BBC had and may still have about £8bn of its pension fund tied up in green myth investments which aren't doing too well given that more and more people are seeing through the scam that the BBC continues to ramp and governments are withdrawing all the taxpayer subsidies - and about time.
Various sources including the cross party non political GWPF itself said:
Lord Lawson (Conservative), Lord Donoughue (Labour) and Baroness Nicholson (Liberal Democrat), three Trustees of the all-Party and non-Party Global Warming Policy Foundation, have called upon the BBC’s new Director-General Designate to convene a new high-level seminar in order to re-assess the BBC’s treatment of global warming and climate policy issues.
Over many years, the BBC’s treatment of climate change issues has been marked by bias, ignorance, credulity and – in the latest episode – unwarranted concealment. The behaviour of the Corporation throughout has failed to measure up to professional standards.
In their letter to Lord Hall, the GWPF Trustees have asked the Director-General Designate also to reconsider the implications of the controversial global warming seminar held in 2006 which has shaped BBC policy on climate-related issues ever since.
In their letter the Trustees write:
“We refer to the now notorious seminar on global warming held in 2006, involving 28 senior BBC staff and 28 outsiders. As the BBC Trust subsequently explained, ‘The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on climate change and climate change policies]‘. Ever since then, the BBC has fought tooth and nail, at considerable public expense, to keep secret the identity of ‘the best scientific experts’.
As you may be aware, it now emerges that, of the 28 present, there were only two (hand-picked) climate scientists; and the bulk of the rest were either green activists (including two from Greenpeace alone) or non-scientists with a vested interest in promoting renewable energy. So the BBC stands convicted not only of culpable imbalance, but also of rank dishonesty.
We hope that, once you have grappled with the more immediate challenges facing the BBC, you will revisit this important issue. We suggest that you might start by convening a new high-level seminar, this time a more balanced one, whose non-BBC participants would be qualified climate scientists, energy and environmental economists, and experienced policy-makers – whose names, incidentally, would be made known. The Global Warming Policy Foundation would be happy to be represented in any such seminar.”
Especially credulous but thankfully not too numerous inhabitants of NP&E can carry on ignoring the obvious but the rest of us may ignore you as it gets tedious pointing out the obvious.Over many years, the BBC’s treatment of climate change issues has been marked by bias, ignorance, credulity and – in the latest episode – unwarranted concealment. The behaviour of the Corporation throughout has failed to measure up to professional standards.
In their letter to Lord Hall, the GWPF Trustees have asked the Director-General Designate also to reconsider the implications of the controversial global warming seminar held in 2006 which has shaped BBC policy on climate-related issues ever since.
In their letter the Trustees write:
“We refer to the now notorious seminar on global warming held in 2006, involving 28 senior BBC staff and 28 outsiders. As the BBC Trust subsequently explained, ‘The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on climate change and climate change policies]‘. Ever since then, the BBC has fought tooth and nail, at considerable public expense, to keep secret the identity of ‘the best scientific experts’.
As you may be aware, it now emerges that, of the 28 present, there were only two (hand-picked) climate scientists; and the bulk of the rest were either green activists (including two from Greenpeace alone) or non-scientists with a vested interest in promoting renewable energy. So the BBC stands convicted not only of culpable imbalance, but also of rank dishonesty.
We hope that, once you have grappled with the more immediate challenges facing the BBC, you will revisit this important issue. We suggest that you might start by convening a new high-level seminar, this time a more balanced one, whose non-BBC participants would be qualified climate scientists, energy and environmental economists, and experienced policy-makers – whose names, incidentally, would be made known. The Global Warming Policy Foundation would be happy to be represented in any such seminar.”
The BBC lost a lot of credibility in covering up Savile's odious activities.
Unfortunately, this alone gives it 'history'.
I don't expect any 'balance' from the BBC regarding a number of issues - MMGW and climate change is one of them.
This is OT - in case this was not flagged in the reply!
Unfortunately, this alone gives it 'history'.
I don't expect any 'balance' from the BBC regarding a number of issues - MMGW and climate change is one of them.
This is OT - in case this was not flagged in the reply!
Happy82 said:
RYH64E said:
I thought I read some climate change bod saying that snow was a thing of the past, probably the same expert who said that East Anglia was a semi-arid zone and water was a precious and scarce resource that shouldn't be wasted on mundane tasks like washing cars.
He littered his predictions of doom with a large number of the words maybe and potential, so he did not actually say we would never see snow again despite suggesting that we would never see it and trying to terrify us by saying that our children will only ever know of snow in VR machines. Well that is the excuse that liberal turds use anyway
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls...
