JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Your funds used to hide deception — the BBC’s 28Gate coverup becomes mainstream news

First they take your money to force their opinions over you.

Then they take your money to hide what they were doing, because they knew what they were doing was wrong.

It was a turning point in BBC coverage. The 2006 seminar with “climate experts” turned out to be mostly a workshop with Greenpeace, industry activists and lobbyists. It was the point the BBC dropped even the pretense of impartial news reporting on the climate. After this “high-level” seminar the Beeb announced it didn’t need balance in the climate debate. Then having made out they were so scientific and honorable, they spent the next six years burning more money to hide the names of the experts from the public that paid for them.

Is there any better argument to explain why state funded media is not just a waste of money, but irresponsible, immoral and unethical political advertising?

There is no saving the BBC. Over the last decade climate change was supposedly the “biggest scientific” challenge for the world, and a massive cost to the citizens who were falsely told they needed to change the weather. More than ever, public funds should have been used to analyze both sides of the science and the politics. Instead what we got were the personal views of a select few, pushing their own political activism, while poor people were slugged for the cost of the news, the legal folly,  and worse of all, for the pointless expensive electricity.

David Rose, Mail on Sunday

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.
Tony Newbery, 69, from North Wales, asked for further disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC’s resistance to revealing anything about its funding and the names of those present led to a protracted struggle in the Information Tribunal. The BBC has admitted it has spent more than £20,000 on barristers’ fees. However, the full cost of their legal battle is understood to be much higher.
In a written statement opposing disclosure in 2012, former BBC news chief and current director of BBC radio Helen Boaden, who attended the event, admitted: ‘In my view, the seminar had an impact on a broad range of BBC output.’
The list and the back story to this started with Tony Newbery way back in 2007, and was then also picked up by who hunted online, and found the sacred list published quietly in full.   Look at the lengths the BBC went to hide what it was doing:
In mid 2007 Tony Newbery of Harmless Sky started asking who was at the seminar, but the BBC wouldn’t give up the names. In fact the BBC thought the names were so significant that when Newbery sent them an FOI, they not only refused to hand over the list, but they used six lawyers against him (see  The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named). The BBC, improbably, argued they weren’t “public” and even more improbably, they won the case. Who knew? The BBC could be considered a “private organisation”. Where are the shareholders?
Bizarrely in this day of 24/7 electronics, the actual news seems to have taken a year to get from blogs to the press.

The incentives in state media are all wrong

Journalists working for state funded media are by definition, personal beneficiaries of big-government, yet they are also supposed to be independent commentators of big-government. It might work for a while, but it was never going to last.

BBC workers don’t work under the discipline of the market, they get paid what big-government is willing to give them and the bigger the government the better. Ultimately, the BBC may take the money from the public, but where is the accountability?

This has taken years to unfold, and months to be exposed in the media (credit is due to David Rose  for covering so well, what so few will even touch.) Read it all here  David Rose, Mail on Sunday.

For BBC and FOI documents, details and action

Don’t miss Tony Newbery who blogs with more detail and all the documents about this at  Harmless Sky. He describes the layers of naked conflicts of interest and suggests  people write to the the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee (cmscom@parliament.uk). He thinks the BBC needs a genuinely independent inquiry. (I think they need to be split up and parts sold off, but hey, to the people of the UK, it’s your money, what do you want?)
Bishop Hill talks about this: “What we have, in essence, appears to be government paying for subversion of the state broadcaster.”
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (149 votes cast)
Your funds used to hide deception -- the BBC's 28Gate coverup becomes mainstream news, 9.6 out of 10 based on 149 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/oykjqqx

152 comments to Your funds used to hide deception — the BBC’s 28Gate coverup becomes mainstream news

  • #
    Stonyground

    It’s about time. This story was broken on the climate blogs about a year ago.

    [The 'story' has been around for much longer than that, indeed since 2007 when the FOI request was first submitted. However this latest information is relating to the actual cost of the seminar and legal fees, which has just been released. - Mod]


    Report this

    210

  • #
    Barry Woods

    Roger Harrabin was on the advisory board of the Tyndall centre, at the same time his CMEP was being funded by Prof Mike Hulme (seminar attendee) Tyndall to organise the seminars. (advisory board from 2002 until at least August 2005). The financials that Tony Newbery has, shows that some of the DiFD funding also went to CMEP (for overheads)

    I’m curious to know when the BBC’s Roger Harrabin had stepped down from Tyndall,especiall before/after when the January 26th, 2006 seminar happened.

    According to wayback machine,
    http://web.archive.org/web/20051112140142/http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/general/management/advisory_board.shtml

    Roger Harrabin was on the Tyndall Advisory (alongside Bill Hare Greenpeace) board in August 2005,
    (after this date, the Tyndall website changed and advisory board info was no longer available, via wayback)

    the conflict of interest for the BBC seems huge, given:
    Mike Hulme (climategate 2 email):
    “Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today, radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.” (email 2496)

    Both Harrabin and Smith seemed to think hem Influential:
    The CMEP seminars seem to have been very succesful in persuading the BBC to change it stance and policies in the reporting of ‘climate change’ as described by Dr Joe Smith’s in his OU profile: (h/t DAvid Holland)

    “The seminars have been publicly credited with catalysing significant changes in the tone and content of BBC outputs across platforms and with leading directly to specific and major innovations in programming,” – Dr Joe Smith

    “It has had a major impact on the willingness of the BBC to raise these issues for discussion. Joe Smith and I are now wondering whether we can help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world” – Roger Harrabin

    I wrote about the above at Watts Up With That, when climategate 2 broke, quotes from & more detail here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-impartiality-at-the-bbc/


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Barry Woods

    both the 2 quotes above (Harrabin/Smith) available via wayback

    David Holland’s OU complaint, quoting Smiths bio
    http://web.archive.org/web/20111226052441/http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/OU/OU_complaint.pdf

    Roger Harrabin quote (pg 56)
    http://web.archive.org/web/20091228233022/http://www.wolfson.cam.ac.uk/alumni/magazine/magazine-30.pdf

    Seminars prior to 2006, appear to be when Roger was on the advisory board of Tyndall (joined 2002)

    When Mike Hulme was saying this is why we fund CMEP (Roger Harrabin / DrJoe Smith), to keep Stott of airwaves (in 2002) Roger Harrabin had been invited onto the board in 2001!

    see this email from Mike Hulme (Tyndall) extract:
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=988

    “date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:12:40 +0000
    from: Mike Hulme
    subject: Advisory Board members

    We have been strongly ‘encouraged’ by our Advisory Board to broaden
    membership slightly to include someone from the media, another NGO member,
    and an ‘economist’ or investor, also to think carefully about membership of
    our External Review Panel and our Annual Assessment Panel. I am therefore
    proposing the following:

    1. We invite three more members to our AB:

    Roger Harrabin (media; Radio BBC) – reserve Paul Brown (The Guardian)
    Bill Hare (NGO; Greenpeace) – reserves Mike Harley (English Nature); Derek
    Norman (NWREDACTEDSustainability Group)
    ???? (one suggestion Thomas Johansson, energy economist, UNDP/Sweden) –
    others please.”

    I wonder if anything will happen at the BBC because of this?


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I hate conspiracy theories.

    However, in this instance I have to make an exception. The extraordinary lengths the BBC went to in order to avoid disclosure of this meeting designed to push the Greenpeace agenda, can only be described as sinister.

