Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Ali G]

Did the Beeb ever even report the possibility that there was an 'hiatus'? Not sure that it did.

It was certainly 'newsworthy' along the lines of some dribbleing loons believe that there's nothing much to worry about:

A dribbleing lunatic denier such as Judith Curry:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weaken...

Even the now disgraced (female molester) ex-head of the IPCC Railwayman Raj had no explanation for the hiatus, hence the 'hunt for the missing heat'

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/30/disgrac...

Of course, since the site above is a haven for dribbleing lunatic deniers, it has no credibility.

Is Nature a similar haven for the dribbleing lunatic deniers?

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case...

Was this ever reported by the Beeb?

Apparently, the Chinese may still be of the opinion that the hiatus is real, but since this article is taken from a dribbleing lunatic denier blog site, it has no merit.

https://www.thegwpf.com/china-recognises-the-warmi...

Reported by the Beep? Not so much.

CO2 turning the oceans into an acidic fizzy drink?

Total saturation coverage despite the lack of credible science to support this assertion.

All I can say is that we live in interesting times!

[Terminator X]

Lotus 50 said:

robinessex said:

If that doesn't show the Beeb’s biased re CC & AGW, nothing will. Is anyone going to challenge the Beeb on it’s one side, biased, stance on this? They never report anything with the opposing view, and bend facts and data in the news stories to continue to promote CC. Staggering !!!

In 2014 the BBC Trust stated the corporation has "a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately".

Well, that they certainly never do.

So the Beeb gave Lawson an opportunity to put his views across then didn't challenge him when he said something that is at least highly questionable if not demonstrably incorrect (and something that the GWPF also admit was wrong) and you're back on your 'Beeb is biased' high horse..?

So a bit like when they peddle the MMGW stuff with no alternative view?

TX.

[Ali G]

Missed this one....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28321641

Beeb said:

The Charity Commission will issue a formal statement on the changes in the coming weeks, but a spokesman told BBC News: "Some of the the Global Warming Policy Foundation's activities breached what is expected of an educational charity, namely that the material lacked balance and promoted a particular line of opinion.

Ironic, or hypocritical?

[mybrainhurts]

Ali G said:

Missed this one....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28321641

Beeb said:

The Charity Commission will issue a formal statement on the changes in the coming weeks, but a spokesman told BBC News: "Some of the the Global Warming Policy Foundation's activities breached what is expected of an educational charity, namely that the material lacked balance and promoted a particular line of opinion.

Ironic, or hypocritical?

Can't you just see Roger Harbinger having a little orgasm as he wrote that piece?

[durbster]

Ali G said:

Did the Beeb ever even report the possibility that there was an 'hiatus'? Not sure that it did.

But it didn't cross your mind to check whether your assumption was true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_sho...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2429...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-2...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3851...

[durbster]

Terminator X said:

So a bit like when they peddle the MMGW stuff with no alternative view?

TX.

Maybe they should report both sides of the science, like this genius:

New U.S. ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft says she believes 'both sides' of climate science
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-ambassador-knig...

[durbster]

wc98 said:

just to put this ste to bed regarding what you think are non experts on various forums and blogs . here is a quote from micro6500 on wuwt.( his own blog is well worth a read regarding the role of water vapour)

Great.

So please share his published research on the topic. I don't know about you, but I don't find internet comment sections tend to be the best source for reliable information.

wc98 said:

now i am telling you , if you think any, and i mean any , multi discipline climate scientist has anything like his level of expertise in his particular field you are talking out your arse.

You're telling me your opinion.

wc98 said:

the vast majority of them are jacks of all trades with one very narrow specialism. they may well be very smart jacks but individual field specialists wipe the floor with them.

In your opinion.

wc98 said:

for instance there is not one single climate scientist on the level of steve mcintyre when it comes to stats.

In your opinion.

wc98 said:

you have these people up on a pedestal unjustifiably

In your opinion.

(what pedestal?)

wc98 said:

,they are all capable of mistakes

Correct!

wc98 said:

... and the group think driving the massive increase in funding for the sector over the last twenty years is a very big reason not to upset the apple cart.

How can you tell the difference between funding to address real problems, and funding to address fake problems?

wc98 said:

there are now so many of them in the field even mcdonalds would struggle to take up the slack should it turn out co2 is not the devil reincarnate .

And not one of them knows anything about the subject, right?

