BBC and climate change denying nuts


by Sunny
3rd February, 2010 at 8:54 pm    

Wrote an article last night on the BBC’s increasing climate change denialism. Published today:

After watching last night’s Newsnight, I can only come to one conclusion: the BBC has become this country’s most pernicious climate-change-denying media outlet in the UK.

There is simple reasoning behind this grand statement. While the assorted commentators who regularly spout ill-informed propaganda across the media are usually taken with a pinch of salt, the BBC is broadly trusted as an impartial and trustworthy reporter of news. It sets the agenda. Which makes the rubbish it has been producing lately on climate change even more dangerous.

Let me start by saying I believe that man-made activity is the prime driver behind global warming. I don’t have time for tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nuts who think it is one big plot by scientists across the world. I do believe CC deniers are no different to 9/11 Truthers. But that point is moot while we focus on the country’s biggest culprit.

Read the rest here. Predictably the comments followed in four strands:

1) WTF? Don’t you know global warming is bullshit?
2) WTF?! BBC showing right-wing bias? You’re smoking crack
3) Why do you deranged, lunatic, tax-raising, commie loving, hippy-loving, oil company-funded bastards use such nasty, polarising language against us? Why??? You should be strung up!
4) Me and my tinfoil-hat wearing commenter mates think your credibility is shot to pieces. No one will ever employ you again!!

I was baiting them all evening but unfortunately the CIF crew closed the thread. Perhaps we can continue here?

Update: Mehdi Hasan at New Statesman piles in:

There is nothing more infuritating than the BBC’s earnest and often misplaced quest for “balance” on settled issues like climate change, which often has the effect of tilting its coverage to the right.

Yup.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Environmentalism,Media






24 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: BBC and climate change denying nuts http://bit.ly/cFtdzi




  1. Old Holborn — on 3rd February, 2010 at 8:58 pm  

    Whilst I fully appreciate your viewpoint and admire your fortitude…..”your mum”

    AGW is a socialist scam to redistribute my hard earned money to people sitting on poles in Bangladesh and cuddling AK47′s under a bush in the Sudan.

    A bastard flush mate. Give it up. You lot will think of something else. Get Geldof in to help.

  2. greetings earthling — on 3rd February, 2010 at 9:14 pm  

    Pretty sure we don’t get anywhere by throwing the climate change denier label at anyone. (Hope I’m not next)
    http://leftcentral.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/responding-to-the-attack-on-evidence-of-climate-change/

  3. Kulvinder — on 3rd February, 2010 at 10:31 pm  

    Recently we had the East Anglia emails scandal, which supposedly showed researchers were covering up evidence that did not conform to their theories, and now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits to an error in a major report on the topic regarding the speed with which Himalayan glaciers are melting.

    It’d be more accurate to say they were trying to find ways of keeping data and papers they considered to be unfit to publish from being published.

    Now you can condemn the politics behind it, and i amongst many do, but there is no smoking gun in those emails, theres nothing there that shows the vast global conspiracy that scientists are perpetuating. Those scientists involved in climate research before the emails were hacked haven’t had their funding revoked because all the research councils ‘suddenly see the light’.

    Apart from a better perception of how peer review works (which is good), and a greater call for accountability nothing has actually changed in terms of the scientific consensus.

    And it won’t until those who disagree with agw put their effort into scientific research rather than pointless conspiracy theories.

    AGW is a socialist scam to redistribute my hard earned money to people sitting on poles in Bangladesh and cuddling AK47’s under a bush in the Sudan.

    The statement is yours; so is the burden of proof. If you mean what you say that is.

    Virtually every ‘agw is a scam’ commentator and scientist has focused on this apparent conspiracy to falsify data and avoid facts. There is no rigorous alternate hypothesis to whats happening.

    So by all means call the vast vast majority of scientist involved in the research liars, but don’t you think it’d be a better use of your time to focus on alternate explanations rather than simply eviscerating those that disagree with you?

    For what its worth and before someone irritatingly says ‘but it isn’t conspiracy theorists they just disagree with you, they aren’t like 9/11 truthers’.

