Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[durbster]

Ali G said:

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!

Considering your claims are based in fantasy, it's no surprise that you can offer no evidence to support them.

Jeez, is wc98 the only person here who can put forward an argument that doesn't immediately collapse when challenged?

[Ali G]

durbster said:

Ali G said:

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!

Considering your claims are based in fantasy, it's no surprise that you can offer no evidence to support them.

Jeez, is wc98 the only person here who can put forward an argument that doesn't immediately collapse when challenged?

Dream on!

Reductio ad absurdum

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

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.

Including the telling accusation/confession by Jeremy Paxman of BBC fame who pointed out that BBC's coverage of climate change "abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago". The key difference is that the BBC is required to be impartial; and isn't. Other media including TV networks are not the national broadcaster and don't have to be impartial.

[kerplunk]

Ali G said:

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.

The Chinese result is 'the same as' (see my edit btw if you haven't already) and therefore unexciting. So I'd go with 'nothing very newsworthy here'.

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

gadgetmac said:

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.

Including the telling accusation/confession by Jeremy Paxman of BBC fame who pointed out that BBC's coverage of climate change "abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago". The key difference is that the BBC is required to be impartial; and isn't. Other media including TV networks are not the national broadcaster and don't have to be impartial.

Interesting but doesn’t answer the question being asked.

[Ali G]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Ali G said:

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!

If you can't enter the debate, sit the fk down.

Just to be clear, the debate stands or falls on a list of media providing 'acceptable' coverage of CAGW ?

Even dumber than I thought previously!

OK before this gets excessively abusive, let's not.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

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.

Have a read of this and tell me there is nothing wrong at the BBC


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBC...

[mybrainhurts]

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2017/10/21/...

The corruption of science continues apace...

[dickymint]

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

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.

Have a read of this and tell me there is nothing wrong at the BBC


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBC...

And then try and discover (it’s been discussed many times before in these pages) where billions of pounds worth of the BBC’s pension funds are invested!!!

[durbster]

Ali G said:

Just to be clear, the debate stands or falls on a list of media providing 'acceptable' coverage of CAGW ?

No, you've simply been asked to provide some evidence for an assertion you made. As is typically the case in this thread, a simple request for evidence has stumped you, so you're dancing around trying to avoid the issue any way you can.

And when run out of ideas to divert attention from your lack of argument, you'll start attacking people.

Ali G said:

Even dumber than I thought previously!

...there we go.

[gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

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.

Have a read of this and tell me there is nothing wrong at the BBC


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBC...

That article isn’t addressing the question though is it?

I’m sitting here watching Sky News and they are every bit as positive about MMGW in their output as the BBC.

Why? Are they part of the ‘conspiracy’? Who isn’t positive about MMGW in the broadcast media? ITN certainly are. How are the BBC different?

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

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.

Have a read of this and tell me there is nothing wrong at the BBC


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBC...

That article isn’t addressing the question though is it?

I’m sitting here watching Sky News and they are every bit as positive about MMGW in their output as the BBC.

Why? Are they part of the ‘conspiracy’? Who isn’t positive about MMGW in the broadcast media? ITN certainly are. How are the BBC different?

It's different in the unique way that the BBC is funded, I am forced to pay for the BBC even if I do not watch it, it should be open and honest and impartial as per it's charter, it should not be having secret meetings with pressure groups to decide on policy, then it should not use solicitors to prevent people finding out who attended, do you see that as acceptable for a public organisation ?

[turbobloke]

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

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.

Have a read of this and tell me there is nothing wrong at the BBC


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9684775/The-BBC...

That article isn’t addressing the question though is it?

I’m sitting here watching Sky News and they are every bit as positive about MMGW in their output as the BBC.

Why? Are they part of the ‘conspiracy’?

Will that be the conspiracy that you and others invent purely to argue against?

As to the main point, you must have missed some earlier replies, or tactically ignored them for a warmed up second helping.

We know where media bias exists, be it Fox, BBC, Sky, Guardian etc.

The reason why BBC bias is unacceptable is that, unlike all other sources cited, the beeb has a requirement to be impartial. Big fail there.

[robinessex]

The Beeb is, a government funded, that means all the license payer, broadcaster. Thus it should be a totally independent, report news impartially, and without bias. I don't care fk all about private owned news companies. They have their own agenda, which probably depends on money somewhere. Except that great defender of AGW. The Guardian, who regularly send out begging letters!! PS Durbster. Any comments, re the BBC climate coverage scandal just posted?

[Ali G]

It's a specious argument to suugest that imapartiality of BBC reporting should be assessed through benchmarking against the reporting of other media outlets, when the imapartiality needs to be assessed against the Governing Charter.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/p...

To be more specific:

Charter said:

6. The Public Purposes
The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows.
(1)To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them:
the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s
understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.

Apparently, for matters concerning CAGW, the Beeb has exempted itself from the above.

[turbobloke]

Exactly. The biased beeb has a requirement to be impartial, other outlets don't.

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

Will that be the conspiracy that you and others invent purely to argue against?

Wow, where have I said there is a conspiracy? You’ve thrown up a straw man.

My question is/was that IF THERE IS A CONSPIRACY as claimed by climate change deniers of which, and I quote from the previous page, “The BBC is at the vanguard of”, why is there that conspiracy? All broadcast media are singing from the same hymn sheet on this, Fox, Sky, BBC, ITV etc etc etc.

It’s a simple question. I don’t give a fig how they are each funded and thats not the question either as I’m well aware of the BBC’s duty to impartiality.

[durbster]

Ali G said:

It's a specious argument to suugest that imapartiality of BBC reporting should be assessed through benchmarking against the reporting of other media outlets, when the imapartiality needs to be assessed against the Governing Charter.

The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it.

To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.

[Terminator X]

Pan Pan Pan said:

We have to accept that the bottom line for any species on the face of the Earth is to propagate the species, all creatures do this automatically, but on top of this, us little ole humans have the idea punched into us from birth. and so we respond by increasing the number of humans on the planet, at a rate never before seen on Earth .

Pop growth is slowing down though + the "more educated" the area (of the world) the lower the pop growth is. Predictions of 10bn world population greatly exaggerated imho.

TX.

[Ali G]

durbster said:

The point you're missing, deliberately or not, is that fringe views don't pass the quality control aspect of broadcasting, which is why nobody on climate change as you see it.

To be reported by the news, there has to be - at the very minimum - a reliable source and some credible evidence. You have neither, I'm afraid.

Well I think that you may have to define 'fringe views' and then justify why excluding 'fringe views' does not impair impartiality.

Happy to accept that unsupported utter drivel has no requirement to be provided airspace, but we both know that's not what we are talking about.