Except when they proposed the the dubious AMO theory that you wholeheartedly support.

[Ali G]

durbster said:

Ali G said:

Did the Beeb ever even report the possibility that there was an 'hiatus'? Not sure that it did.

But it didn't cross your mind to check whether your assumption was true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_sho...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2429...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-2...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3851...

Yup - all the above very clearly support the contention that the 'hiatus' is either temporary or an artifact and should be ignored - notwithstanding that it has cast (and still does) very serious doubts as to the veracity of claims made by CAGW advocates. Perhaps this is unsurprising, since the Beeb itself is in the forefront of the vanguard of CAGW advocacy and therefore falls foul of the very same selective reporting for which the GWPF has been criticised for, but with far less justification and far greater profile and influence.

Aunty Beeb appears to have developed a rather unsociable habit, and it is time that she sought help.

[durbster]

Ali G said:

durbster said:

Ali G said:

Did the Beeb ever even report the possibility that there was an 'hiatus'? Not sure that it did.

But it didn't cross your mind to check whether your assumption was true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_sho...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2429...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-2...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3851...

Yup - all the above very clearly support the contention that the 'hiatus' is either temporary or an artifact and should be ignored - notwithstanding that it has cast (and still does) very serious doubts as to the veracity of claims made by CAGW advocates. Perhaps this is unsurprising, since the Beeb itself is in the forefront of the vanguard of CAGW advocacy and therefore falls foul of the very same selective reporting for which the GWPF has been criticised for, but with far less justification and far greater profile and influence.

Aunty Beeb appears to have developed a rather unsociable habit, and it is time that she sought help.

If the BBC are clearly part of the conspiracy, perhaps you can share examples from other major news agencies, where they've reported climate change stories in a manner that you prefer.

Obviously it'll be easy for you because it's just the BBC who push the AGW agenda, apparently.

[grumbledoak]

An interesting history of Arctic sea ice reporting, particularly the 1920s and the 1970s:
https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/unmaski...

[Ali G]

durbster said:

Ali G said:

durbster said:

Ali G said:

Did the Beeb ever even report the possibility that there was an 'hiatus'? Not sure that it did.

But it didn't cross your mind to check whether your assumption was true.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_sho...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2429...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-2...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3851...

Yup - all the above very clearly support the contention that the 'hiatus' is either temporary or an artifact and should be ignored - notwithstanding that it has cast (and still does) very serious doubts as to the veracity of claims made by CAGW advocates. Perhaps this is unsurprising, since the Beeb itself is in the forefront of the vanguard of CAGW advocacy and therefore falls foul of the very same selective reporting for which the GWPF has been criticised for, but with far less justification and far greater profile and influence.

Aunty Beeb appears to have developed a rather unsociable habit, and it is time that she sought help.

If the BBC are clearly part of the conspiracy, perhaps you can share examples from other major news agencies, where they've reported climate change stories in a manner that you prefer.

Obviously it'll be easy for you because it's just the BBC who push the AGW agenda, apparently.

What conspiracy?

Whilst many media outlets will push their own agenda, or that of their owners, the Beeb cannot, as a publicly funded organisation governed by charter.

It may come as a surprise, but I have significant fondness for the dear old Beeb, and I am disappointed at the partisan coverage of what is both a very complex subject and apparently 'The Greatest Threat Facing Mankind'.

The fact that grandiose statements of immenent disaster go unchallenged, and that the harassment and abuse of female employees by Pachauri (c.f. Weinstein) receive little coverage, is disappointing.

[kerplunk]

Ali G said:

Apparently, the Chinese may still be of the opinion that the hiatus is real, but since this article is taken from a dribbleing lunatic denier blog site, it has no merit.

https://www.thegwpf.com/china-recognises-the-warmi...

Reported by the Beep? Not so much.

Yes it's surprising the beeb haven't reported that the Chinese have found more warming in the period 1998 - 2014 than the UKMO (0.098/decade vs 0.067 in Hadcrut4) and almost exactly the same as Nasa Gistemp (0.098 vs 0.1).

The putative 'pause' is dead, so yesterday's news I guess.

edit - oops just realised the Chinese data is for global LAND only. That makes the comparison with the UKMO's global land data a virtual match - 0.098/decade vs 0.11/decade in Crutem4. I don't what it is for Nasa's land data.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 25th October 19:43

[Ali G]

Which then leads to the question for those of an inquisitive disposition:

"What did the climate scientists do wrong, and how has this been corrected"

Were the measurements wrong?
Was the modelling wrong?