    The BBC is rightly well known for its left wing and alarmist bias. Likewise, it is famous for its top heavy and hideously expensive management structure. However, in the eyes of the morally corrupt British Establishment, this is no reason for concern and consequently nothing will be done to correct the situation.

    The BBC sees its role in society as one of educating the people it perceives as the great unwashed to the way of thinking of those who decide the Guardian’s editorial policies. Unfortunately, it has had far too much success in this regard, hence the UK’s insane and idiotic energy policy.


    Report this

    780

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Conspiracy theory becomes Conspiracy fact.

      Of course conspiracies exist – it’s human nature to conspire and collude for advantage, and to maintain an information advantage through secrecy, the problem for any thinking adult is how to judge any news of a conspiracy, to determine if it is fact or fiction.

      Several categories would seem to exist.

      [1] Real conspiracies that run successfully for a time, and then were exposed and fail with exposure, e.g. LIBOR.

      [2] Real conspiracies that are currently running and are not known.

      [3] Real conspiracies that are currently running, and which have been exposed, but are resilient to exposure due to poor penetration of the exposure in the Main Stream.

      [4] Real conspiracies that are running in plain sight. e.g. Tolerated corruption.

      [5] Fake conspiracies that are (a) Hoaxes (b) Mis-information Campaigns, (c) Popular Delusions, or Urban Myths

      Noting that 5.a and 5.b represent elements of an active Real Conspiracy that is using a fake conspiracy as a front to fool and misdirect people.

      It seems to me that Fake Conspiracies would mostly be examples of Popular Delusions and/or Urban Myths.

      The challenge then becomes one of determining if a specific claim of conspiracy falls into any of the above categories.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Don Keiller

    See my letter to the BBC Trust sent 23 November, 2012.
    Needless to say I got the brush-off (see response).
    Huppert was equally useless.

    Director, BBC Trust
    The BBC Trust
    180 Great Portland Street
    London, W1W 5QZ

    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to you about a serious concern regarding the BBC’s reporting of climate change science and associated issues.

    From the detail emerging in the aftermath of Mr. Tony Newbery’s F.O.I case (EA/2009/0118) it is absolutely clear that the BBC is in breach of its Charter, which requires it to be impartial.
    Furthermore it knowingly and wilfully breached its Charter in this regard and has since tried to hide this fact from the Public and license fee payers, at the Publics’ expense.

    In June, 2007, the BBC Trust published a report entitled “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st Century”. That report, which is fully endorsed by the BBC Trust, contains the following statement (page 40):

    “The BBC has held a high‐level seminar with some of the best scientific experts,
    and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal
    space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”

    This statement forms the basis for the BBC’s decision to breach its Charter and abandon impartiality on the subject of climate change and instead provide a highly biased and alarmist presentation of the science of climate change, without any attempt at counterbalancing argument, let alone “equal space”.

    Since then attempts have been made, via FOI requests, to find out the identities of the so-called “best scientific experts” who attended the “high level seminar” which thereby provided the justification for the BBC to abandon its principle of impartiality in this area. To my best knowledge, the BBC has not abandoned its impartiality in this way, even in wartime.

    Tony Newbery, a pensioner, clearly felt the same way and has gone through a long series of FOI requests and processes, culminating, earlier this month, in a tribunal at the Central London Civil Justice Centre (case no. EA/2009/0118). The FOI request was for the identities of the “best scientific experts” who attended the seminar. In order to conceal this information, the BBC fielded a team of 6 lawyers, including barristers, at an estimated cost of £40,000 per day, to prevent the list of names from being published. Whilst they were successful, it was a pyrric victory, as it transpires that this information, that the BBC had tried so hard to conceal, had been in the Public domain for some time.
    So who were these “best scientific experts”?
    It turns out to be a motley collection of climate alarmists, activists, environmental advocates and those with vested financial interests:

    Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
    Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
    Trevor Evans, US Embassy
    Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
    Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
    Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
    Claire Foster, Church of England
    Saleemul Huq, IIED
    Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
    Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
    Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
    Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
    Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
    Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
    Matthew Farrow, CBI
    Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
    Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
    Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
    Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
    Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
    Joe Smith, The Open University
    Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
    Anita Neville, E3G
    Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
    Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
    Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia.

    Not one of these could be described as “scientific”, let alone an expert.

    The remainder:

    Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
    Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
    Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
    Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge

    are scientists, but were misleadingly described in court by Helen Boaden (of Jimmy Saville infamy), as “scientists with contrasting views”. In fact all are unashamedly alarmist. Pointedly, not one of these scientists deals with attribution science, or the atmospheric physics of global warming.

    So where are the real experts? Scientists from the Met Office, or the Hadley Centre, one of the foremost climate research centres in the world? Where are the names of Dr.
    Chris Landsea, World expert on hurricanes, or Dr. Nils‐Axel Mörner, World authority on sea level rises? Or Professors Richard Lindzen, or Murry Salby, World experts on atmospheric physics? Why are there no experts from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia?

    It now crystal clear why the BBC went to such great lengths and expense to
    withhold the names of those attending. They are not the “best scientific experts” but
    rather a group overwhelmingly comprised of environmental activists and NGO’s,
    with no scientific training, whatsoever, or those with a vested interest, often financial, in keeping climate change alarmism firmly in the Public eye.

    In conclusion I put it to the BBC Trust that:
    1. The BBC and, by endorsing the report, the BBC Trust, have lied to the public that
    they organised and/or attended a seminar at BBC Television Centre involving the
    “best scientific experts” on climate change.

    2. That its change of policy to no longer be impartial on the subject of climate
    change was not based on scientific evidence, or the views of the “best scientific
    experts”, but in fact was as a result of listening to the views, advice and lobbying
    from inappropriate and biased individuals, groups and organisations including Greenpeace, Tearfund, US Embassy, BP, IIED, IBT, AsRia, E3G etc.

    3. That the BBC and the BBC Trust are in breach of the charter and acting
    unlawfully. The following quotations are taken from the website
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-editorial-values-editorial-values/

    1.2.1 Trust
    Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.

    1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
    We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.
    1.2.3 Impartiality
    Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.

    1.2.4 Editorial Integrity and Independence
    The BBC is independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests.

    Each and every one of these guidelines has been knowingly breached.

    This is a scandal that is, in its own way, more disturbing than the one over the Jimmy Savile affair, as it has implications for the whole population. Interestingly the key players is this scandal, George Entwistle, Helen Boaden, Peter Rippon and Steve Mitchell, are also key players in the Savile affair. However whilst the Savile scandal is being looked into by a series of inquiries, this has been ignored.

    I look forward to hearing from you in due course on this matter. Please also be advised that I have sent a copy of this letter to my Member of Parliament the Rt. Hon. Julian Huppert, MP.

    Dear Dr. Keiller.

