Comments on: BBC Bias Part 2 – ‘Earth:The Climate Wars’ Programme 3 – A Viewer’s View

By: Adrian S

Adrian S — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:59:29 +0000

IF you watch most of the BBC’s and Skys output , everyday there is a green lecture, its truly appaling. Frequently these are not news items but nothing more than green propoganda, and so often they get things so wrong , for example they praise electric cars saying how green they are— do they not realise that the electricty generated comes from burning fossil fuels usually unless its the small amount of nuclear or wind powwer that we have in the UK.
Climate change may be happening to a small degree, but we need to think carefully before comitting economic suicide for no real gains. Bjorn Lomborg writes convincely on these points— you wont see him featured on SKY or the BBC

By: admin

admin — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:40:43 +0000

Good points Wiliam.

I climate alarmism was based on sound science, then there would be no need for such a blatant BBC propaganda excercise.

By: William

William — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:35:36 +0000

Irrespective of any particular scientific fact the whole program was little more than an hour of subliminal advertising (for whatever cause). If you have the time or inclination I would recommend viewing without sound to appreciate my point. Advertising being in terms of a particular view to the point of being a Party Political Broadcast. It was obviously far more obvious with sound on and almost laughable in it’s sheer single mindedness. The point where the presenter claimed ‘Because Data Modellers accurately predict the future..’ I just had to laugh. Why does the BBC now take us for being gullible fools and what generation are they trying to convince?

By: admin

admin — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:03:42 +0000

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your comment, which I will approve. The media ignoring non-alarmist peer reviewed science is demonstrable e.g. Roy Spencer’s recent paper on Cirrus clouds and negative feedback – didn’t get reported despite sending out a PR. His latest on climate models and feedback, in the Journal of Climate, won’t get reported either. The BBC, for example, are very quick to pick up the resurrected ‘hockey stick’ and present it as proof that there was no MWP.

As far as funding is concerned – there is much more money available to the consensus or alarmist side than to realists. IIRC – $50 billion has been spent on climate research by Governments, which dwarfs the amount money from other sources.

As for Realclimate – this was set up by the likes of Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt of GISS, William Connolly (Green Party) to defend the fatally flawed Hockey Stick and the consensus – it does not therefore tend present an objective view of climate science.

Climate Research News exists mainly to scan climate journals and report papers that the media doesn’t report and is funded out of my own pocket. I may add ‘google ads’ and a ‘donate’ button, but that’s it!

I set up a temporary site http://www.climaterealist.blogspot.com while CRN.com was being set up, where there are some recent papers of interest.

Valid science requires research to objective and for a hypothesis to be tested to destruction – not protected by trying to shut down or suppress alternative views or research.

I have a much better understanding of climate than the likes of Al Gore, approved of by Realclimate, who has tried to link every weather event with ‘global warming’ and made himself $100 million, so far.

Regards,

Paul Biggs

By: Mark A. York

Mark A. York — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:47:07 +0000

The botton line sir this statements like this "The media have largely adopted the official intergovernmental view of climate science and tend to ignore peer reviewed scientific papers that fail to support the ‘consensus,’" are bullshit and so is any of the biased crap at Icecap a collection of paid lobbyists and shills for fossil fuel companies. I don;t detect the first sign of understanding issue at even an undergraduate level. Here are the people who do: realclimate Real is the keyword here. It's what your analysis bears no resemblance to.