114 BBC-Climate-Truthers


How some BBC progs like @BBCr4Feedback are made by BBC-Climate-Truthers ..cos they think Truth needs a helping hand even if 97% of their complaints were from 3% they woyld still only air the 3% they get from alarmist activists

same day activist complaimed about bbcR4Today prog Again ! Feedback ignored my complaint below

Lot of complaints about Climate Change item on News Hour Prof Curry vs Non-Scientist Bob Ward ? Non cos he is PR for BigGreenHedgefund. BH has the story

He was MISLABELLED as a co-climate scientist with Prof J Curry, but NO not a scientist, but just like Lawson he has expertise

... Things take time to explain properly so this is the long version .. a shorter version is in my 2nd email

Please do not just ignore this complaint as it may form along with previous complaints the basis of a legal case alledging that the Lord Hall BBC failed to hinder warnings of it's own implicit part in a large misselling scandal of a scale no smaller than PPI, that needlessly raised citizens energy bills by hundreds of pounds, lowered their standards of living and cost some their jobs and livelihoods.

If you do choose to ignore it you are reinforcing my 3rd point

0. Why your previous complaints are just political. - Your complaints from green activists that Lawson should be kept off air on the grounds that he is not a scientist are easily contested, as they don't complain at all at other times. You'll notice that most of the scientists the BBC airs about climate come from other fields e.g. geneticists, biologists. If they really think you have to be an expert to speak they would have complain also abot these non experts, but they only complain when someone speaks against their dogma. I will now explain why banning people from contesting "scientists say" is based on a fallacy anyway, so there is no way that the BBC should be implementing it.

Re : Lawson on the Today programme I also wish to complain about it, but from the other angle the Non-Eco warrior Movement angle. The BBC's coverage of green science issues is an epic national scandal. Whereas theirs is just a one off I can easily write a 4 page letter every day complaining about the BBC deceptive coverage so the magnitude of my complaint is much larger in magnitude than theirs. I knpw no greater let down in modern life including PPI & Savillegate that the atrocious drop in the level of the BBC's coverage of green science issues.

There has been a systematic corruption of the way Green Science is covered by the BBC. As it has completely failed to keep it's integrity and stand up to the influence of the Green Industry and the Eco-activists. Instead it has let them push it into a number of shortcuts via logical fallacies, which means that when it comes to Green Science the BBC is letting the public down, by 1. Just broadcasting Green Industry/activist propaganda and 2.the BBC is damaging science as it has thrown the proper scientific method in the dustbin. as part of redressing that the BBC should not be falling into tricks that conthrm into bsnning challenging UNVALIDATED science, but rather have 10 times more skeptics on.

1. Oversimplifying - Science is often complex and to explain it properly takes time. However it is the nature of media items that without careful control, presenters are drawn to oversimplify and jump to conclusions; the BBC should have measures against this.

2. "Scientists say" and the white lab coat trick of old washing powder ads.

- Old Washing powder ads didn't have time to explain their science so they used the trick of a featuring a chap in a white coat. However thay didn't create a truth is is merely the FALLACY of appeal from authority. - Is "Scientists say" the same as "science says" ? No it is merely the same fallacy. True there has been a decline in the scientific movement so that many are not properly observing the scientific method, but that does not excuse BBC management accepting the same shortcut from presenters in a rush to conclusions. "Oh a scientist said that so that makes it science, so we don't have to waste time with outsiders who challenge it." - "Scientists say" doesn't become science until it has been properly VALIDATED and that is a process of strong challenging. (And don't fall for the shortcut that peer review is the same as Validation, it is not as in fact there is evidence that is often a flawed and corrupt process JPA Ioannidis) The proper scientific method is that the scientists take their theory and themselves challenge it from every angle, then ONLY when it predicts accurately the future and this has multiple independent replications by others, can this be considered properly validated and therefore unchallengeable. Although certain parts of climate science have been validated in a laboratory conditions, most of the theories applied to the real world have not been validated, that is why predictions of models are not very good. They are for the most part still scientists opinions so it's outrageous for BBC staff to fall for the line that "scientists say" cannot be challenged by anyone. Screaming that Lawson is not a scientist hides the fact that there are plenty of non-green scientists and experts like Lindzen, Pielke, Tol, J Curry, but they are effectively banned for not having green-skin.

3. New Institutional Racism at the BBC. Yep Greens can come on anytime, but non-greens are banned. That is what a rule banning Lawson and skeptics amounts to.

4. Smear tricks instead of proper refutation. 4b Shouting "denier" - just as point 2. above is an example of the argument from authority, this is a similar fallacy : An example of the "Poisoning of the wells Fallacy". Listen to my side, we have authority, but don't listen to them they have NO authority, whatever they say".

- I should say once again that I find the term offensive, unscientific and unacceptable. The term is clearly defamatory and does affect the income of us skeptics, if the BBC smears us with term. Ironically it seemed to be used by Eco-nazis, a term with similar weight, that I would not use on air.

- 4b The "Big Oil" smear trick . So I should state that I have no finacial interest apart from some Sid shares in British Gas and that my lifetime CO2 is not likely to be even half that of the average green (No kids, no house, no car, few possessions)

- I used to be a normal BBC listener enjoying the BBC's science coverage, but in the last 12 years being quite well educated on science I became appalled by the daily deceptions that I kept hearing mostly on green science so that now I find myself everyday checking websites which counter the green religion propaganda that the BBC outputs.

