Climate Change - the big debate

[Lost_BMW]

malc_di said:

groucho said:

Lost_BMW said:

Has anyone yet received a reply to any complaints made to the BBC about their recent partial coverage on both radio and TV?

No.

Yes. Just pasted it in the other climate change thread:

Thanks for your e-mail about BBC News reporting on climate change.

I understand that you feel that our coverage of climate change has been misleading as you feel that there has been significant controversy in the scientific community about the causes of climate change. I note that you felt that a graph we showed about the current weather in the northern and southern hemispheres was inaccurate.

I can assure you that we're committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue. There is broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.

Flagship BBC programmes such as 'Newsnight', 'Today' and our network news bulletins on BBC One have all included contributions from those who challenge the general scientific consensus recently and we will continue to offer time to such views on occasion.

You might also be interested in the views of 'Newsnight's' editor who explored this issue in an online posting at our Editors' Blog and explained some of the editorial issues it throws up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/how_...

I do appreciate that you may continue to feel that our coverage of climate change has been bias therefore please be assured that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks once again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

Claire Jordan
BBC Complaints

Ha Ha - they have been busy today!

I have my reply (well one on 3 outstanding criticisms - different author to your's and some differences but I've posted the one to me whilst quoting the one you received to point out how similar they are.

Flagship programmes (delusions of adequacy), editorial blog blah, blah . .

Party line?! So . .

"Dear Mr Critic

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the 'Six O Clock News' as broadcast on Radio 4 on 7 January.

I understand you were unhappy about our Environment Correspondent David Chakum's report on the relationship between weather and climate change. I appreciate you felt it was biased towards a pro-climate change perspective and appreciate you have strong views regarding this matter.

We are committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue.

There is broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.

As I'm sure you can understand, it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes and news bulletins such as this broadcast of the radio 4 'Six O'clock News'.

Flagship BBC programmes such as 'Newsnight', 'Today' and our network news bulletins on BBC One have all included contributions from those who challenge the general scientific consensus recently and we will continue to offer time to such views on occasion.

You might be interested in the views of former Newsnight editor, Peter Barron, who explored this issue in an online posting at our Editors' Blog and explained some of the editorial issues it throws up:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/how_...

We have discussed the recent debates around the relationship between climate change and weather patterns at the following links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8451756.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/green...

I acknowledge you may continue to hold differing views regarding this matter and I can assure you that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

Liam Boyle
BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Edited by Lost_BMW on Thursday 14th January 18:33

Edited by Lost_BMW on Thursday 14th January 22:12

[Diderot]

Just to add... there are so many issues with that policy conclusion - and on so many levels - that any organisation admitting to such an obdurately biased stance in public is inviting ridicule. More worrying of course, the TV tax that pays the salaries of the bds merely sustains the lie, and we are all necessarily complicit in this.

[turbobloke]

Diderot said:

turbobloke said:

Commissioned in June 2007 jointly by the Trust and BBC Board of Management entitled “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel-Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century” the report concluded: ‘There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and that it is at least predominantly man-made… the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.

you've gotta love the irony of that though TB - all down to the unique way they are funded no doubt.

Deeply ironic but doubtless perfectly straightforward to BBC types

[deeps]

turbobloke said:

Reply from the BBC Trust prior to their enquiry being announced said:

Dear Mr Turbobloke

Thank you for your further email of 21 December.

Yours sincerely

XXX XXXXXXXXX

BBC Trust Unit

As can be seen above, the idea seems to be to take away the will to live before any possible hope of redress can be expected.

On a lighter note, you must be a very good customer, just look at all those kisses they sent you.

[malc_di]

Hmm. So at least two of us have received a standard reply. You know I'm beginning to think there is no weapon that will prevail against willful obduracy and institutionalized stupidity. They have ignored my cogent point which is: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FECKING SCIENCE. It's political. The political aspect is infinitely more significant than the scientific whys and wherefores and they know that. Shoveling a complaint which explicitly invites them to reflect on this into the ditch of the 'prevailing view' versus the muted voices of contrarianism from the sidelines is deeply disingenuous. Insofar as the entire subject is politicized propounding the 'majority view' is, by definition, agitprop and that is not what they are supposed to be about. Where, pray, on the BBC is the debate about the political and social ramifications of an orthodoxy that threatens, on the face of it, to dismantle the economies of the West in favour of a nebulous goal of climate sustainability and the creation of a few billionaires, or possibly trillionaires?
The BBC is the organ of the state that's for sure. Unfortunately the state extends way beyond the confines of our own nation. And they have been utterly co-opted into this new miserablist, misanthropic, hand-wringing, self excoriating guilt-trip proxy for the real issues of environmentalism as subscribed to by vainglorious idiots with too much time on their hands and the opportunity to rise to the top of the intellectual pile in one of the most dumbed down epochs in all history.
And that's before we even start talking about the quasi-religious, puritanical, anti-spiritual froth which history shows us, if left unchecked, leads to the most appalling atrocities imaginable.
It's numptyism as a badge of honour, the sign of the true believer. Just replace the activity of the pre-frontal cortex with credulousness and fill it with the beguilements of 'faith' and everything will be ok. It scares me half to death.

[stevejh]

It's going to be a long hard battle to defeat the scaremongering warmists but it has to be fought and won.

That ridiculous Act on CO2 drive 5 miles less a week ad was just on the TV and I made a comment to the effect of what rubbish it was to which my 9 year old daughter said "it must be true daddy they say it everywhere". That's what we have to contend with.

[The Excession]

turbobloke said:

How topical and serendipitous

This just plopped into my inbox. As you will see it is the culmination of a rather long series of correspondence that goes back some time. Only the most recent is mentioned.

Reply from the BBC Trust prior to their enquiry being announced said:

Dear Mr Turbobloke

Thank you for your further email of 21 December.

I have noted your comments about the BBC complaints system and I am sorry that you feel it offers no redress.

As we mentioned in our previous email, the Trust cannot involve itself in complaints initially, but if you are dissatisfied with a reply you receive there is a clear process to enable you to escalate your complaint. You can see full details of the BBC’s complaints process at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code

I have made enquiries and I understand that your email of 06 December, which we forwarded to BBC Information on 21 December (ref xxxxxxxx), is being considered and you should receive a reply in due course.

If you are not satisfied with the reply you receive to your email of 6 December, you will need to reply to the person who has sent it explaining specifically why you are unhappy with the response. They will then organise a further response. That is Stage 1 of the complaints process.

You will see from the link above, that if you feel that reply has not addressed your complaint satisfactorily, it can go to Stage 2 for investigation.

The Trust forms the third and last stage of this process. Within 20 days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the Trust to consider an appeal against the findings.

You can read about recent Trust rulings and subsequent actions required on the Trust’s website at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/complaints_...

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

XXX XXXXXXXXX

BBC Trust Unit

As can be seen above, the idea seems to be to take away the will to live before any possible hope of redress can be expected. if and when I receive the reply indicated as heading my way, it will be progressed, then after 20 days, or whatever, blah blah etc etc

Yeah... but... look at how many kisses they put on the end of their email to you

Seriously though, you've got to admire the way the push you from pillar to post with 'awaiting a reply' - 'We can't do anything till you get a reply....' It really is beyond being funny any more.

[BJWoods]

Paul hudson at the bbc is a rare orchid that need culitivating..

Look at the majority of his previous artcicles, actually impartial

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-fr...

His: whatever happended to Global Warming (Oct 09)

May have even prompted the Climategate whistleblower..........
See the mail about Paul, in the climategate emails....

[The Excession]

deeps said:

On a lighter note, you must be a very good customer, just look at all those kisses they sent you.

Doh... that was my first thought as well.... (bastid you)

[deeps]

The Excession said:

(bastid you)

Ha, Silly Iriots think alike

[Diderot]

malc_di said:

Hmm. So at least two of us have received a standard reply. You know I'm beginning to think there is no weapon that will prevail against willful obduracy and institutionalized stupidity. They have ignored my cogent point which is: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FECKING SCIENCE. It's political. The political aspect is infinitely more significant than the scientific whys and wherefores and they know that. Shoveling a complaint which explicitly invites them to reflect on this into the ditch of the 'prevailing view' versus the muted voices of contrarianism from the sidelines is deeply disingenuous. Insofar as the entire subject is politicized propounding the 'majority view' is, by definition, agitprop and that is not what they are supposed to be about. Where, pray, on the BBC is the debate about the political and social ramifications of an orthodoxy that threatens, on the face of it, to dismantle the economies of the West in favour of a nebulous goal of climate sustainability and the creation of a few billionaires, or possibly trillionaires?
The BBC is the organ of the state that's for sure. Unfortunately the state extends way beyond the confines of our own nation. And they have been utterly co-opted into this new miserablist, misanthropic, hand-wringing, self excoriating guilt-trip proxy for the real issues of environmentalism as subscribed to by vainglorious idiots with too much time on their hands and the opportunity to rise to the top of the intellectual pile in one of the most dumbed down epochs in all history.
And that's before we even start talking about the quasi-religious, puritanical, anti-spiritual froth which history shows us, if left unchecked, leads to the most appalling atrocities imaginable.
It's numptyism as a badge of honour, the sign of the true believer. Just replace the activity of the pre-frontal cortex with credulousness and fill it with the beguilements of 'faith' and everything will be ok. It scares me half to death.

I salute and congratulate you sir. Your articulacy and evident erudition speaks volumes; Pistonheads: intelligence and cogency matters. You are living, breathing proof that we are fighting a good fight and that the truth will emerge from the fog of politicized verbiage victorious and all-conquering.

[Tangent Police]

Diderot said:

malc_di said:

Hmm. So at least two of us have received a standard reply. You know I'm beginning to think there is no weapon that will prevail against willful obduracy and institutionalized stupidity. They have ignored my cogent point which is: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FECKING SCIENCE. It's political. The political aspect is infinitely more significant than the scientific whys and wherefores and they know that. Shoveling a complaint which explicitly invites them to reflect on this into the ditch of the 'prevailing view' versus the muted voices of contrarianism from the sidelines is deeply disingenuous. Insofar as the entire subject is politicized propounding the 'majority view' is, by definition, agitprop and that is not what they are supposed to be about. Where, pray, on the BBC is the debate about the political and social ramifications of an orthodoxy that threatens, on the face of it, to dismantle the economies of the West in favour of a nebulous goal of climate sustainability and the creation of a few billionaires, or possibly trillionaires?
The BBC is the organ of the state that's for sure. Unfortunately the state extends way beyond the confines of our own nation. And they have been utterly co-opted into this new miserablist, misanthropic, hand-wringing, self excoriating guilt-trip proxy for the real issues of environmentalism as subscribed to by vainglorious idiots with too much time on their hands and the opportunity to rise to the top of the intellectual pile in one of the most dumbed down epochs in all history.
And that's before we even start talking about the quasi-religious, puritanical, anti-spiritual froth which history shows us, if left unchecked, leads to the most appalling atrocities imaginable.
It's numptyism as a badge of honour, the sign of the true believer. Just replace the activity of the pre-frontal cortex with credulousness and fill it with the beguilements of 'faith' and everything will be ok. It scares me half to death.

I salute and congratulate you sir. Your articulacy and evident erudition speaks volumes; Pistonheads: intelligence and cogency matters. You are living, breathing proof that we are fighting a good fight and that the truth will emerge from the fog of politicized verbiage victorious and all-conquering.

I thought the language was a bit frilly, it could have been concise.

If it was down to me, Shakespeare would have been slung in the same boat for waffling. Well done, etc, etc, go to the top of the class

C-

Edited by Tangent Police on Friday 15th January 01:00

[YAD061]

May I suggest you all send something along the lines of Oddys wonderful response to his idle duck pond owning, expense fiddling, arrogant Tory MP

odyssey2200 said:
"My proposed reply is to congratulate him on the fantastic work he is doing on behalf of UKIP, and send him a map of how to get to the local job centre."

[malc_di]

Tangent Police said:

Diderot said:

malc_di said:

Hmm. So at least two of us have received a standard reply. You know I'm beginning to think there is no weapon that will prevail against willful obduracy and institutionalized stupidity. They have ignored my cogent point which is: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FECKING SCIENCE. It's political. The political aspect is infinitely more significant than the scientific whys and wherefores and they know that. Shoveling a complaint which explicitly invites them to reflect on this into the ditch of the 'prevailing view' versus the muted voices of contrarianism from the sidelines is deeply disingenuous. Insofar as the entire subject is politicized propounding the 'majority view' is, by definition, agitprop and that is not what they are supposed to be about. Where, pray, on the BBC is the debate about the political and social ramifications of an orthodoxy that threatens, on the face of it, to dismantle the economies of the West in favour of a nebulous goal of climate sustainability and the creation of a few billionaires, or possibly trillionaires?
The BBC is the organ of the state that's for sure. Unfortunately the state extends way beyond the confines of our own nation. And they have been utterly co-opted into this new miserablist, misanthropic, hand-wringing, self excoriating guilt-trip proxy for the real issues of environmentalism as subscribed to by vainglorious idiots with too much time on their hands and the opportunity to rise to the top of the intellectual pile in one of the most dumbed down epochs in all history.
And that's before we even start talking about the quasi-religious, puritanical, anti-spiritual froth which history shows us, if left unchecked, leads to the most appalling atrocities imaginable.
It's numptyism as a badge of honour, the sign of the true believer. Just replace the activity of the pre-frontal cortex with credulousness and fill it with the beguilements of 'faith' and everything will be ok. It scares me half to death.

I salute and congratulate you sir. Your articulacy and evident erudition speaks volumes; Pistonheads: intelligence and cogency matters. You are living, breathing proof that we are fighting a good fight and that the truth will emerge from the fog of politicized verbiage victorious and all-conquering.

I thought the language was a bit frilly, it could have been concise.

If it was down to me, Shakespeare would have been slung in the same boat for waffling. Well done, etc, etc, go to the top of the class

C-

Edited by Tangent Police on Friday 15th January 01:00

Ha ha! Thank you. I like frilly Here is an interesting post on chiefio about science and religion http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/darwin-exp...

[him_over_there]

malc_di said:

Tangent Police said:

Diderot said:

malc_di said:

Hmm. So at least two of us have received a standard reply. You know I'm beginning to think there is no weapon that will prevail against willful obduracy and institutionalized stupidity. They have ignored my cogent point which is: IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FECKING SCIENCE. It's political. The political aspect is infinitely more significant than the scientific whys and wherefores and they know that. Shoveling a complaint which explicitly invites them to reflect on this into the ditch of the 'prevailing view' versus the muted voices of contrarianism from the sidelines is deeply disingenuous. Insofar as the entire subject is politicized propounding the 'majority view' is, by definition, agitprop and that is not what they are supposed to be about. Where, pray, on the BBC is the debate about the political and social ramifications of an orthodoxy that threatens, on the face of it, to dismantle the economies of the West in favour of a nebulous goal of climate sustainability and the creation of a few billionaires, or possibly trillionaires?
The BBC is the organ of the state that's for sure. Unfortunately the state extends way beyond the confines of our own nation. And they have been utterly co-opted into this new miserablist, misanthropic, hand-wringing, self excoriating guilt-trip proxy for the real issues of environmentalism as subscribed to by vainglorious idiots with too much time on their hands and the opportunity to rise to the top of the intellectual pile in one of the most dumbed down epochs in all history.
And that's before we even start talking about the quasi-religious, puritanical, anti-spiritual froth which history shows us, if left unchecked, leads to the most appalling atrocities imaginable.
It's numptyism as a badge of honour, the sign of the true believer. Just replace the activity of the pre-frontal cortex with credulousness and fill it with the beguilements of 'faith' and everything will be ok. It scares me half to death.

I salute and congratulate you sir. Your articulacy and evident erudition speaks volumes; Pistonheads: intelligence and cogency matters. You are living, breathing proof that we are fighting a good fight and that the truth will emerge from the fog of politicized verbiage victorious and all-conquering.

I thought the language was a bit frilly, it could have been concise.

If it was down to me, Shakespeare would have been slung in the same boat for waffling. Well done, etc, etc, go to the top of the class

C-

Edited by Tangent Police on Friday 15th January 01:00

Ha ha! Thank you. I like frilly Here is an interesting post on chiefio about science and religion http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/darwin-exp...

There is no science in 'expelled'. It's lies, misinformation and psuedo-science. It makes Al Gores movie look intelligent. If you showed 'expelled' to a bunch of kids in high-school who had been to a few basic biology classes they would tear it apart. It's aimed at the gullible and the ignorant.

Ben Stein is a moron.

Edited by him_over_there on Saturday 16th January 02:59

[Lost_BMW]

I have had another response from the BBC - same chap as one previously but with some different content, this regarding the awful Newsnight prog a week or so back.

Here it is - just to keep you all happy!

"Dear Mr Moaning Git

Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Newsnight' as broadcast on 7 January.

I understand you were unhappy about the section of the programme dedicated to discussing the MET office's recent weather predictions and note you felt the debate as a whole was biased towards a pro anthropogenic climate change perspective.

I appreciate your concerns, however, the crux of this debate was centred on understanding how weather models work and investigating how and why the MET office inaccurately predicted forecasts for winter 2009.

The interviewees involved were asked to appear on the basis of their knowledge of the science of weather prediction and not purely for their overall views on global warming.

Our job is to help audiences make sense of the issues and to report on where the centre of gravity lies in the debate. This is why, when we report on the variety of public opinion about global warming, we explain that the broad majority of climate change scientists say that the evidence is clear that human activity has contributed to global warming.

The scientific background is not, of course, undisputed and we also feature sceptical voices. We aim to pick our way through what is a highly complex scientific discussion, making sure a range of voices is represented.

I acknowledge the strength of your views regarding this matter; however I can assure you that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

Liam Boyle
BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

What I particularity spot here is:

that the programme piece was supposedly about forecasting not global warming and yet the Mess Office monkeys were able to make point after point about this (which had actually been raised by the presenter - so 'bullst' to that)

that they feature a range of 'voices' (I must have missed those programmes then because all I've seen for weeks is expert warmists given their voice, sometimes on the back of 'leading' projected criticisms/queries from the so-called journalist

and that they acknowledge the science is not settled and yet feel free to justify this, "we explain that the broad majority of climate change scientists say that the evidence is clear that human activity has contributed to global warming." Not that this will sway any viewer then . . . I just love the, " . . the centre of gravity lies in the debate" bit; he must have been having fun today - possibly cleared his backlog for the weekend.

Is it worth complaining again? I fear I'm wasting my time.

[b2hbm]

Lost_BMW said:

the BBC response


Is it worth complaining again? I fear I'm wasting my time.

I wonder if it is ? They trot out that condescending phrase

"This is why, when we report on the variety of public opinion about global warming, we explain that the broad majority of climate change scientists say that the evidence is clear that human activity has contributed to global warming."

every time like a mantra. It sounds very much like one of those made-up statistics that has no numbers behind it other than "a gut feeling" which has become accepted fact simply because they repeat it so often.

So I wonder if everyone who has this response went back and said "prove it - show me a list of names with academic qualifications and demonstrate that this list does form the broad majority of CC scientists in the world "?

I'll bet they couldn't. They might point you to an IPCC report but even that only consists of the scientists they (IPCC) engaged and not those that objected. Anybody know how to find out the world total of folks involved in CC research ? Given I've often read the quote about 3,000 scientists in favour, I'll bet there's more than 6,000 in a related discipline world-wide ?

[turbobloke]

Movies 24 are offering a 'Mother Nature Fights Back' movie every night in January at 9pm, apparently because it's getting hotter out there (please) and tornadoes are springing up from nowhere (a bit late for ho ho ho) and it's all our fault.

There's a slight tongue in cheek element to the trailer but even so

[odyssey2200]

Complaining directly to the BBC is totally pointless as they will send you on your way with a condescending letter and cover it up internally.


Try these guys

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/

[malc_di]

him_over_there said:

There is no science in 'expelled'. It's lies, misinformation and psuedo-science. It makes Al Gores movie look intelligent. If you showed 'expelled' to a bunch of kids in high-school who had been to a few basic biology classes they would tear it apart. It's aimed at the gullible and the ignorant.

Ben Stein is a moron.

Edited by him_over_there on Saturday 16th January 02:59

Yes I did a bit of research and I think you might be right there. I haven't seen Expelled. I kind of jumped on the chiefio post because I am interested in this conflict between religious belief and science, particularly how religion might be seen to be anti-scientific. Except that science seems to spawn its own dangerous belief systems.