Or is this a 'nothing to see here - move along' type scenario.

[durbster]

Ali G said:

durbster said:

Ali G said:

Yup - all the above very clearly support the contention that the 'hiatus' is either temporary or an artifact and should be ignored - notwithstanding that it has cast (and still does) very serious doubts as to the veracity of claims made by CAGW advocates. Perhaps this is unsurprising, since the Beeb itself is in the forefront of the vanguard of CAGW advocacy and therefore falls foul of the very same selective reporting for which the GWPF has been criticised for, but with far less justification and far greater profile and influence.

Aunty Beeb appears to have developed a rather unsociable habit, and it is time that she sought help.

If the BBC are clearly part of the conspiracy, perhaps you can share examples from other major news agencies, where they've reported climate change stories in a manner that you prefer.

Obviously it'll be easy for you because it's just the BBC who push the AGW agenda, apparently.

What conspiracy?

Whilst many media outlets will push their own agenda, or that of their owners, the Beeb cannot, as a publicly funded organisation governed by charter.

It may come as a surprise, but I have significant fondness for the dear old Beeb, and I am disappointed at the partisan coverage of what is both a very complex subject and apparently 'The Greatest Threat Facing Mankind'.

The fact that grandiose statements of immenent disaster go unchallenged, and that the harassment and abuse of female employees by Pachauri (c.f. Weinstein) receive little coverage, is disappointing.

Yes, that's a lovely diversion. Now please show us examples of major news networks covering climate change as you are suggesting the BBC should.

[Ali G]

durbster said:

Yes, that's a lovely diversion. Now please show us examples of major news networks covering climate change as you are suggesting the BBC should.

Eh?

What an absurd request!

On spliffs again fella?

[durbster]

Ali G said:

durbster said:

Yes, that's a lovely diversion. Now please show us examples of major news networks covering climate change as you are suggesting the BBC should.

Eh?

What an absurd request!

On spliffs again fella?

Not sure why you think it's absurd that somebody asks you to back up an assertion you made.

You complain about how the BBC cover climate change but can't provide any evidence that other news networks cover it differently.

[Ali G]

durbster said:

Not sure why you think it's absurd that somebody asks you to back up an assertion you made.

You complain about how the BBC cover climate change but can't provide any evidence that other news networks cover it differently.

The assertion that you are making is that the coverage of CAGW by the Beeb is excellent since it is similar to, if not in fact identical to coverage provided by similar public/government funded state broadcasting networks.

For tonight's homework, you can perhaps deduce why this assertion is not based on logic.

[durbster]

Ali G said:

durbster said:

Not sure why you think it's absurd that somebody asks you to back up an assertion you made.

You complain about how the BBC cover climate change but can't provide any evidence that other news networks cover it differently.

The assertion that you are making is that the coverage of CAGW by the Beeb is excellent since it is similar to, if not in fact identical to coverage provided by similar public/government funded state broadcasting networks.

For tonight's homework, you can perhaps deduce why this assertion is not based on logic.

No, you just made that up.

I'm simply asking you to back up your assertion that the BBC covers climate change in an unusually biased way, which implies other news networks cover it differently. I'm asking for you to provide evidence for that claim.

Here it is again:

Ali G said:

...since the Beeb itself is in the forefront of the vanguard of CAGW advocacy and therefore falls foul of the very same selective reporting for which the GWPF has been criticised for, but with far less justification and far greater profile and influence.

Aunty Beeb appears to have developed a rather unsociable habit, and it is time that she sought help.

Given these poor attempts to deflect and divert, shall we assume you're unable to?

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Ali G - stop your usual diversions - answer his request

Very intrigued to hear that I have 'usual diversions'!

Tell me more, and perhaps provide evidence of my 'usual diversions'.

And for the purposes of clarity, I have absolutely no desire or intention to research or by any other means available, provide a list of alternative state or other media outlets who provide/do not provide CAGW critiques acceptable to me or uncle Tom Cobbly et al!

On the basis that it is irrelevant, is of no interest and I can't be bothered shovelling drivel.

So thanks, but not going to happen.

Read into that whatever you wish!

[gadgetmac]

TBF pertinent questions should be answered. As a casual observer I too would like to know how the BBC’s coverage of this subject differs from other TV networks considering the BBC is constantly being accused of bias in its reporting.