    Dear Dr Keiller
    Thank you for your email to the BBC Trust. I am responding as a member of the BBC Trust Unit which supports and advises the Chairman and Trustees.
    I note your concerns about the impartiality of the BBC and I can assure you that ensuring the impartiality of the BBC is a key priority for the Trust; it is essential to its independence that the BBC retains the public’s trust as an impartial purveyor of news and programming. The BBC is required to deliver duly impartial news by the Royal Charter and Agreement and to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality. The Trust is committed to making sure that the BBC fulfils this obligation.
    The seminar to which you refer was held on 26 January 2006 under the Chatham House Rule. It was organised in partnership with the Cambridge Media and Environmental Programme (CMEP) in conjunction with BBC News and BBC Vision. It pre-dated the Trust and was not a BBC Trust event. I understand that the Seminar was a one-day event focusing on climate science and the possible implications for businesses, individuals and international diplomacy looking ahead to the next 10 years and exploring the challenges facing the BBC in covering the issue. The event brought together 28 BBC representatives and 28 external invitees including scientists and policy experts including representatives from business, campaigners, NGOs, communications experts, people from the ‘front line’, scientists with contrasting views and academics. It is important that, in order to achieve an understanding of where due weight might lie in an argument, the BBC establishes what the prevailing consensus on an issue is and I understand that the seminar was part of that effort.

    New editorial guidelines were published in 2010. The current BBC Guidelines state that, “Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve ‘due weight’. For example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing consensus.”
    The Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee has explained its position in some of its findings on the subject in recent years. The Committee decided that its position was that there is a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening and laid out some of the reasons for reaching that decision, which included the statement by the Royal Society that, “Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming”. The Committee also noted that all three of the larger British political parties, as well as the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, have accepted man-made climate change as a reality.

    However, if you feel there are specific instances where the BBC has not met expected standards of impartiality then you can of course raise them using the BBC complaints process. Details of the process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.
    I hope this is helpful.


    Report this

    321

    • #
      Carbon500

      Don: an excellent letter, and the list of attendees explains a lot!
      The BBC’s reply you post includes the statement ‘The current BBC Guidelines state that, “Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve ‘due weight’. For example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing consensus.”
      Due weight! What a get-out. With people like this, it’s no wonder nonsense is paraded as fact.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      peter

      What i’m looking for is a plausible explanation as to why the BBC so ferociously resisted the f.o.i requested. If everything in the garden is all roses (as is implied in the BBC’s reply to Dr.Keiller) then why fight tooth and nail to hide it. Simple test really. So come on BBC, your so upright and virtuous, don’t hide your light under a bushel, be proud of the way you do things and share your righteousness with us so we too can learn how to conduct our affairs proudly and with honour.


      Report this

      110

  • #

    The more direct link to Tony Newbery’s post is
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?doing_wp_cron

    This contains new information, alongside the 28 names that attended the seminar. In particular Lord Hall of Birkenhead, BBC Director General, in written supplementary evidence to the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee 25/06/2013:

    …..Seminars such as this do not set BBC editorial policy on how it covers climate change.

    Newbery also says

    The BBC’s letter of 31st August 2007 refusing to disclose the information I had requested says:

    … information relating to the seminar is held to help inform the BBC’s editorial policy around reporting climate change.

    It is clear that policy did change at that juncture. In early 2006 I remember skeptic views being given coverage on BBC Radio 4 flagship “Today” program. After that nothing.


    Report this

    360

  • #
    Jaymez

    When such things are done in secret, it is difficult enough to know the correct questions to ask the public broadcasters. But when you do ask the correct questions and they still find reasons to not reveal the truth, spending a seemingly limitless legal fund in the process, what hope does the public have of really getting the truth?

    We saw the same thing in Australia when the ABC refused to release details of staff salaries on the alleged basis of commercial sensitivity and the risk that it would leave their top journalists at risk of being ‘head hunted’ by other media organisations. Of course that was garbage and we haven’t seen a stream of over-paid ABC journalists leaving for commercial stations since their salaries were leaked to the public. All we have seen is shocked reaction to the fact that so many are paid as much or more than the Prime Minister of our country!

    We will never really know the truth behind how much organisations such as the ABC and the BOM have been infiltrated by climate activists without a truly independent review of their operations. However there is no reason why much of their activities could not be commercialised and privatised to save costs and rid them of politicisation.


    Report this

    470

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But when you do ask the correct questions and they still find reasons to not reveal the truth, …

      And that is the “crime” they have committed – they have used their obligation to protect sources, to circumvent an FOI request.

      But we need to remember that the concept of journalists hunting down the truth, and teasing out the facts, is pure myth, except for the very few investigative journalists, who are inevitably free-lance, because that is where the real money is.

      From my experience, journalists with the “Broken Biscuit Company” are like possums in the headlights when presented with any information that is not encapsulated in a prepared press statement or taken off one of the wire services, unless of course, it involves the Royal Family, Entertainment, Cricket, or Soccer.

      They are not known for being terribly imaginative, so if Greenpeace have been bombarding them with press releases over the past decade or so, then the inference must be that they are experts, and the “right” people to help the journalists understand the “real” issues. And besides don’t they have a Royal Patron, or something terribly impressive, like that?

      To understand the Beeb, at least as it was a few decades ago, you have to understand the British class structure, and the hidden systems of patronage that go’s with it.


      Report this

      230

    • #
      JohnM

      The really big question is whether a similar forum to that for the BBC was provided to the ABC.


      Report this

      130

  • #
    Don Keiller

    Here is another name to look at with awe and amazement- John Bridcut who was commissioned to write “From See-Saw to Wagon Wheel – Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf
    and which informs the current BBC Guidelines which state that, “Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item”.

    It was Mr. Bridcut’s conclusion that the “28gate” Seminar included ‘some of the best scientific experts’, which underpins the BBC’s stance on Climate Change”

    And just who is John Bricut?

    http://www.johnbridcut.com/biography.php
    John Bridcut is an award-winning film maker, with a string of varied documentaries to his name. Much of his recent work has been with his own company, Crux Productions, but he also works as a freelance director and producer for other production companies. He has also published two books and lectures on music and broadcasting.

    His latest music documentary Delius: Composer, Lover, Enigma explores the pleasures of Frederick Delius, and was shown on BBC Four in May. A week later A Jubilee Tribute to The Queen by The Prince of Wales was shown on BBC One three times, with a total audience of 10.3 million viewers. His 2011 documentary, The Prince and the Composer, a film about Hubert Parry by The Prince of Wales, has now been released on DVD after its acclaimed screening on BBC Four.

    The third of Bridcut’s composer-portraits, Elgar: the Man Behind the Mask, won the Czech Crystal Award for best documentary at the Golden Prague TV Festival in October 2010, and went on to secure the 2011 BAFTA Craft Award for Sound (Factual). The Passions of Vaughan Williams (2008) and Britten’s Children (2004) have also won awards. He complemented the Britten film with a book of the same title, which was published by Faber and Faber in 2006. Since then, he has written the Faber Pocket Guide to Britten, which was published in November 2010. He has also produced film portraits of Roald Dahl, Hillary Clinton, Rudolf Nureyev, Mstislav Rostropovich and The Queen.

    John Bridcut began his career as a journalist on the staff of The Spectator, and moved into broadcasting as a BBC News Trainee. After twelve years at the BBC, where he worked in national and regional newsrooms, and produced programmes such as The World at One, Newsnight and The Money Programme, he moved into independent production. With Viewpoint, and later Mentorn, he produced a range of current affairs programmes for Channel 4 and the BBC, as well as several series on subjects of contemporary history. For a total of more than ten years now, he has produced programmes through his own company, Crux Productions.

    In 2007 he authored a report for the BBC Trust about the safeguarding of impartiality in the 21st century, entitled From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel.