    The entire rationale for hacking the emails was to expose the ‘conspiracy’

    Ill just repeat that

    They hacked the emails to expose the ‘conspiracy’

    They didn’t think the emails contained weather data that they could use to form different hypotheses, they weren’t after gigabytes of data that the public wouldn’t know what to do with. They went to all that considerable trouble because they believed there was a conspiracy and they wanted to expose it.

    And for those of you who think that scientists always agree or doubt the use of peer review in finding fraud – or think noone would grass each other in – read about Jan Schon

  4. Kulvinder — on 3rd February, 2010 at 10:33 pm  

    which supposedly showed researchers were covering up evidence that did not conform to their theories,

    It’d be more accurate to say they were trying to find ways of keeping data and papers they considered to be unfit to publish from being published.

    Now you can condemn the politics behind it, and i amongst many do, but there is no smoking gun in those emails, theres nothing there that shows the vast global conspiracy that scientists are perpetuating. Those scientists involved in climate research before the emails were hacked haven’t had their funding revoked because all the research councils ‘suddenly see the light’.

    Apart from a better perception of how peer review works (which is good), and a greater call for accountability nothing has actually changed in terms of the scientific consensus.

    And it won’t until those who disagree with agw put their effort into scientific research rather than pointless conspiracy theories.

    AGW is a socialist scam to redistribute my hard earned money to people sitting on poles in Bangladesh and cuddling AK47’s under a bush in the Sudan.

    The statement is yours; so is the burden of proof. If you mean what you say that is.

    Virtually every ‘agw is a scam’ commentator and scientist has focused on this apparent conspiracy to falsify data and avoid facts. There is no rigorous alternate hypothesis to whats happening.

    So by all means call the vast vast majority of scientists involved in the research liars, but don’t you think it’d be a better use of your time to focus on alternate explanations rather than simply eviscerating those that disagree with you?

    For what its worth and before someone irritatingly says ‘but it isn’t conspiracy theorists they just disagree with you, they aren’t like 9/11 truthers’.

    The entire rationale for hacking the emails was to expose the ‘conspiracy’

    Ill just repeat that

    They hacked the emails to expose the ‘conspiracy’

    They didn’t think the emails contained weather data that they could use to form different hypotheses, they weren’t after gigabytes of data that the public wouldn’t know what to do with. They went to all that considerable trouble because they believed there was a conspiracy and they wanted to expose it.

    And for those of you who think that scientists always agree or doubt the use of peer review in finding fraud – or think noone would grass each other in – read about Jan Schon

  5. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2010 at 10:49 pm  

    AGW is a socialist scam to redistribute my hard earned money

    hard earned money? With your brains I highly doubt it. Now fuck off you bigot and hang out at your own cesspit so I can ignore you.

  6. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2010 at 10:54 pm  

    Pretty sure we don’t get anywhere by throwing the climate change denier label at anyone.

    I have an idea. Why don’t people stop telling me what I should or should not say. Does that sound revolutionary? I don’t think it sounds that out of place. kthanxbai

  7. C M — on 3rd February, 2010 at 10:59 pm  

    I agree with you when you said, “The BBC is continually painted as some liberal-left dominated haven, but it remains deeply institutional and rightwing.” But previously you wrote this like you don’t realise you have been duped: “the BBC is broadly trusted as an impartial and trustworthy reporter of news. It sets the agenda.”
    It reads like a PR right up, yes auntie says this, and this is true, now just have a spoonful of this…no it won’t hurt you.
    When was the last time you watched average BBC news output and thought it was impartial? But then what’s impartiality when you’ve already decided the truth?

  8. Refresh — on 4th February, 2010 at 12:19 am  

    Sorry, bit late getting into this. TLA’s like AGW don’t help.

    AGW – Aggravated Global Warming?

  9. DavidC — on 4th February, 2010 at 3:02 am  

    Sunny,

    Great article. Thank you. After reading Monbiot’s flag-waving capitulation where he eagerly offers scientists to throw under the bus, your piece was what was needed.

    The BBC are doing the equivalent of having homeopaths come on to insist that all modern medicine is a hoax. We’re being mislead by people who don’t know what they’re talking about or being lied to by those with a sinister agenda. It’s farcical – and dangerous.

    Keep sticking it to the bastards.

    Cheers.

    David.

