BBC News-Why is it snowing in January.

[Ali G]

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.

Perhaps it would be reasonable for other views to be presented by the BBC, since as you state - they are not qualified to make any judgement in this area. There are many more areas of 'science' involved here than those who represent themselves as 'climate scinetists' are able to provide expertise.

Anyhoo - this is now OT - and there are lots of other 'climate threads' running!

[turbobloke]

Ali G said:

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.

Perhaps it would be reasonable for other views to be presented by the BBC, since as you state - they are not qualified to make any judgement in this area. There are many more areas of 'science' involved here than those who represent themselves as 'climate scinetists' are able to provide expertise.

Anyhoo - this is now OT - and there are lots of other 'climate threads' running!

Is it really OT though.

Thread title: BBC News-Why is it snowing in January.

When the green high priests want it to be so, any weather is climate. They're not scientists, apparently

[durbster]

Blib said:

There are several of "us lot" who are more than adequately qualified in the field. Not me, I hasten to add.

Yes I've seen but with all due respect to them, I see no reason to value their opinion over and above others simply because they're here. If the people who's job it is to study climate say something then I, like the BBC, have no real justification to disbelieve them.

The conspiracy theories and cover-ups don't seem particularly convincing to me and I'd be surprised if most of the st thrown at climate science couldn't be directed at any area of science if it were treated to the same level of scrutiny.

I don't question any other field of science so I don't see why I should treat this one any differently.

[Blib]

durbster said:

I don't question any other field of science so I don't see why I should treat this one any differently.

And there's the problem.

[mybrainhurts]

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.

The BBC's Charter demands impartiality. They are in breach of that Charter.

[thinfourth2]

Blib said:

There are several of "us lot" who are more than adequately qualified in the field. Not me, I hasten to add.

What you need a qualification to say it gets cold and snowy in Winter.


I know it gets dark at night



Can i have my research grant now please

[mybrainhurts]

durbster said:

Blib said:

There are several of "us lot" who are more than adequately qualified in the field. Not me, I hasten to add.

Yes I've seen but with all due respect to them, I see no reason to value their opinion over and above others simply because they're here. If the people who's job it is to study climate say something then I, like the BBC, have no real justification to disbelieve them.

The conspiracy theories and cover-ups don't seem particularly convincing to me and I'd be surprised if most of the st thrown at climate science couldn't be directed at any area of science if it were treated to the same level of scrutiny.

I don't question any other field of science so I don't see why I should treat this one any differently.

Human generated CO2 up 58%. No warming for 16 years. Doesn't that make you think?

[durbster]

Blib said:

And there's the problem.

Meh, far more interesting things to think about.

I trust science to sort its own affairs out. When something is wrong, it gets found out. If that doesn't happen now then science as a system is surely doomed.

I probably should point out that I don't watch the BBC news but I don't see any problem with the report here. It's simply explaining why there's a cold snap now, presumably because people had been writing in to ask.

[Blib]

durbster said:

Meh, far more interesting things to think about.

I trust science to sort its own affairs out. When something is wrong, it gets found out

Science has been found out in this case. You choose not to think for yourself. Instead, you post a vacuous, complacent critique of posters discussing a topic that you yourself admit is not interesting enough for you to think about.

Terrific contribution to the thread. Well done.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

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.

Incorrect. I've no doubt you and others know a lot about this field (why you think I consider myself equivalent, I've no idea), but I still don't see why I should consider what you write more valid than what others who are similarly qualified write.

Unless you are mother nature, in which case I'll concede on all points.

And yes I did notice you knocked the smiley off my post to make it seem more serious than it was. Thanks for that.

[Jasandjules]

durbster said:

Meh, far more interesting things to think about.

As long as you are happy to pay excessive taxes based upon lies then.

[durbster]

Blib said:

You choose not to think for yourself. Instead, you post a vacuous, complacent critique of posters discussing a topic that you yourself admit is not interesting enough for you to think about.

No, I was simply making the point that I don't see why the BBC is lambasted as if they're the only organisation that listens to the IPCC. Last time I took an interest in this stuff there were an enormous number of major scientific institutions backing the IPCC.

Incidentally, the last BBC thing I watched that mentioned climate change stated, "we don't know what's causing the warming". That doesn't suggest a particularly hard-line agenda to me.

