BBC became propaganda machine for Global Warming
27 January 2011, 07:13 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC became propaganda machine for Global Warming
27 January 2011, 07:30 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Another one here ... http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/...by-catlin.html ... follow the links for the full picture. Even saw this "expedition" mentioned on CBBC Newsround earlier just to indoctrinate the lickle kiddie winkles .... Funnily they didn't mention that Antarctic sea ice is above average for the time of year .... Strange that, in the interests of impartiality and all that ... Oh, wait, it's the Beeb ... 
Dave
Dave
27 January 2011, 07:41 PM
#5
Anyone who saw this the other night wouldn't be under any illusions about it. Don't be fooled by the title - 90% of the program was dedicated to how the 'naughty little skeptics' are ruining the global warming message for everyone else. The rest was just filler to make it less obvious it was nothing but a propaganda piece.
Very disappointing for a supposedly objective science program
Very disappointing for a supposedly objective science program
27 January 2011, 07:41 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
27 January 2011, 09:40 PM
#8
Global warming is happening and quickly too, models predict that in 6 months time the temperature of the northern hemisphere will have risen by over 20 degrees compared to what it is today. At the same time, severe climate change will occur in the southern hemisphere where temperatures will have fallen by the same amount in the same period. Have the BBC reported this?
27 January 2011, 09:46 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think we have all seen the BBC being biased by not reporting any questions about global warming and making out that Al Gores Film was so accurate despite even the courts agreeing that it had a number of factual errors and biased in its presentation of the subject
27 January 2011, 10:21 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am convinced that we are in a period of global warming. There is enough real evidence to tell us it is happening. However, there is no real evidence to tell us it is mad made. Earth has never stayed consistently at the same temperature. It cycles between warmer and colder. Now it cycling towards warmer after a 'mini ice age.' Anyone who claims to 'prove it is man made' is only in it for the cash
27 January 2011, 10:28 PM
#11
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who saw this the other night wouldn't be under any illusions about it. Don't be fooled by the title - 90% of the program was dedicated to how the 'naughty little skeptics' are ruining the global warming message for everyone else. The rest was just filler to make it less obvious it was nothing but a propaganda piece.
Very disappointing for a supposedly objective science program
Very disappointing for a supposedly objective science program
Sir Paul Nurse should have his "sir-ship" and "nobel-ship" revoked, as well as his "i-am-a-scientist-ship".
He brings shame on the Royal Society by his blind acceptance of "facts" from people like "Mr NASA" and his "the model looks exactly like the observed" without questioning whether "the model" was generated 5 years, 5 weeks or 5 days before "reality". Oh, and "Mr NASA" stated how global temperatures have been rising for the last 50 years - despite the fact that satellite data has only been available for 30 years!!
BBC biased propaganda is bad enough, but to pollute what was such a fine institution such as Horizon is disgusting
mb
27 January 2011, 11:12 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Take a look at .... http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2011/0...g-of-stations/ ... and see how the global temperature so-called increases have been manufactured. Particularly this graph ... http://uddebatt.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/nvst2.jpg ...
I'll go back to something I've said before, there is NO way you can calculate a global "average" temperature and, if you did get a number, who says if it's larger or smaller or the same as that global "average" over history????
And it's funny, as has been said above, that the "solution" to GW is to tax people ....
Hmmmm.. Let me think about that ..... 
Dave
27 January 2011, 11:24 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global warming is happening and quickly too, models predict that in 6 months time the temperature of the northern hemisphere will have risen by over 20 degrees compared to what it is today. At the same time, severe climate change will occur in the southern hemisphere where temperatures will have fallen by the same amount in the same period. Have the BBC reported this?
27 January 2011, 11:33 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at .... http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2011/0...g-of-stations/ ... and see how the global temperature so-called increases have been manufactured. Particularly this graph ... http://uddebatt.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/nvst2.jpg ...
I'll go back to something I've said before, there is NO way you can calculate a global "average" temperature and, if you did get a number, who says if it's larger or smaller or the same as that global "average" over history????
And it's funny, as has been said above, that the "solution" to GW is to tax people .... Hmmmm.. Let me think about that .....
Dave
I'll go back to something I've said before, there is NO way you can calculate a global "average" temperature and, if you did get a number, who says if it's larger or smaller or the same as that global "average" over history????
And it's funny, as has been said above, that the "solution" to GW is to tax people ....
Hmmmm.. Let me think about that ..... Dave
Same point, different words. 10000 years ago we had glaciers in the UK. Now we don't, so it must be warmer. All those ******* driving Range Rovers 10000 years ago must have caused it........
27 January 2011, 11:41 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 January 2011, 08:18 AM
#17
Sorry if you didn't get my post, sarcasm is like a second language to me!
28 January 2011, 09:02 AM
#18
28 January 2011, 09:12 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last night there was a programme about the land bridge between UK & Europe flooding,
This only happened about 10,000 years ago,which is a very short time in geological terms.
As far as I know there where very few people & cars around at the time.
This only happened about 10,000 years ago,which is a very short time in geological terms.
As far as I know there where very few people & cars around at the time.