    John Bridcut is an English documentary film maker, best known for his films about British composers. His most famous work, Britten’s Children (2004), is a study of the influence that Benjamin Britten’s close relationships with children had on the composer and material from the documentary was later made into a book (2006).[1]
    He has also created documentaries about Ralph Vaughan Williams (The Passions of Vaughan Williams, 2008), Edward Elgar (The Man Behind the Mask, 2010) and Hubert Parry (The Prince and the Composer, 2011), the latter a collaboration with Charles, Prince of Wales, whom he had earlier profiled in Charles at 60: The Passionate Prince. Other documentaries by Bridcut include studies of Queen Elizabeth II, Rudolf Nureyev, Roald Dahl and Hillary Clinton

    I have yet to hear a credible explanation of how Mr. Bridcut’s specialist knowledge of English 20th. Century composers in any way qualifies him to pass judgements on science, or whether those who attended are “some of the best scientific experts”. In fact the vast majority on the 28gate list are not scientists, rather activists and campaigners from organisations that promote climate change alarmism and indeed, stand to profit from it.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    As if we didn’t all suspect exactly this for a long time… …or maybe just, suspicions confirmed.

    The real disgrace is that they don’t have any sense of shame once their fraud is made public. How can a society based on this shameless attitude hope to endure? :-(


    Report this

    240

    • #
      Manfred

      I think sufficient numbers of the BBC collective and individual journalists within the BBC likely see themselves as playing an indispensible role in the salvation of Gaia. The end justifies the means. Sucking on the inexhaustible public teat also leads to a certain detachment.

      ‘Revealing’ the underlying Green-drama, and the required theft of tax-payer money necessary to expedite the spin does not mean that the Green mission is thwarted. This is guerrilla warfare. By the time they are ‘revealed’ they’ve moved on, or more accurately they press on. We’re years behind as we can see – about six, give or take.

      Whilst it may be possible to pre-empt them with advanced debunking, by anticipating where they are likely to materialise next, the reality is that group calamity think around carbon dioxide emission appears rigidly entrenched. It also comes equipped with a auto goal-post slide — the word ‘emission’.

      The way I see it is that the advanced debunking needs to be a vicious, free wheeling hard ball and every bit as strident as the usual Green bile we have grown to know so well. We do that here quite well, but it has yet to happen in the MSM. Political correctness dealt a generational knock-out blow to the pre-emptive intellectual assualt. It may yet take a new ice age to debunk the carbon dioxide myth, that or an incipient societal enema engendered by substantial social collapse due to power impoverishment. The fact that most seem to believe that the Polar Vortex is a climate change phenomena is an indicator of how hard and far we have to push back.

      On a lighter note, bizarrely the BBC published the following that sounds like the rambling of an idiot savant. UK Green activist Mark Lynas is reported to say:

      If you want to deal with climate change, then you have to generate large amounts of zero-carbon power and while I want a massive expansion of renewables, they can’t provide what you need when there’s no wind and at night.”

      People are against everything these days – the only acceptable form of energy is magic. People are ‘Nimby-istic’, if that’s a word, but if I had to have power generation close to me I’d prefer nuclear to coal or gas.”

      BBC News – science and the environment.

      I am warmed by the notion that in the new year I still retain the ability to be surprised.


      Report this

      311

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …the reality is that group calamity think around carbon dioxide emission appears rigidly entrenched.

        Manfred,

        I know the feeling. I’ve been saying essentially this for some time. Once it becomes part of popular culture it gets a life all on its own. Such things die very hard.

        But I think it’s a symptom of a wider problem. My wife and I went to see the movie, Her, last night. Every other word began with the letter “F”. As we walked out about 1/3 of the way through I was thinking, how low do we need to sink before we wake up and realize we’re drowning? The entirety of Western Culture has begun to exist only below the water line. Critical thinking, NONE! Understanding, NONE! Desire to understand, NONE!

        I think we’re in for a long siege.

        And it’s not that I’ve never said the word, it’s that such words aren’t a good (actually not even a bad) substitute for a well woven story with interesting characters and a real plot. Everything’s in the gutter, including climate change.

        Philomena with Judy Dench was much better. What a great actress she is! I wish Chris Monkton would make a movie to counter Gore’s epic piece of nonsense.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    How can journalists use One seminar to make such a long term decision?
    Surely they know the facts/info in any story or research changes and leads in many directions?
    Wouldn’t this be a fundamental lesson for any journalist?
    I would like to see them try to write out a JSA, which in itself is an open document.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Winston

      It doesn’t take long to train a parrot. I call it the “Polly want a cracker” principle.


      Report this

      191

    • #
      mikemUK

      Yonnie,

      I don’t believe they did make any long term decision there.

      I think that the decision had already been made and that the seminar was held simply to inform/ indoctrinate all the various departments in order to achieve a united front; the seemingly bizarre BBC attendance list supports my idea.

      I further think that the ringleaders and other BBC personnel who attended and assented to the new censorship/propagandist policy MUST have violated their terms of employment and should be dismissed, since they have betrayed the British public in general and licence-payers in particular.

      I do not, however, imagine that my thoughts carry any weight with this ghastly, incestuous, left-wing monster.


      Report this

      311

    • #

      Agreed MikemUK, the seminar was mostly just the excuse to do what they wanted to do all along — stop reporting the skeptics they hate. It is sort of bizarre they bothered. I mean, they’ve been quoting the IPCC as if it were the gospel, why did they need a special seminar?

      Perhaps the seminar had a use and pushed a few editors over the line by surrounding them with wall-to-wall believers.


      Report this

      291

      • #
        Yonniestone

        mikemUK & Jo, yes I believe the decision to go all out with the pro-AGW agenda was made long before this Shaminar was held but there is not even much pretense shown to prove how the BBC could come to such a decision.
        Also using such a heavily AGW biased panel that is so obvious shows extreme arrogance on their behalf, it’s like they got a free kick at an open goal and celebrated like it was a great achievement, infuriating and clueless.


        Report this

        100

  • #

    All the circumstantial evidence points to this being their eventual Corporate-Nazi endgame !

    http://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/green-holocaust-2/


    Report this

    31

    • #
      Bones

      Gordon,this link could also apply to the shambles that is obamacare,taking people off their current affordable health care and mandating govt health? care,lower coverage at a higher cost.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Kaboom

    Time to look into Australia’s own ABC for signs of seminars?


    Report this

    350

  • #
    PeterS

    The AGW hoax and scam one day should be considered essential reading and study by school students of history. It probably won’t be in the public schools due to the continual debasement of our public education system. Still we have a long way to go before we can have that sort of education. First and foremost we need to put some of the leading advocates of the AGW scam behind bars. That includes those scientists who have been very vocal and persistent despite the facts proving them wrong many times over. I don’t see any going to jail any day soon but it should.


    Report this

    300

  • #
    warcroft

    Get ready for all the heatwave/global warming articles to pour out this week.
    Its perfect weather for it ;)


    Report this

    270

    • #
      warcroft

      And what records is it going to break? Hottest heat wave on record? Longest in 30 years? Or “not since 1934…”

      What about hottest, but wettest, heat wave with the greatest cloud coverage over a southern coast regional town affecting the most small pets evvaaaarrrrrr!

      Go on, place your predictions!


      Report this

      80

      • #
        James (Aus.)

        And “it’s much worse than we originally thought”, followed by the need to “grapple with climate change” by “tackling global warming”.

        (I see there’s a small boat/dingy with several people aboard near the Aurora Australis at Casey Base this morning. Surely none of the free-loaders have been allowed to go day tripping again?)