Independent article from 2000 said:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
N.B. The CRU of the UEA is Warmist Central. Where most of the numbers that aid the "science" come from."Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
valiant said:
Oh and we must have the obligatory camera shot from a helicopter just in case we've forgotten what a snowy field or motorway looks like.
In fact, just show repeats of last year and change the dates.
Don't forget sending a camera crew and presenter out to a location where it's snowed so they can tell us it's snowed there and it's cold In fact, just show repeats of last year and change the dates.
It really is depressing to see what we've become as a nation. Any sort of weather apart from a bit cool or a bit warm seems to get a weather warning. Half the news tonight is about some snow that may or may not come tomorrow, and if it does it may be a whole 5cms! They ended by saying that travel disruption is expected!
5cms can cause disruption FFS! Makes me wonder how we even manage to tie our own laces in the morning these days!
eccles said:
It really is depressing to see what we've become as a nation. Any sort of weather apart from a bit cool or a bit warm seems to get a weather warning. Half the news tonight is about some snow that may or may not come tomorrow, and if it does it may be a whole 5cms! They ended by saying that travel disruption is expected!
5cms can cause disruption FFS! Makes me wonder how we even manage to tie our own laces in the morning these days!
It really is depressing...5cms can cause disruption FFS! Makes me wonder how we even manage to tie our own laces in the morning these days!
But since our Lords and Masters (the 'political class'
) have deemed that in their most excellent wisdom and supported by 'scientific consensus' where the 'science is settled' that snow will be a 'rare and very exciting event' there should be no surprise where 'business as usual' weather gives them (our Lords and Masters - aka politicians) a bit of a headache with how to deal with it - both in physical terms and 'spinning' the actual to comply with their theoretical view of reality. 
Hey ho.
clarkey540i said:
Snow in winter! Global climate warming change!!!!!!!!!!!
It snowed in January when I were a young 'un, in the sixties, and it is snowing in January now, so what the juddering fk has changed that's got the BBC cretins so excited???? 
I could understand if it hadn't snowed for thirty years then it started again, but.....
Just a small point: last time I looked the BBC wasn't a scientific institute, it was a broadcaster.
Therefore I don't understand the outrage directed at them when their climate science bits are based on what climate scientists say. I don't see how they have any justifiable reason to take another view when they're no more qualified in the field than you lot.
Therefore I don't understand the outrage directed at them when their climate science bits are based on what climate scientists say. I don't see how they have any justifiable reason to take another view when they're no more qualified in the field than you lot.
durbster said:
Just a small point: last time I looked the BBC wasn't a scientific institute, it was a broadcaster.
Therefore I don't understand the outrage directed at them when their climate science bits are based on what climate scientists say. I don't see how they have any justifiable reason to take another view when they're no more qualified in the field than you lot.
There are several of "us lot" who are more than adequately qualified in the field. Not me, I hasten to add.Therefore I don't understand the outrage directed at them when their climate science bits are based on what climate scientists say. I don't see how they have any justifiable reason to take another view when they're no more qualified in the field than you lot.
durbster said:
Just a small point: last time I looked the BBC wasn't a scientific institute, it was a broadcaster.
Therefore I don't understand the outrage directed at them when their climate science bits are based on what climate scientists say. I don't see how they have any justifiable reason to take another view when they're no more qualified in the field than you lot.
And no better informed than you, it would seem, since you know little if anything about the people you target and (presumably) associate with your own level of competence. Even so you're entitled to an opinion no matter how far from reality it may be.Therefore I don't understand the outrage directed at them when their climate science bits are based on what climate scientists say. I don't see how they have any justifiable reason to take another view when they're no more qualified in the field than you lot.
It's not the BBC's position as broadcasters not scientists to take any one view and exclude others, it's their job to report from an impartial position. The trouble is, they are far from impartial. With an estimated £2bn deficit relating to an £8bn pension fund investment in green myths there is a considerable vested interest.
Another of several reports on the BBC's vested interest climate bias comments as follows:
"Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as mainstream while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted...The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe. Its chairman is Peter Dunscombe, also the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment."
Having a state broadcaster so deeply in hock to the new green religion is a matter of serious concern, and worse when the pension fund recovery depends on the myths being accepted going forward, which isn't happening. While the small matter of a larger proportion of the licence fee being snatched to support their fund is also a concern, the greater concern is that by pushing the climate scam, as MBH pointed out, green myth politicking is hiking the cost of electricity and additional tens of thousands of vulnerable people are dying prematurely in the severe winters (global warming, what else would we expect) due to not being able to afford to heat their homes.
All-told, these actions of the BBC are shameful and worthy of criticism.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff