Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

gadgetmac said:

I feel that for the purposes of transparency if you’re to quote a letter from the BBC you should redact your name and address and post the actual letter in this thread.

You typing it in is not something most people would accept as proof of anything.

I’m not calling you a liar as the letter - as typed by you above - seems legit but we can’t know that you’ve not edited it, adding or omitting bits.

Your initial letter to them would also be helpful.

Without those we just have your word for all this. So I doubt anyone would be happy to comment on it as presented.

Cheers.

How do we know for sure that you didn't get somebody else to type that reply, or that you actually think that the entire BBC thing is genuine but want to muddy the waters?

You don’t except that I’m not using hearsay to make a point about the BBC’s bias.

9/10 for deflection though.

Anyway, I have just today received a personal letter from 10 planetry climate scientists of some repute who have all stated that you are a disgraced former tea-boy humiliated by your peers and sacked from your last 3 positions for incompetence and can no longer find gainful employment.

They’ve all signed and dated it. Its on Oxford University headed paper ‘n everything.

Shall we proceed on the basis that because I typed it it must be true?

That aside, are you seriously questioning my asking for corroboration of something claimed to have been said? Thats a bit ironic isn’t it, considering your mantra of ‘Show me the evidence’ on almost every page these threads.

Edited by gadgetmac on Friday 17th November 18:46

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

turbobloke said:

gadgetmac said:

I feel that for the purposes of transparency if you’re to quote a letter from the BBC you should redact your name and address and post the actual letter in this thread.

You typing it in is not something most people would accept as proof of anything.

I’m not calling you a liar as the letter - as typed by you above - seems legit but we can’t know that you’ve not edited it, adding or omitting bits.

Your initial letter to them would also be helpful.

Without those we just have your word for all this. So I doubt anyone would be happy to comment on it as presented.

Cheers.

How do we know for sure that you didn't get somebody else to type that reply, or that you actually think that the entire BBC thing is genuine but want to muddy the waters?

You don’t except that I’m not using hearsay to make a point about the BBC’s bias.

9/10 for deflection though.

Anyway, I have just today received a personal letter from 10 planetry climate scientists of some repute who have all stated that you are a disgraced former tea-boy humiliated by your peers and sacked from your last 3 positions for incompetence and can no longer find gainful employment.

They’ve all signed and dated it. Its on Oxford University headed paper ‘n everything.

Shall we proceed on the basis that because I typed it it must be true?

That aside, are you seriously questioning my asking for corroboration of something claimed to have been said? Thats a bit ironic isn’t it, considering your mantra of ‘Show me the evidence’ on almost every page these threads.

Edited by gadgetmac on Friday 17th November 18:46

10/10 for deflection scored by your good self.

Unforutunately some demerits for being so transparent.

[gadgetmac]

Actually, I don’t even know WTF its got to do with you and Turbobloke, I was asking wc98.

I suspect he can answer for himself.

It’s probably true, we’ll know soon enough.

Edited by gadgetmac on Friday 17th November 22:41

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

Actually, I don’t even know WTF its got to do with you and Turbobloke, I was asking wc98.

I suspect he can answer for himself.

It’s probably true, we’ll know soon enough.

Edited by gadgetmac on Friday 17th November 22:41

It's a forum.

Furthermore it's an open forum.

Anyone can comment - which presumably is something that brings you here.

It allows you to question the posts of others when your opinion was not expressly requested. An option you have exercised yourself.

That's how it functions. Why would you question that right?

[gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

It's a forum.

Furthermore it's an open forum.

Anyone can comment - which presumably is something that brings you here.

It allows you to question the posts of others when your opinion was not expressly requested. An option you have exercised yourself.

That's how it functions. Why would you question that right?

That is how it functions, but usually, when one person is talking specifically to another, if any imput is to be made by a 3rd party you’d expect something constructive.

Not some nonsense about me deflecting when I’ve asked for proof of something stated as fact.

I have family working for the BBC so have an interest in this issue.

You wouldn’t mind but as stated before, the anti MMGW posters on here are all about the ‘data’ when it suits.

I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest

[robinessex]

The Beebs CC story today

Small steps forward as UN climate talks end in Bonn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4203...

UN climate talks in Bonn have concluded with progress on technical issues, but with bigger questions about cutting carbon unresolved.
Delegates say they are pleased that the rulebook for the Paris climate agreement is finally coming together.
But these technical discussions took place against the backdrop of a larger battle about coal, oil and gas.
It means that next year's conference in Poland is set for a major showdown on the future of fossil fuels.
This meeting, known as COP23, was tasked with clarifying complex operational issues around the workings of the Paris climate agreement.
One of the most important elements was the development of a process that would help countries to review and ratchet up their commitments to cut carbon.........................continues

Er, cracks in this agreement already appearing? Surely not ?

[turbobloke]

Unresolved? Hey let's have another hot air carbon blast! Then rinse and repeat for a change. Brian Rix would have loved this ongoing farce.

Still, baby steps an' all that it's not as though this is weally weally sewious.

[LongQ]

So COP24 next year will be a boondoggle in Poland?

Poland?

High coal consumption Poland?

That should be interesting.

Still, at least the jamboree trips to exotic locations seem to have been cut back.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

I feel that for the purposes of transparency if you’re to quote a letter from the BBC you should redact your name and address and post the actual letter in this thread.

You typing it in is not something most people would accept as proof of anything.

I’m not calling you a liar as the letter - as typed by you above - seems legit but we can’t know that you’ve not edited it, adding or omitting bits.

Your initial letter to them would also be helpful.

Without those we just have your word for all this. So I doubt anyone would be happy to comment on it as presented.

Cheers.

i can't send my initial complaint as it was made through the bbc website . if you know a way to retrieve correspondence from there i will have a look for it.

here is the reply i received in full ,with my name changed to forum user name. note i didn't type the previous post, it was a copy paste from my email, same with this one.

Dear Mr wc98

Reference CAS-4639478-JMKYK6

Thanks for contacting us regarding the BBC News channel on 4 November.

As you acknowledge, the remarks you mention were made by interviewee, Professor Joanna Haigh, Imperial College, a specialist in climate change – and the discussion was about the findings of the climate change report in the US that the White House was attempting to downplay.

Our News editors do seek to ensure that, over a reasonable period of time, we reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends etc on particular issues. But our published Editorial Guidelines also explain that not every issue or viewpoint necessarily has to be included in each individual broadcast or report.

Judging when to interrupt a guest or challenge them on a point they’ve made is also an art, not a science. In interviews, it’s inevitable that guests will make comments that aren’t all picked up on or challenged, in keeping the discussion and broadcast on track.

Ultimately, we allow the audience to draw their own conclusions from the comments and claims made by interviewees, by framing them with other views and news items in the long run.

That said, we thank you again for your feedback and appreciate that you may take a different view to Prof Haigh and this US climate change report. We’ve included your comments in our overnight reports for the benefit of news teams. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC ensuring that complaints are seen quickly by the right people.

Kind regards

Stuart Webb

BBC Complaints Team

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

That is how it functions, but usually, when one person is talking specifically to another, if any imput is to be made by a 3rd party you’d expect something constructive.

Not some nonsense about me deflecting when I’ve asked for proof of something stated as fact.

I have family working for the BBC so have an interest in this issue.

You wouldn’t mind but as stated before, the anti MMGW posters on here are all about the ‘data’ when it suits.

I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest

i have no probs with your request, it is perfectly fair. the ref number is on my previous post so you can have a family member check the veracity of what i have posted if they are able to do so, i am fine with that as well. the position the bbc take on climate change is seriously tainting my view of the organisation as a whole. they do a serious amount of good work, but it is ridiculous beyond belief a publicly funded organisation should be able to censor valid alternate views on any topic.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

That is how it functions, but usually, when one person is talking specifically to another, if any imput is to be made by a 3rd party you’d expect something constructive.

Not some nonsense about me deflecting when I’ve asked for proof of something stated as fact.

I have family working for the BBC so have an interest in this issue.

You wouldn’t mind but as stated before, the anti MMGW posters on here are all about the ‘data’ when it suits.

I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest

i have no probs with your request, it is perfectly fair. the ref number is on my previous post so you can have a family member check the veracity of what i have posted if they are able to do so, i am fine with that as well. the position the bbc take on climate change is seriously tainting my view of the organisation as a whole. they do a serious amount of good work, but it is ridiculous beyond belief a publicly funded organisation should be able to censor valid alternate views on any topic.

Well done. It’s not what I asked for (a scanned image) but you have provided a pathway to confirmation and your reply appears sincere and is relayed in the right spirit. If only everyone else on here were as gracious.

Cheers.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Well done. It’s not what I asked for (a scanned image) but you have provided a pathway to confirmation and your reply appears sincere and is relayed in the right spirit. If only everyone else on here were as gracious.

Cheers.

no probs ! as said it was a perfectly reasonable request, i am too dumb to get a scanned reply though

[clyffepypard]

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

That is how it functions, but usually, when one person is talking specifically to another, if any imput is to be made by a 3rd party you’d expect something constructive.

Not some nonsense about me deflecting when I’ve asked for proof of something stated as fact.

I have family working for the BBC so have an interest in this issue.

You wouldn’t mind but as stated before, the anti MMGW posters on here are all about the ‘data’ when it suits.

I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest

i have no probs with your request, it is perfectly fair. the ref number is on my previous post so you can have a family member check the veracity of what i have posted if they are able to do so, i am fine with that as well. the position the bbc take on climate change is seriously tainting my view of the organisation as a whole. they do a serious amount of good work, but it is ridiculous beyond belief a publicly funded organisation should be able to censor valid alternate views on any topic.

Well done. It’s not what I asked for (a scanned image) but you have provided a pathway to confirmation and your reply appears sincere and is relayed in the right spirit. If only everyone else on here were as gracious.

Cheers.

How exactly due you expect him to scan an email reply?
Pot calling the kettle black there as regards to being gracious.

[gadgetmac]

clyffepypard said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

That is how it functions, but usually, when one person is talking specifically to another, if any imput is to be made by a 3rd party you’d expect something constructive.

Not some nonsense about me deflecting when I’ve asked for proof of something stated as fact.

I have family working for the BBC so have an interest in this issue.

You wouldn’t mind but as stated before, the anti MMGW posters on here are all about the ‘data’ when it suits.

I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest

i have no probs with your request, it is perfectly fair. the ref number is on my previous post so you can have a family member check the veracity of what i have posted if they are able to do so, i am fine with that as well. the position the bbc take on climate change is seriously tainting my view of the organisation as a whole. they do a serious amount of good work, but it is ridiculous beyond belief a publicly funded organisation should be able to censor valid alternate views on any topic.

Well done. It’s not what I asked for (a scanned image) but you have provided a pathway to confirmation and your reply appears sincere and is relayed in the right spirit. If only everyone else on here were as gracious.

Cheers.

How exactly due you expect him to scan an email reply?
Pot calling the kettle black there as regards to being gracious.

wc98’s original post says nothing about it being an email reply.

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

wc98’s original post says nothing about it being an email reply.

Regardless you were just being a dick with your request

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

It's a forum.

Furthermore it's an open forum.

Anyone can comment - which presumably is something that brings you here.

It allows you to question the posts of others when your opinion was not expressly requested. An option you have exercised yourself.

That's how it functions. Why would you question that right?

That is how it functions, but usually, when one person is talking specifically to another, if any imput is to be made by a 3rd party you’d expect something constructive.

Not some nonsense about me deflecting when I’ve asked for proof of something stated as fact.

I have family working for the BBC so have an interest in this issue.

You wouldn’t mind but as stated before, the anti MMGW posters on here are all about the ‘data’ when it suits.

I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest

Why does having "family working for the BBC" matter at all in the context of this discussion?

As for

"I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest "

An interesting choice of phrases. In the context of your self appointed monitoring that sounds like "Sir Humphrey speak" and that you quite likely do mean exactly the opposite.

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

wc98’s original post says nothing about it being an email reply.

Regardless you were just being a dick with your request

And your just being a tt thinking your defending one of your cohorts.

[gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

Why does having "family working for the BBC" matter at all in the context of this discussion?

As for

"I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest "

An interesting choice of phrases. In the context of your self appointed monitoring that sounds like "Sir Humphrey speak" and that you quite likely do mean exactly the opposite.

It matters because I have a certain fon....no, wait a minute....what the fk has it got to do with you? The matter is settled between wc98 and myself amicably.

Jesus...you really all do crawl out of the woodwork when someone asks for proof from you

Do one.

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

Why does having "family working for the BBC" matter at all in the context of this discussion?

As for

"I’m not calling wc98 a liar - just keeping him honest "

An interesting choice of phrases. In the context of your self appointed monitoring that sounds like "Sir Humphrey speak" and that you quite likely do mean exactly the opposite.

It matters because I have a certain fon....no, wait a minute....what the fk has it got to do with you? The matter is settled between wc98 and myself amicably.

Jesus...you really all do crawl out of the woodwork when someone asks for proof from you

Do one.

What class you have.

You really should listen to your own advice.

[HairyPoppins]

LongQ said:

What class you have.

You really should listen to your own advice.

wc98 himself said gadgetmacs question was entirely reasonable yet you continue to snipe from the sidelines. You're looking like a blinkered fool.