  10. Sunny — on 4th February, 2010 at 3:35 am  

    C M:
    the BBC is broadly trusted as an impartial and trustworthy reporter of news. It sets the agenda.

    This related to broad public opinion.

    The BBC is continually painted as some liberal-left dominated haven, but it remains deeply institutional and rightwing

    This is my view. I hope that clarifies.

    DavidC – thanks and I agree. I’m getting increasingly angry at the easy capitulation by lefties and greenies. Get some fucking backbone people!

  11. Cjcjc — on 4th February, 2010 at 7:03 am  

    Oh dear.
    Now the head of Greenpeace wants Pachauri to go.
    Time to cancel your sub?!

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7014203.ece

  12. cjcjc — on 4th February, 2010 at 8:54 am  

    And what are the CiF criteria for closing the comments?
    Judging by what was happening up to that point it was simply to spare you from further abuse!

  13. A.C. — on 4th February, 2010 at 1:00 pm  

    ‘I trust the BBC’ lol whatever happened to that sticker Sunny?

    Looks to me that this is one big smokescreen so you don’t have to report that tha Asian Network is going under. I’d rather read your Pickled analysis of that little problem…

  14. A.C. — on 4th February, 2010 at 1:14 pm  

    Lol and might want to update your AIM graphs for Sept AND Dec Rajar data…

  15. Sunny — on 4th February, 2010 at 1:59 pm  

    As I said cjcjc – fucking greenies with no backbone

  16. Sunny — on 4th February, 2010 at 2:08 pm  

    PS – I don’t have a problem with PRechauri going by the way – it’s no biggie. The guy was picked by GW Bush because he had close links with business (now criticised for, hilariously by rightwingers). If they get a proper scientist in there I’ll be happy.

  17. A.C. — on 4th February, 2010 at 2:16 pm  

    Reading your AIM report in more detail, it’s actually misleading. You state that the drop in listener numbers has ‘since reversed’ but that is just not true. It got worse in the quarter to September 09 and has stayed there in Dec. The listener hours got still worse to Dec and that pushes up CPLH.

    The Sep stats have been publicly available for 5 months, why are they not inclued? And Dec figures have been available since 7am this morning. As 1Xtra might have it, fix up and stop chatting bare breeze!

  18. cjcjc — on 4th February, 2010 at 3:03 pm  

    Yes that is quite funny – he went native!

    Me too – suggest Lindzen!

  19. Sunny — on 4th February, 2010 at 3:56 pm  

    Who’s Lindzen?

  20. MoreMediaNonsense — on 4th February, 2010 at 4:00 pm  

    “Who’s Lindzen ?”

    You really are out of your depth aren’t you Sunny ?

    Meanwhile Rod Liddle is hitting back at your silly campaign :

    http://moremedianonsense.blogspot.com/2010/02/rod-liddle-comments-on-msm-at-socialist.html

  21. Sunny — on 4th February, 2010 at 6:41 pm  

    Do you think I care what he thinks of me?

    The more he hates the more I wear it as a badge of pride.

  22. DavidC — on 4th February, 2010 at 7:49 pm  

    > I’m getting increasingly angry at the easy capitulation by lefties and greenies.

    Yup.

    > Get some fucking backbone people!

    Ex-fucking-actly!

    ~~~

    cjcjc:

    > …suggest Lindzen!

    This Lindzen?:

    - http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
    - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen
    - http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/

    Why would you “suggest” someone whose main quality is to be consistently wrong? You Deniers do seem to select your heroes based on that attribute, don’t you?

  23. Mango — on 9th February, 2010 at 3:35 pm  

    Sunny, as MacDonald’s used to say I’m lovin’ it

    The best place to watch the slow-motion, multi vehicle car crash that is Man-made Global Warming is from here:

    http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/

    I’ve got my beer, cigarettes and have turned the patio heater to 11.

    The IPCC even managed to piss off the cloggies saying that 55% of Holland was below sea level, when in fact its only 26%! I want whatever they’re shmoking.

    As various scientists and nerds slowly take the IPCC report and so-called ‘peer review’ process apart, there’ll be a lot more of this rubbish to be discovered.

    p.s. You simply have to read this in its entirety.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/08/andrew_montford_interview/

    Hockey stick temperature graph nonsense destroyed.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.