Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

snowflux

Mps Criticise Bbc Over Climate Change Reporting

Recommended Posts

MPs criticise BBC over climate change reporting

It's about time the BBC was called to task for this. Unfortunately, the BBC has a woeful lack of scientific expertise in its editorial staff, sometimes pitting experts in the field against lobbyists as if their views has equal weight. A recent example of this was Radio 4's today programme, in which Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, mathematician and climate expert, argued against Lord Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and founding chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a lobby group). Here's the end of their exchange:

Justin Webb: Lord Lawson was saying there that there had been a pause – which you hear a lot about – a pause of 10 / 15 years in measured rising of temperature. That is the case isn’t it?

Sir Brian Hoskins: It hasn’t risen very much over the last 10-15 years. If you measure the climate from the globally averaged surface temperature, during that time the excess energy has still been absorbed by the climate system and is being absorbed by the oceans.

Justin Webb: So it’s there somewhere?

Sir Brian Hoskins: Oh yes, it’s there in the oceans.

Lord Lawson: That is pure speculation.

Sir Brian Hoskins: No, it’s a measurement.

Lord Lawson: No, it’s not. It’s speculation.

Justin Webb: Well, it’s a combination of the two isn’t it? As this whole discussion is…. Lord Lawson and Sir Brian Hoskins, thank you very much.

No it is not a combination Justin Webb, you idiot. Brian Hoskins knows what he's talking about. Lord Lawson hasn't a ******ing clue! He's a humanities graduate, journalist and politician, not a scientist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPs criticise BBC over climate change reporting

It's about time the BBC was called to task for this. Unfortunately, the BBC has a woeful lack of scientific expertise in its editorial staff, sometimes pitting experts in the field against lobbyists as if their views has equal weight. A recent example of this was Radio 4's today programme, in which Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, mathematician and climate expert, argued against Lord Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and founding chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a lobby group). Here's the end of their exchange:

No it is not a combination Justin Webb, you idiot. Brian Hoskins knows what he's talking about. Lord Lawson hasn't a ******ing clue! He's a humanities graduate, journalist and politician, not a scientist!

Applies to pretty much any subject under discussion on 'Today', and by extension the discussons had by lawmakers when formulating policy on any number of areas. They are generally clueless but arrogant enough not to care and press on regardless.

As for Today, The thing that made me eventually switch it off was the fact the show is on a perpetual drive to get to the next item, they rarely devote sufficient time to get beyond the most superficial treatment of the subject at hand. Although the presenters barely have a grasp of that level of understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Today, The thing that made me eventually switch it off was the fact the show is on a perpetual drive to get to the next item, they rarely devote sufficient time to get beyond the most superficial treatment of the subject at hand. Although the presenters barely have a grasp of that level of understanding.

I'm sure it used to be better than that; I was a regular listener up to about the turn of the century but only rarely since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This confirms my view that the 'man made global warming' agenda is all about political interests, not hard proven scientifical facts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we all see the bias we want to see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it used to be better than that; I was a regular listener up to about the turn of the century but only rarely since.

I must be getting old. When I saw that phrase I automatically thought you meant 1900/1901.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This confirms my view that the 'man made global warming' agenda is all about political interests, not hard proven scientifical facts...

No, it's the anti-MMGW agenda that is about political interests. The complaint is that when there's a discussion about global warming and climate change on the BBC, they frequently wheel in some non-qualified lobbyist (in this case Nigel Lawson) to put the case for the "sceptic" side so as to achieve so-called balance.

This is like insisting on having a creationist present in discussions about natural history, or bringing a moon-landing disbeliever in to discussions about manned spaceflight. Public discussions about science should be between appropriately qualified scientists; they should not involve political rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's the anti-MMGW agenda that is about political interests.

Oh please, you can at least admit that both sides are heavily influenced by political interests, regardless who's ultimately right or wrong.

Public discussions about science should be between appropriately qualified scientists; they should not involve political rhetoric.

Exactly, shame that there is no scientific proof for MMGW only theories based on computer models and loads of assumptions based on vague correlations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The green bias on the BBC is subtle at times, if you look at the BBC news home page there is a tab called 'Sci/Environment'

- not only have they twinned the two together to imply that they have equal weighting/importance.

- they have also shortened 'Science' to 'Sci' and given more eyespace to 'Environment'

The accusation is of an "anti-green" bias, as explained in this article:

Government accuses BBC of creating 'false balance' on climate change with unqualified sceptics

The BBC has been accused of misleading the public about climate change, creating a “false balance” by allowing unqualified climate sceptics too much air time and giving opinion the same weight as fact.

In a damning parliamentary report, the BBC is criticised for distorting the debate on man-made climate change – for which it says the scientific evidence is overwhelming – through its determination to put the other side of the argument across.