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Leigh

        Is that before BOM adjusted the temperature records or after.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Bones

          It will not matter one little bit what gets adjusted,’Christine of the annoying moan’,will not need any help to put the blame where it belongs,at the feet of that infamous climate magician Tony the Fantastic.Just the fact that he talks about putting carbon tax to rest has increased all sorts of climate chaos.I wish I could do that Milne and Hanson young would have permanent zippers fitted,please don’t take the ‘man’ in the middle of permanent as sexist.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Bob Ernest

    Check out the first paragaph in the blog,
    Sentence ending with “paid for them”

    I think the sentence is missing a bit.
    A word or words, explaining what they paid for.
    ———————————————-

    REPLY: Not my best sentence construction. “Then having made out they were so scientific and honorable, they spent the next six years burning more money to hide the names of the experts from the public that paid for them.” Meaning, the public paid for the experts whose names were then hidden from the public. – Jo


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Bruce

    Can anyone provide a plausible explanation for why every publicly-supported media outlet-ABC, BBC, CBC, PBS etc-is populated from the top down by rabid CAGW believers?


    Report this

    300

    • #

      The Green left don’t know how to build stuff (e.g. bridges, economies etc) but they do know how to work cameras and talk, so they gravitate to industries like entertainment and the MSM.

      I find even Sky News Australia to lean left on the climate issue (obviously not as much as ABC!) Maybe it’s just something to talk about for them, but it seems all Sky’s political reporters (and most news readers e.g. Tim Webster) are keen on the climate issue.

      Even Paul Murray says: “I believe man made climate change is real, is significant, and we need to take action”, which makes me cringe.


      Report this

      321

    • #
      Manfred

      They’re good communicators. It’s a group think confirmation bias. They chatter away to each other, immersed in ‘feel good’, doing our bit to save the planet, self-delusional waves of leadership, showing the way, light of the world stuff. All this quickly morphs into frank power madness when they realise they can actually manipulate the thoughts of politicians and bureaucrats in particular. The un-washed masses matter little – they’re a good funding source and hardly understand anything anyway. Big mistake.


      Report this

      201

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      They tend to be the employer of last resort for Arts graduates who can’t get a job doing anything else.


      Report this

      230

  • #
    Bob Ernest

    Sorry I retread, names of the experts, is what
    Was being paid for…

    Ahh, you got it before I saw your comment. – Jo


    Report this

    10

  • #

    What bemuses and puzzles me is the claim that the BBC is an independent organisation. An independent which depends on one sole ‘advertiser’ for its funding? Hmmmmm. The same problem exists in Australia with the ABC.
    It is true in the commercial media in Australia – or anywhere for that matter – that the editorial bias of a media organisation can become ‘captured’ by one of its major advertisers. The saying, ‘never burn your advertisers’ sums it up in the commercial situation. You can risk a line of revenue if you run stories that damage the reputation of one of your major advertisers. I’m sure most serious students of the media recognise this situation.
    But how have we, as a nation, solved the problem by setting up a supposedly independent ABC and then funding it primarily with government money? Much is made of the ‘Corporation’ status of the ABC but it should be seen as a case of a lame duck subsidised business – which most people don’t watch.
    As the question of supporting inefficient industries in Australia with endless subsidies becomes more prominent in the eye of the public, I think we need to start looking at the ABC in the paradigm of it being a subsidised media organisation. What do we really get for the enormous subsidy we pay?
    I add that for most of my life I have basically regarded myself as an ABC snob. I am actually a strong believer in public ownership of a media organisation. If we have public ownership of a media organisation, then it is possible to avoid the problems mentioned earlier in this post about advertisers ‘capturing’ media organisation. But do we need the spin of independence and do we need the lavish subsidies we now pay to this corporation?
    I would actually be happier with a smaller ABC that is government owned and controlled. That way you would know that anything you heard, saw or read on ABC outlets would be ‘the government line’. There would be nothing wrong with this so long as we, as citizens, were still free to access the ‘non-government line’ through books, newspapers, magazines, libraries, associations, political parties, unions, websites, blogs and free association with others.


    Report this

    161

  • #
    Mark F

    It’s worth looking at major funders of NPR in the USA. connections to moveon.org? yeah. and others.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    MurrayA

    Now the cat is out of the bag! For years we skeptics have been subjected to a barrage of accusations about being in the pay of Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Business generally. The real story is that Big media (in this case the BBC) is in cahoots with the green crazy activists to perpetrate the Big Lie about “climate change”, and desperately trying to cover up the truth into the bargain.
    Let the trolls (BA4 etc.) face up to this one and try to explain this away. We will be all ears!
    I firmly believe in the principle that the truth eventually comes out, and now it is.


    Report this

    331

  • #
    jim2

    Axe the Tax in Oz …

    From the web site:

    It’s time to take action:

    After discovering reality for themselves many people shrug and say they knew all along that blaming global warming on humans is a con.

    Remember Edmund Burke’s words: “The triumph of evil requires only for good men to do nothing”. Good people need to do three things:

    Demand their federal MP vote against any action on Nature’s essential trace gas, CO2.
    Donate to the non-profit Galileo Movement so real scientists can be heard in the media to pressure politicians. We need this to counter climate propaganda being spread by millions of dollars of taxpayer funded false advertising and billions of taxpayer dollars promoting pseudo-environmental programs and Climate Commission contrivances.
    Speak up and speak out. Tell your friends about the scientific untruths and the scientific facts, and about The Galileo Movement
    Print and distribute the flyer

    http://www.galileomovement.com.au/


    Report this

    202

  • #
    Peter

    I feel uneasy when watching the personalties in the BBC’S news and current affairs/documentaries output. It is a genuine reflex to something distasteful combined with an uneasy feeling that can’t be easily explained when the lies and distortions begin to flow. There is something very sinister about these people and who or what is behind them all in similar organisations in other countries. If they were shut down somehow the staff would move on and carry on the damage in civil service/quangos and politics. The CO2 scam and the people involved in at are sinister and dangerous.

    English Aborigine


    Report this

    160

  • #
    handjive

    Snorkel Town!

    “Then director of television Jana Bennett opened the seminar by telling the executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan and run a city that is going to be submerged?’”

    “I was in London last year. The lack of snorkel preparedness was disturbing.”
    .
    This youtube video from 1958 warns of global warming panic.
    This youtube video from 1980 warns of global warming panic.
    This youtube video from 2007 warns of global warming panic
    This youtube video from 2014 warns of global warming panic
    .
    It really is time to stop this madness.
    (Quote:”equal(s) the energy that would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima-scale atomic bombs exploding every single day.)

    Exaggerate much?


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Streetcred

    Roger Harrabin

    “It has had a major impact on the willingness of the BBC to raise these issues for discussion. Joe Smith and I are now wondering whether we can help other journalists to perform a similar role in countries round the world”

    Source: Bishop Hill, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:01 AM | Barry Woods

    Any evidence of these mongrels playing in the ABC ?


    Report this

    70

  • #
    ROM

    Well folks, thank what ever deity you ascribe to, in my case the “Good Lord” for the Internet and World Wide Web.

    Without those marvels of communication and electronic technology we would never have known about the quite nefarious activities and the activist bigots of the BBC and no doubt yet to be uncovered similar circumstances in the ABC.

    I have posted on this before but the plain vanilla truth is that not much has changed as far as the way in which Big Media operates. They are just as corrupt, bigoted and inefficient as the various political, bureaucratic and business sectors they purport to scrutinize and report on .
    They are the consummate insiders along with the other powerful heavyweight political and business players and never forget this fact.