- For me and many others the BBC that used to have so much integrity for science has now lost its integrity due to the pattern of green science reporting it has fallen ito. I would like the rational world to take back the BBC from the grip the green business and activists.

BBC WHYS - Sickenly bad programme - on Forcing Climate Action

There is a big backlash against Climate Change Alarmism caused by progs made like this.
- You air people only one from viewpoint
- They put ridiculous claims up.
- "6m sea level rise in 18 years" for God sake!
- Which you then don't challenge ! where is the extraordinary evidence for this claim ?
- Bet the public feel deceived
But nature of their prog is that they rush onto another issue tmw, they don't give a toss about correcting their mistakes

- One of the most biased BBC prog on climate ever. Producers chose to air a series of speakers airing extreme views of catastrophe, with no one informed enough to challenge them
so 'confirmation bias' all the way through

"6m sea rise in India in 18 years" unchallenged in appalling BBC Radio

- Appalling Bias in another BBC World Service Radio prog
After 2 minutes of buildup of climate catastrophe hype the prog opened with a caller confirming "CC it's true ! in Chennai sea level has risen 6m yes "SIX metres" since 1995. .
. No a hint of challenging from the presenter, just shear acceptance. "hey wow"

- here is the programme intro text ..the actual audio is slightly differently worded.

Does we need to be made to act on climate change? (Their bad English) Mon, 31 March A major UN report released today says that global warming is likely to have a "severe, pervasive and irreversible" impact - floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires are likely to become commonplace. But the warnings are only increasing in severity; meanwhile what actions have historically been agreed to have been torn up or abandoned. So should people be forced to change their behaviour for the sake of the planet? Or, is it about governments having to do something? And if so, is that compatible with their need to be re-elected?
- The way I listen to it the second time, the poor confused Indian guy means the water is coming 6m further up the beach NOT 6m higher. I opened up a thread for discussion "6m sea Rise in India ..

Abridged idea of the audio

- Actual title of podcast "Does we need to be made to act on climate change" (yes bad English I know)

0:00 prog opens with presenter Cloey Tilly hyping up the panic
..new report says
, before this, we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have OVERWHELMING evidence that it is happening
- Arctic Sea Ice &
- coral reefs.. will be affected
.. global crop yields are beginning to CLIMB (does she mean decline ?)
.. especially for wheat, raising doubts about whether production could keep up with the growth in population.
... could lead to war and drive people to leave their homes.
..hear from ..
..Russia where awareness of climate change is incredibility low.
.. Mozambique, where poverty and illiteracy means the risk of CC..
SO SHOULD PEOPLE BE FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR .. ?
..fines for people who fon't recycle ?
.. should driving become incredibly expensive ? .. or about govs having to do something ?
if so is that compatible with their need to be re-elected ?
1:40 Daniel Lobez Diaz is an advisor to global corporations on business sustainability
2:00 Over to Bangalore to speak to Sailor (that's a 5hour bus ride inland of Chennai)
..since 1995 at least a yearly rise of 1 feet (18 years times 0.3) at least 6m
CT : Wow that's incredible ..
water coming closer to the shore (aha I think he means 6m nearer to the shore not 6m higher)
..Do you think enough is being done by gov to address ..."

- Take a a transcript of this prog and have ypur school class do a critical thinking execise with it. Go through it line by line analysing it and you sill come to understand why the UK public are less inclined than ever to accept the message of the Climate Change Alarmists.

Links and background

- Direct link to discussion of 60 posts on their FB page

- Direct link to 2nd discussion of 90 posts on their FB page on Monday

@BBC_WHYS .. despite their hyping "Can you see CC happening in your area ..they only got 2 tweets

- Presenter @ChloeTilley hyped up on her twitter feed "Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by impacts of climate change," says UN report. Should we be forced to tackle it? @BBC_WHYS 3:55pm - 31 Mar 14"

- she has form someone complained last time she will only interview alarmists ... and cut off skeptic

BBC News hyping IPCC news item www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559

- 2008 They ran a subtley titled eco-warrior prog before worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/global-warming-too-late-to-do-anything/#more-3358 * follow up , yep the guy emailed me and confiemed my interpretation.
.. if I were presenting my immediate response, would have been "So we are talking, about 6m closer to the road in 18 years. How much higher do you think that is ? cos if the beach is very gently sloping ie it's not very steep then a 1cm difference in depth could make a big difference in how much closer to the road."

- There were as far as I can see from the transcript at least another 2 howling factual inaccuracies in the script. - I don't expect BBC staff to understand every complex issue, that is why panelists from outside are brought on.

- But to me there is a systematic bias in BBC progs which are made by arts people (rather than maths people), in that being not so well informed themselves instead of getting someone from outside to challenge assertions made, the assertions are left unchallenged as all the guests selected alaways come from the GREEN political movement.

They used 3 fallacies, authority, popularity confirmation bias

notes

The BBC is one of the UK's national disgraces and why so British people want to GET OUT to live in another country, and the uninformed foreignerd want to come in. This We should have the option of funding 145.50 year into a fundfor independent broadcasters Greens never elected, but always dictating never voted-in but always veto-ing Greenpeace = GreenPREACH http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

THANKS If you find some useful info here then click to easily/safely send me a Paypal TIP

1 2834 5 6 7 9 10

a Stew Green opinion
Out of the box thinking
- from someone who was never in the box in the first place
moved from the USEFUL BLOG to the REALITY CHECK BLOG

<-- BACK HOME REALITY CHECK INDEX * USEFUL BLOG INDEX
note/comments
NEXT -->