Friday, October 15, 2010

BBC says on paper global warming is no longer a sure thing. It remains to be seen if that statement will change an entire BBC culture.

A BBC reporter (11/09) actually had the ClimateGate emails for over a month and said nothing about it. 10/13/10, "BBC told to ensure balance on climate change," Telegraph UK by Neil Midgly "The BBC has been repeatedly accused of bias in its reporting of climate change issues.

Last year one of its reporters, Paul Hudson, was criticised for not reporting on some of the highly controversial “Climategate” leaked emails from the University of East Anglia,

  • even though he had been in possession of them for some time.

Climate change sceptics have also accused the BBC of not properly reporting “Glaciergate”, when a study from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saying that glaciers would melt by 2035 was discredited.

But the BBC’s new editorial guidelines, published yesterday after an extensive consultation that considered over 1,600 submissions by members of the public,

“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected,” said BBC trustee Alison Hastings....

  • “It’s highly unlikely that they’ll be more balanced in their coverage,” he said.

“It’s a whole cultural thing at the BBC – that people who don’t believe are just ‘flat earthers’. Whenever they invite dissenters like me on to debates, they surround us with ‘warmists’. On Any Questions, for example, Jonathan Dimbleby does his best to be impartial, but this is a man with a wind turbine in his garden.” ...

  • 3 years ago, 'belief' in global warming was deemed superior by the BBC. That is no longer the case at least on paper:

(continuing, Telegraph): In 2007, a BBC Trust report called Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century said: “Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular … The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the

  • weight of evidence

no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate.”...

10/14/10, "Is climate change activism dead?" Telegraph UK, by Louise Gray

  • (No, it's doing what it always did, shaking down local businesses and governments with the help of select politicians. Trillions of dollars await). ed.

"It is only now that the various factions have had time to re-group and develop a ‘post-Copenhagen’ strategy.

The general theory seems to be that it was a mistake to focus on Copenhagen as a goal in itself. Instead activists are looking at the much slower and more arduous process of changing minds and lifestyles in the long term. This has meant going back to the grassroots and working with local groups

  • to lobby regional government and business.

Movements like Transition Towns have transformed local areas, while Christian groups and the Women’s Institute have quietly got on with installing solar panels on churches and teaching families how to make compost....

Organisations like the WWF are increasingly working ‘from the inside’ to persuade big business to change their practices, while more radical groups like Greenpeace are

But this does not mean the anger has gone. In fact it is as militant as ever. Most protestors are focusing on colourful and creative ways of getting their voices heard, although there are concerns about the scale of the protests in Mexico, where there is a history of police violence.

In Britain this weekend protestors will storm London for the Crude Awakening protest against oil, while a number of ‘actions’ are planned in the UK in the run up to Cancun."...

10/13/10, From Nature Magazine, "US midterm elections: A chilly season for climate crusaders," Nature.com News, Macmillan Publishing.

  • This publication will never change. Many there would be out of a job if they admitted global warming was a hoax. They still refer to the existence of catastrophic man made global warming as proven by
  • "the science."

There is no independently confirmed "scientific proof" of global warming. What 'proof' they come up with is continually disproved. People and institutions who claim its existence would be out of jobs and millions of dollars in government funding if they said global warming didn't exist. Many scientists repeatedly refute the claims. The global warming industry

  • simply ignores them.
One of the movement's biggest 'stakeholders' NRDC says in its mission statement that they view global warming as an economic matter borne by people of color, ie a matter calling for redistribution of wealth from evil middle class Americans to rich guys at NRDC. NRDC 'cares' so much it's got international bankers raking in the cash on global warming. An NRDC trader says trillions of dollars will be needed in global warming transition. No one is accountable for millions if not billions squandered by Guardian UK: ""The great achievement of the (Kyoto) protocol was not to reduce carbon emissions –
  • they actually rose at an increasing rate under its watch, three times faster in the early 2000s than during the 1990s –
but to create a market in emissions rights and notional emissions reductions from "Don't Let the Carbon Market Die," by Oliver Tickell, UK Guardian, 1/25/10 (paragraph 3 in article)...........
  • lives lost because of unnecessary reactions like biofuels affecting food supplies.
Stories appear about the corruption at the IPCC and others about the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most people, including the media, don’t seem to realize the IPCC is the CRU."....
  • This scam was up and running long before 'the science' was tapped to put its stamp of approval on it.

via Climate Depot

Labels: ,

Stumbleupon StumbleUpon


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home