    What has changed is that thanks to the Internet we, the common people, at least while the Internet is still relatively uncontrolled although that may change in times to come as politicians and big business try once again to assert their authority and control over the news and information sectors and so becomes once again beyond any real scrutiny, can now seek out and find many alternative and usually small news collecting individuals or groups who bypass Big and corrupt Media with their reporting of items that can and do provide an alternative or a completely new unveiling of the latest bit of nefarious nonsense from the Big Liars of politics and media.

    Big Media in it’s hubris and arrogance still believes that it is the only and sole means of reporting to the public let alone come to terms with the fact that the public is becoming disillusioned and is turning away from Big Media often due to the exact same corruption as uncovered in the BBC ‘s bigotry and it is becoming a smaller and smaller player in the total global news and information systems of this ever changing world we now live in.

    Big Media is slowly losing it’s relevance as it’s bias and bigotry is revealed to all thanks to the Internet
    And thats what the entire BBC fiasco is in reality, just a classic case of pure and simple straight out Bigotry by some self serving over paid media bigots against a sector of opinion on climate in this case, but similar in many other sectors of opinion, that don’t coincide with their own particular brand of the current Armageddon, end of times, climate catastrophe ideology.

    What they fail to realise at all is that the internet will inevitably uncover their nefarious attitudes and activities anyway given a bit of time .

    By failing to realise this, in their hubris and arrogance they, the media and the publicly owned news organisations like the BBC and ABC are effectively writing their own obituaries as public opinion in it’s disgust turns against them and the fall of the catastrophic climate ideology they profess to support finally collapses as it is currently doing, the BBC in this case is leaving itself and it’s overpaid activists right out on the limb of public derision and disgust.
    This along with the now publicly known knowledge that their reporting, the BBC in this case, of any subject can no longer be trusted in any way. When that happens there are no longer any grounds for such a untrustworthy news organisation to be supported publicly or for it to even exist.

    To maintain such a untrustworthy news organisation is self defeating for any society and any political entity for nobody knows what such a deliberately corrupt news organisation might deliberately distort or mis-report in the future with unknown and unforeseen consequences to the backers of that news organisation as we are seeing here with egg now covering the faces of a lot of the political supporters of the BBC..

    AND that is when the newest bunch of unccommitted and increasingly skeptical politicals who are voted in by the public and who will reflect the current attitudes of the public, move in and shake the whole show up or just wipe it out as beyond redemption and it’s time to start with a new slate.

    Sometime perhaps not that far into the future we will see the epitaph;

    R.I.P.
    BBC and ABC
    The Public broadcasters who lost their way and their honor as truthful servants of the public


    Report this

    150

    • #
      john robertson

      You can add CBC, the constantly biased corporation, to that list.
      Hence the recent obsessing amongst the progressives, “We need to control the internet”.
      Look to the boards of Google,Facebook.. for the rise of the new censors, for the good of the children of course.
      The power hungry nitwits cannot say their presstitutes did not serve them well, its the fault of you evil sceptics that they are now exposed.
      Absolutely nothing to do with their arrogance, incompetence and grovelling subservience to their masters.
      Our academics are no better, awash in this same unthinking arrogance and assumption of superiority.
      Interesting times ahead.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Bartender

    Totally agree Jo, it’s high time the BBC should be split up and its divisions sold off, it’s our money they are spending and therefore we the tax-paying public, the electorate should the have right to kick this corporation back in-line.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Gos

    Govt owned media is not supposed to be competing with the commercial owned media,it is supposed to provide a service to those who are outside the main areas of media reception.
    But what we have here is a govt organization trying to become the main player in a game where it is only supposed to be a substitute.
    An entire downsizing of the ABC is needed now,not later on.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    pat

    interesting investigation going on in New Zealand re taxpayer money:

    WhaleOil.co.nz: Has Chris Turney lied about his support by institutions?
    by Cameron Slater on January 11, 2014
    When this debacle unfolded people started rummaging through their website. One page, that of their supporters, raised alarm bells…
    The Taxpayers Union followed up by contacting the New Zealand organisations listed and found some pleasant news…for taxpayers…and not so pleasant news for Chris Turney…
    In fact, it appears that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) is claiming at least one ‘supporter’ it doesn’t have…
    It appears there is still no answer from Landcare Research and University of Waikato though…
    The Department of Conservation appears to be very concerned meanwhile with their Director of Policy phoning the Taxpayer’s Union himself to clarify:
    “Last night DoC’s Director of Policy Jeff Flavell called me and confirmed that the Department not being ‘a participant’ in the expedition was intended to mean that DoC did not provide any support to AAE at all. In fact he seemed surprised that DoC was listed as a supporter on the AAE website and that he would ask his officials whether it was known that the AAE was using the DoC logo and claiming support.”
    (FROM COMMENTS)

    vlad: If you look on the Spirit of Mawson website you will find this statement under “The Science Case”:
    “All our science work has been approved by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Antarctic Division. We are incredibly grateful for all their help and support.

    OtherAndy: Ian Turney has a Google+ account with one link “intrepid Science” which is the Google+ account of Chris Turney.
    Then there is Catherine Turney who has linked to the same account.
    All of them shareholders in Carbonscape…

    Andy: Ian Turney used to be at Landcare, who were involved in the first part of the Spirit of Mawson trip to Campbell Island.
    I would hazard a guess that Ian and Chris are brothers, since both are from the UK and have the same name and work in the same field, and are roughly the same age. ..
    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/01/chris-turney-lied-support-institutions/

    meanwhile, publicly-funded Radio NZ:

    Radio New Zealand: Spirit of Mawson
    Veronika Meduna takes part in the first leg of the Spirit of Mawson expedition to join scientists as they explore the subantarctic islands to study climatic change and its impact on the islands’ ecology. This real-time blog lets you follow their discoveries…
    Tuesday 3 December 2013: Jonathan Palmer, one of the scientists onboard the Shokalskiy, is a dendrochronologist at the University of New South Wales. Incidentally, I interviewed him only a week or two before this voyage about his work on Northland’s subfossil swamp kauri, and what its tree rings can tell us about past climates…
    Australasian Antarctic Expedition 2013 – 2014
    On Wednesday, November 27, a team of scientists, teachers and members of the public will depart on the first leg of the Spirit of Mawson expedition, traversing the same region Australian explorer Sir Douglas Mawson navigated a century earlier…
    You can listen to expedition leader, climate scientist Chris Turney, as he explains what he hopes the expedition will achieve…
    AUDIO:
    (Radio New Zealand’s) Veronika Meduna will take part in the first leg to join scientists as they explore the subantarctic islands to study climatic change and its impact on the islands’ ecology.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/collections/spirit-of-mawson

    one big happy family:

    RadioNZ: An Hour with Chris Turney
    Originally aired on Writers and Readers Festivals, Sunday 21 July 2013
    Antarctic writer Chris Turney talks to Veronika Meduna about some of the less well-known aspects of Antarctic exploration.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/writers/audio/2562102/chris-turney


    Report this

    20

  • #

    I’m no longer surprised at the apparent absence of the Rule of Law when such public malfeasance comes to light.

    Public funds being used against the interests of the public deserves not just sacking, but time at HM’s pleasure and a confiscation of the proceeds of crime, including their pension funds.