Jasandjules said:

As long as you are happy to pay excessive taxes based upon lies then.

Well, that's something that predates and will outlive climate science

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

Blib said:

You choose not to think for yourself. Instead, you post a vacuous, complacent critique of posters discussing a topic that you yourself admit is not interesting enough for you to think about.

No, I was simply making the point that I don't see why the BBC is lambasted as if they're the only organisation that listens to the IPCC. Last time I took an interest in this stuff there were an enormous number of major scientific institutions backing the IPCC.

Look again. A self-appointed minority committee of like-minded zealots does the backing, then when pre-eminent scientific institution members find out what's going on, they insist on change and/or resign when the change is too slow.

You said this in the film and tv and radio forum: "I don't really understand why people oppose the BBC's position on climate change. They do lay it on a bit thick at times but the bottom line is that they can only go on what the science says, and I've never seen any credible deconstruction of the IPCC."

They don't go on what the science says, they go on what another small coterie of activists says, the grant-funded core Team at the IPCC pushing The Cause. More importantly they don't go on what the data says and in science, valid data is what matters. As to the IPCC, they have little credibility outside the BBC and The Guardian.

It's clear you don't intend or want to look into anything beyond a superficial level but you might like to hold fire on those who do, and if you want to make claims as above, not checking out the details won't help to make a convincing case. At the moment you're just parroting the nonsense that the BBC hopes everyone will parrot, to save their pensions and to promote the policies that aren't working but are contributing to tens of thousands of deaths each severe winter - policies which fit the narrow BBC world view.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

It's clear you don't intend or want to look into anything beyond a superficial level but you might like to hold fire on those who do, and if you want to make claims as above, not checking out the details won't help to make a convincing case.

On the contrary, I did look into it all several years ago (when it first became fashionable ). I even took part in endless discussions on web forums about it and spent hours scouring the web looking for information to back up my position.

At the time I held the opposite view; I thought the IPCC findings were bks. But the more I read, the weaker I found my position. Most of what I found ended up being authored by Americans with a GCSE in geology wanting money, and similar.

As a result, I ended up changing my position and that's where I bowed out, to wait until a definitive answer one way or another.

So, despite assumptions, I'm quite prepared to look at the information available with an open mind and form my own opinion. I'll concede I may have been looking in the wrong places but I'm not a researcher or a scientist, so I did the best I could and that is what I concluded.

[Terminator X]

It snowed every year when I was a kid then it stopped for a while now it's started again ... Lesson learnt, weather is hard to predict!

TX.

[vonuber]

I like the BBC output in general. Guess that makes me a pinko commie sheeple. Oh well.

[andy43]

It's not just the BBC - they're all at it.
The 'go stand next to a puddle/overflowed river/flooded pub while holding an umbrella' reporters need to do something when it stops raining.
Idiots reporting on the obvious.
24 hour news needs some filler material if no one has run round an american school with a pistol in the last day or so - the weather is ideal for it.

[Otispunkmeyer]

nelly1 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/20998895

Basically, the models are useless...

Beeb said:

...the computer prediction is completely disordered. It may stay cold, it may get warmer. We do not know; in fact, anyone who tells you definitively what next week's weather will be like is whistling in the wind.

...and the cold snap is caused by 'strange, sudden stratospheric warming'.

You can see this 'strange warming', and put in into historical context here...

All this bks about 'strange' this and 'extreme' that, when it's actually perfectly normal really grinds my gears!

Yet they bleat on, with accuracy about how the whole world will be underwater/dry as a bone within 20 years.

[Mojocvh]

andy43 said:

It's not just the BBC - they're all at it.
The 'go stand next to a puddle/overflowed river/flooded pub while holding an umbrella' reporters need to do something when it stops raining.
Idiots reporting on the obvious.
24 hour news needs some filler material if no one has run round an american school with a pistol in the last day or so - the weather is ideal for it.

You forgot the "North Face" effect there...

[littlegreenfairy]

We had deep snow on the 4th March 1990.

I remember it well because it was my primary school best friend's 5th birthday and we had been taken to the wildlife park. No wildlife to be seen but tonnes and tonnes of snow to play it. Was amazing!