Radio 4’s Today and World at One programmes come in for particular criticism, as do the BBC’s television news programmes.

The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit well-respected scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies. Andrew Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog, former children’s television presenter Johnny Ball and Bob Carter, a retired Australian geologist, are among the other climate sceptics that have appeared on the BBC.

The use of climate sceptics has often resulted in an argument between science-based fact and belief-based opinion, the report by the cross-party Science and Technology Committee found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please, you can at least admit that both sides are heavily influenced by political interests, regardless who's ultimately right or wrong.

No, because it's not true. The debate, if you can call it a debate, is largely between pro-MMGW scientists and anti-MMGW lobbyists.

Exactly, shame that there is no scientific proof for MMGW only theories based on computer models and loads of assumptions based on vague correlations.

There is no such thing as "scientific proof" of anything. There is, however, very strong scientific evidence for the existence of MMGW, as detailed in the thousands of scientific papers on the topic and summarised by the IPCC reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The green bias on the BBC is subtle at times, if you look at the BBC news home page there is a tab called 'Sci/Environment'

- not only have they twinned the two together to imply that they have equal weighting/importance.

- they have also shortened 'Science' to 'Sci' and given more eyespace to 'Environment'

I also have noticed that!

We can all congratulate ourselves on having a "small carbon footprint", as most things are made in China now!

I'm not with snowy on this one! I think the BBC has been rattling out "green nonsense" for years, although I do agree their covering of scientific topics is lamentable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be getting old. When I saw that phrase I automatically thought you meant 1900/1901.

I hesitated before using it for the same reason, and still think 19th when people say last century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitated before using it for the same reason, and still think 19th when people say last century.

I'm still driving cars from the last century! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be any american car except a tesla then.

MOT soon! Let's see whether it's a goer for one more year! I don't apologise for it, Mr Swissy! I'm an embarrassing mate for my "green" friends! Still, they all like a lift home! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public discussions about science should be between appropriately qualified scientists; they should not involve political rhetoric.

Public discussions about Religion should be between appropriately qualified Clergy.

Oh the irony!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public discussions about Religion should be between appropriately qualified Clergy.

Oh the irony!

Science is not religion; it deals with facts, not faith. The opinions of people who are unaware of the basic facts underlying the topic should not be equated with those who do know what they're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MOT soon! Let's see whether it's a goer for one more year! I don't apologise for it, Mr Swissy! I'm an embarrassing mate for my "green" friends! Still, they all like a lift home! ;)

No apology necessary pinny, I was teasing you. The love of obsolete machinery is a common weakness! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is not religion; it deals with facts, not faith. The opinions of people who are unaware of the basic facts underlying the topic should not be equated with those who do know what they're talking about.

Are scientists special flowers who need protecting? Why can't they hold their own in a debate with inferior intellects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are scientists special flowers who need protecting? Why can't they hold their own in a debate with inferior intellects?

Who said anything about inferior intellects? I'm sure Nigel Lawson is a very clever man and very good at winning people round to agree with his opinion; as a politician, it's his job. The trouble is that his opinion has no basis in fact and should not be presented as though it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This made me laugh yesterday, BBC taken to task for its climate change bias. Finally I thought! No, it was apparently because it aired some views contrary to the new religion. The BBC is shockingly propagandist when it comes to Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever it's called this week. Tired of them slipping mentions into all manner of otherwise decent Earth Science programmes - and particularly the brainwashing of children.

An editorial decision was taken some time ago at the that the Secret BBC Climate Seminar (2006) that the 'science was settled' and thus the problem exaggerated and dissent excluded. It is only with the unravelling of the global warming Armageddon that some alternative views have been aired.

Climate is ever changing over long periods of time. We will adapt as we always have. Our technology will evolve. It is politically driven agenda, giving opportunities for some to enrich themselves and others to give themselves airs of self-important righteousness. There really are bigger things to worry about in our daily lives.

*Damn it! I've posted on a climate change thread! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about inferior intellects? I'm sure Nigel Lawson is a very clever man and very good at winning people round to agree with his opinion; as a politician, it's his job. The trouble is that his opinion has no basis in fact and should not be presented as though it does.

Why? Because the general public, with their inferior intellects won't be able to come to a rational conclusion? Or perhaps you fear they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that his opinion has no basis in fact and should not be presented as though it

The leaked material from UAE's climate research unit exposed practices that are a very, very poor fit for scientific method. Facts produced by questionable methods are questionable facts. Not wrong necessarily, but inherently questionable.

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive, and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify the results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of the data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is not religion; it deals with facts, not faith. The opinions of people who are unaware of the basic facts underlying the topic should not be equated with those who do know what they're talking about.

it deals with evidence...not necessarily facts.

evidence 4000 years ago was that all matter consisted of 4 elements. this we know today, is not fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.