    Until there is seen to be a rule of law, such things will keep happening and eventually, even the law abiding will withdraw their consent to the rule of law.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      PeterS

      Agree 100%. A deliberate scam, in fact the biggest in history has been perpetrated and it must be stopped.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Dan

        Not a scam PeterS but FRAUD.
        Obtaining money through deception.
        Big difference to a scam.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          PeterS

          Actually it’s either. Can also be a hoaxer. It depends on the way it’s done and the perpetrator. In any case the punishment must a lengthy term behind bars with the likes of Bernard Madoff, a big fraudster.


          Report this

          30

    • #

      Here’s why I mentioned the pension fund: BBC conflict of interest: Pensions relying on pushing alarmist climate agenda (Tallbloke; November 14, 2012)

      The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. …

      .

      Did you catch that: Four trillion Euros!

      Remember the phrase “to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors”

      Members of the IIGCC include (I trimmed the list a bit):

      BBC Pension Trust
      Bedfordshire Pension Fund

      IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe said:

      The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.

      Read the rest by following the link.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        “IIGCC chairman and BBC head of pensions investment”

        Ouch !

        When the whole thing collapses, there’s gunna be some heads roll !!!

        I wonder how much this guy has got squirreled away for that rainy day.
        (no reference to current issues in the UK intended)


        Report this

        10

  • #
    DMA

    Off Topic–But the discussion of misused public funds reminded me I would like to get some update on Murry Salby and his bout with the University. Does anyone have any new info?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    can u believe this!

    12 Jan: News Ltd: ANTHONY SHARWOOD: Peter Gwynne, reporter who wrote story about global cooling, is a climate change believer after all
    PHOTO CAPTION: It may well be time for so-called “deniers” and “warmists” to mend the fence between them, much like this NSW farmer toiling away in 49 degrees last week. Source: News Limited
    A SCIENTIST who 40 years ago wrote about global cooling has admitted his story was probably wrong and has distanced himself from climate change deniers who champion his story to this day…
    But the counter-theories aren’t always particularly robust. For example, climate change deniers often cite a story which appeared in Newsweek magazine in 1975 about the theory of “global cooling”. That humble nine paragraph story which appeared on page 64 of the respected journal is one of the key weapons deniers turn to.
    However the science and technology reporter who wrote the story has today distanced himself from it. His name is Peter Gwynne. Now 72-years-old, Gwynne spoke this week to US website climate.org.
    “When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster,” Gwynne told the site. “It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking.”
    Since then, the science of climate changed has evolved greatly. The relationship between human generated carbon dioxide output and warming was not clearly established then. Though still far from universally accepted in its fine print, the basic theory is now so well-documented that virtually every scientist accepts it…
    Peter Gwynne, who penned the original global cooling story in Newsweek, today accepts the warming science. He still writes science stories and is the North American correspondent for Physics World, based in England…
    “I’ve been willing to accept that some of [my writing] is misused and misinterpreted,” Gwynne said.
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/peter-gwynne-reporter-who-wrote-story-about-global-cooling-is-a-climate-change-believer-after-all/story-e6frflp0-1226800020634


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Leigh

      There is no money in ice ages Pat.
      To get your nose back in the trough of public monies you must have global warming front and center to everything you do think write and say.
      Otherwise you’ll just go hungry like the rest of us.
      And Sharwood fails to mention any from the dark side that have seen the light and repented.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    the smug Anthony Sharwood who smugly wrote the News Ltd. Peter Gwynne/deniers piece is a SPORTS WRITER!

    Articles by Anthony Sharwood
    http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/anthony-sharwood/


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Boy you guys are really getting desperate, probably because observations and actual events are overtaking you.

    [nope]

    Lets beak this down…

    Over the last decade climate change was supposedly the “biggest scientific” challenge for the world,

    It is, this has been confirmed by the vast majority of the science, only a tiny fraction (<3%) of which cast any doubt at all on AGW, and none break it.

    [No again. Remember how science works Michael?]

    Observations confirm what the science says, [SNIP you've been warned about posting falsehoods. Where EXACTLY are "people suffering from increased extreme weather all over the world"]

    Australia is sweltering from its hottest year and a half of record breaking temps and continuing. [Snip Not global is it?]

    and a massive cost to the citizens who were falsely told they needed to change the weather.

    As shown above, [Snip]

    More than ever, public funds should have been used to analyze both sides of the science and the politics.

    There is no both sides. [snip] Politics should not influence the science. [once snipped this is a good point]

    Instead what we got were the personal views of a select few, pushing their own political activism, while poor people were slugged for the cost of the news, the legal folly,

    Again not a select few. Every major scientific organisation in the world, [really?]
    97% of practising, publishing climate scientists and the vast majority of the science. [This sentence is a run on and nonsensical. Snipped to this:]
    Just by saying it repeatedly and ad nauseum does not make it true.. [Please take and heed the wisdom in these words! ]

    The world needs to change to a renewable sustainable future [Just how long will it take for this "future" to become reality and how do we live in the meantime?]

    if we care about our kids and future generations. [Do you have evidence that we don't care about our kids?]

    What is expensive is a world straining under increasingly severe exptreme weather conditions. We can ony adapt so far… [So weary of you not providing anything to support your wild imagination.]

    [Michael, you've been warned against posting these long twisted opinion pieces. Post one or two points at a time and be sure to respond to questions and rebuttal] ED


    Report this

    131

    • #

      The world needs to change to a renewable sustainable future if we care about our kids and future generations.

      Explain this ….. if you dare!

      Tony.


      Report this

      210

      • #
        aussiebear

        …I’ll explain it for you.

        “…renewable sustainable future if we care about our kids and future generations.”

        => Kids and future generations are the excuse of a Warmist.

        Why?
        Because most Warmists are eco-nuts.
        Eco-nuts are often radical Left-wingers.
        …And you know how Left-wingers manipulate? Through emotion.
        The emotion here is that if you care about kids. If you don’t agree with them, it means (to them), you don’t care about children.
        …And FEELINGS are EVERYTHING to a Left-winger!

        This is the same basic approach as found in other Left-wing branches…

        Feminist? => If you don’t agree, you are a misogynist.
        Race baiter? => If you don’t agree, you are a racist.
        Gay activist? => If you don’t agree, you are a homophobe.
        Socialist? => If you don’t agree, you are a corporate stooge.

        Its childish and stupid. Because that’s the type of people Left-wingers are!

        Well, I throw this back at them…

        * If you really cared about the kids and future generations, why are you raising their cost of living?
        * Why do you leave them paying debts and deficits that you cause?
        * Why do they have to suffer for your total ignorance of economics in the real world?
        * Why are you so eager to destroy their opportunity for affordable electricity in their futures?
        * Why do you indoctrinate them with your values that doesn’t allow them to grow their own prosperity and wealth?
        Etc.

        …Just hammer them.


        Report this

        191

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The emotion here is that if you care about kids. If you don’t agree with them, it means (to them), you don’t care about children.

          So not caring about children is a sign of rationality? Hmm, I can live with that. I never liked the smelly things anyway.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            ROM

            I sometimes peek over the pushers and etc at the new arrivals which the mums are pushing around the supermarket and comment “I was like that once but nobody believes me”
            They all take one look at this beaten up 75 year old, pushing 76, tired old farmer and burst out laughing.