28 January 2011, 11:26 AM
#20
Does anyone "really" think ITV/ITN, Sky, CH4, et al, as well as the rag papers (as linked above) are not propaganda machines?
ITN are really annoying at the moment: Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts,
anyhoo:
So, if he really is a man of integrity, and knowing he "can" get away with stuff. Why did he not make an off-the-cuff remark on air after spouting such rubbish. For example after a climate report saying " If you belive that then you are a fool", then quiclky move on to the next report. It would have been TV gold . But no, he kept quite and decides to "sell" it as memoirs instead. He's no better that the rest of them in the news sector. 
ITN are really annoying at the moment: Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts,
anyhoo:
Originally Posted by peter
You’d never see anyone, to use a technical term, get a b*****king.
There’d be whispers about them. They might even get a black mark at the annual appraisal with their line manager. Sometimes, they might even be *promoted to a position in which they could do less harm......
....From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was,
There’d be whispers about them. They might even get a black mark at the annual appraisal with their line manager. Sometimes, they might even be *promoted to a position in which they could do less harm......
....From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was,
. But no, he kept quite and decides to "sell" it as memoirs instead. He's no better that the rest of them in the news sector.
28 January 2011, 01:07 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Westhill, Aberdeenshire
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC are as biased as they come. The guy who runs their pension fund is also on the board of a 'sustainable energy' company. Which could explain why 100's of millions of the BBC's pension fund is tied up in renewable energy companies and Carbon Bonds. If the renewable's market fails - which it is the beeb can't pay it's pension needs.
A few years ago the BBC trust held a meeting with 'top Global Warming advisors' and decided after that - Due to the over wealming evidence for manmade global warming the BBC no longer needs to provide a balanced view on this matter. And that is in the BBC charter!
I think there could be a link between those two things.
Even freedom of information requests to the BBC asking for the details of was at this meeting with and who were the 'top global warming advisors' have yeilded nothing. The BBC have failed to answer them.
Roger Harrabin their 'environmental' correspondant did a university degree in english and simply repeats whatever he is told. Journalism doesn't come into the global warmong debate.
A few years ago the BBC trust held a meeting with 'top Global Warming advisors' and decided after that - Due to the over wealming evidence for manmade global warming the BBC no longer needs to provide a balanced view on this matter. And that is in the BBC charter!
I think there could be a link between those two things.
Even freedom of information requests to the BBC asking for the details of was at this meeting with and who were the 'top global warming advisors' have yeilded nothing. The BBC have failed to answer them.
Roger Harrabin their 'environmental' correspondant did a university degree in english and simply repeats whatever he is told. Journalism doesn't come into the global warmong debate.
28 January 2011, 11:51 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 January 2011, 11:52 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
29 January 2011, 12:00 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the consequences of policy doesn't suit then it's very easy to construct a conspiracy theory, and or buy into other people's constructions.
This is the problem with this whole debate, you wont open your minds because that would mean allowing all the facts in, not just the ones that support your own self interest.
If somebody....ANYBODY would just present, without predjustice both sides of the argument, maybe, just maybe we could have a proper debate on this issue.
This is the problem with this whole debate, you wont open your minds because that would mean allowing all the facts in, not just the ones that support your own self interest.
If somebody....ANYBODY would just present, without predjustice both sides of the argument, maybe, just maybe we could have a proper debate on this issue.
29 January 2011, 12:09 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the consequences of policy doesn't suit then it's very easy to construct a conspiracy theory, and or buy into other people's constructions.
This is the problem with this whole debate, you wont open your minds because that would mean allowing all the facts in, not just the ones that support your own self interest.
If somebody....ANYBODY would just present, without predjustice both sides of the argument, maybe, just maybe we could have a proper debate on this issue.
This is the problem with this whole debate, you wont open your minds because that would mean allowing all the facts in, not just the ones that support your own self interest.
If somebody....ANYBODY would just present, without predjustice both sides of the argument, maybe, just maybe we could have a proper debate on this issue.
It's huge over-reach of state power.
29 January 2011, 12:12 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
29 January 2011, 12:13 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the consequences of policy doesn't suit then it's very easy to construct a conspiracy theory, and or buy into other people's constructions.
This is the problem with this whole debate, you wont open your minds because that would mean allowing all the facts in, not just the ones that support your own self interest.
If somebody....ANYBODY would just present, without predjustice both sides of the argument, maybe, just maybe we could have a proper debate on this issue.
This is the problem with this whole debate, you wont open your minds because that would mean allowing all the facts in, not just the ones that support your own self interest.
If somebody....ANYBODY would just present, without predjustice both sides of the argument, maybe, just maybe we could have a proper debate on this issue.
Type 25 - awesome.
29 January 2011, 12:20 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
29 January 2011, 12:20 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
There have been 15 ice ages in the last 2 million years, all caused by a combination of factors from orbital eccentricity (100,000 year cycle), axial precession (22,000 year cycle), orbital plane tilt (41,000 cycle) and solar activity. They have happened many times before, they will happen again, and we even know roughly when, and that man is foof all to do with them.