            One of my acquaintances, not sure if I want to call him a friend, goes around dropping condoms into the shopping baskets of the little old ladies in the suoermarket and then stands around and watches the fun at the checkout.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Andrew

          I actually don’t care what we are doing to future power prices – that’s trivial. I care about ending like Spain, with no future at all.


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Heywood

      AAD, you are obsessed with this blog, repeating your same old rhetoric over and over like a broken record. We didn’t listen to your crap the first five hundred times, why would we now?

      Blah blah bah consensus. Blah blah blah authority. Blah blah blah kids. **Yawn**

      Seek help. Your obsession will overwhelm you.


      Report this

      131

      • #
        AndyG55

        I suspect that it is the only blog that tolerates his antics, lies and propaganda prattle…..

        hopefully, not too much longer.

        I have better things to do than skip over worthless posts.


        Report this

        71

    • #
      Heywood

      :Australia is sweltering from its hottest year and a half of record breaking temps and continuing. [Snip Not global is it?]:

      Not even Australia wide. Only WA, NT and SA have had their ‘record’ breaking temps. Doesn’t mention causation anywhere though.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Winston

      Don’t worry Michael, it is nearly over now. The pain you are feeling right now is only temporary. I’m sure after a couple of months of intensive psychotherapy and perhaps a short course of SSRIs we can get you through this.

      I know it has been tough, realising that polar bears are doing just fine (thriving in fact), penguins aren’t at risk of extinction due to decreased ice (or even from increased ice depending on which alarmist you speak to, and what month or year it is), Antarctica isn’t melting, extreme weather is just as prevalent as it always has been (and always will be independent of atmospheric CO2 ppm), sea levels will continue to rise at 1-3mm p.a until it falls again leading into the next glacial period, and “catastrophic warming” is not causing it to be paradoxically colder than usual in the N/hemisphere through some evil spirit called a “polar vortex” (that was once ascribed to “global cooling”, funnily enough).

      So, just relax. Empty your mind of all negative thoughts and just focus on your breathing. In…out…in…out. That’s it, feel the anxiety leave your body. That’s it. Good. Feel better now?


      Report this

      222

    • #

      Censorship is rife. You are to scared to allow the truth uninhindered. What are you afraid of? You have way more than enough supporters who will try to tear me apart. If you are going to blatantly censor like this you have lost all credibility and I am wasting my time. What you have snipped ARE FACTS. Go through any major science organisation report, they go through the increasing droughts, heatwaves and floods. Somebody died today in the Perth bushfire, Yes I know CC does not cause bushfires but it causes the conditions for more bushfires. Look all over the world, there is extreme weather from extreme cold in NH to tidal surges in spain and portuga. WMO classed last year as the second worst for extreme w in the US, they wrote a report on the global weather go and educate yourselves.

      There is no both sides, that is a lie and you snip to hide it. Please provide your list of international and scientific organisations that have statements, here is a list of nearly 200 that support the science. No point saying that science is not made by consensus, you are the one trying to make an argument that it is being pushed by a minority, you are caught out lieing, prove that statement.

      You are giving away the desperation you feel and your bias, otherwise the CENSORESHIP would not be necessary.
      ————————————–


      Report this

      325

      • #
        • #
          Yonniestone

          Michael you complain of supporters here “who will try to tear me apart” well guess what mate people here have been tearing you apart for months with actual relevant data from actual science but you will never see this as your view is so anti-scientific you couldn’t possibly get on the path of the scientific method.
          I did look at your link and straight up there’s a whole section on “DENIERS” so right there is a huge fail at trying to establish any scientific credibility or respect, can you understand this concept at all?
          I could easily post up scientific information to support my rejection of AGW/climate change but at least have the respect for qualified people not to do so as 1- You can undo good scientists work, 2- You end up looking like a fool, so why don’t you at least consider these two points?.
          Everyone has their own flaws, peculiarities and personalities and whilst this is exhibited by everyone who contributes to Joanne’s blog the one constants that always stands out the most is honesty in the form of facts and ideas, something that is sadly lost or missing for some.


          Report this

          121

        • #
          Heywood

          “Censorship is rife”

          Awwwwwwww. Would you like a tissue for your issue?? No wonder you are an ALP supporter. You have no idea of the concept of free speech and how it applies in the real world.

          Free speech is being allowed to talk on your own soap box, not demand what is spoken on another’s.

          If you don’t want to be censored, do what your ALP idol said, ‘don’t write crap’.


          Report this

          81

        • #
          Mark D.

          Michael, science organizations are political bodies. Have you actually polled individual scientists from all of these organizations? I bet you haven’t and if I produced such a poll of a variety of scientists you’d probably say that they weren’t qualified “climate scientists” wouldn’t you? Of course we all recognize that as circular reasoning and flawed reasoning but that wouldn’t stop you would it?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Pay attention Michael, we’ve all discussed the Doran paper and to a skeptic it is garbage.

          In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate
          change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
          also have published more than 50% of their recent peer reviewed papers on the
          subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
          (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2

          I asked you this a very long time ago: IF AGW was absolutely proven, why isn’t it 100% of climate scientists? This is SUPER CRITICAL MICHAEL! Why didn’t they ALL see what you are saying is SO CLEAR! Why did 2 Climate Experts mysteriously not answer question 2 IF IT IS SO IMPORTANT WHY MICHAEL WHY?

          Then explain the wisdom of placing the whole global economy in the hands of 75 respondents to a poorly executed poll? OUT OF 10,257 polled, less than 30% thought it was important enough to respond AT ALL! WHY MICHAEL WHY?

          OUT OF 3146 that bothered to respond, 3071 the largest group of experts could muster only less than 90% were confident that humans were the cause but you keep saying 97%. Michael you have some explaining to do! What about the fact that more than 371 out of 3071 must have answered NO? That is more than four times as many experts that SAID NO as said yes WHY MICHAEL WHY?.

          Then in your wonderful link of Scientific Organizations, what do you make of the ones from third world countries? Do you suppose they might be a teensy bit interested in all that re-distributed wealth?

          You really are thick and dense as a stump of Ebony Michael…….


          Report this

          00

      • #

        You have way more than enough supporters who will try to tear me apart.

        Try, Michael. TRY.

        We DO tear you apart every time.

        You talk of censorship, and yet you practice self censorship on a regular basis. You totally ignore relevant questions asked of you, and hey, that’s understandable, as you are totally clueless as to how to answer them.

        Get real Michael.

        YOU, Michael, are just a little too precious.

        Censorship.

        Michael, we’ve had enough of your constant lies on subjects you have no understanding about.

        Open your own damned blog, and you can say all you like there without any fake claim of censorship.

        Please, Michael, take the hint.

        Bugger off!

        Tony.


        Report this

        162

      • #

        No Michael or whatever your name is- After 1114 comments published you shriek “censorship”? You are too funny. If you had manners we wouldn’t need to SNIP. If you could reason, you’d be free and welcome to comment, and if you stuck to the topic, and didn’t spam threads with a comment every 3 – 10 minutes we wouldn’t need to SNIP. It makes it worse that it is often a repeat you might be cut and pasting from your workbook. You’re pushing the bounds too far today. I’ve done hours of private emails and coaching to help you, I’ve resisted when the mods suggested you go, but this is it. Look at the junk you push above. You’ve been rabidly illogical since the start and I’ve let you post, but we are bored to the end of you repeating Argument from Authority as if it were a Law of Nature. There is nothing we can say to help you discover what Aristotle figured out 2300 years ago, your brain apparently is just not wired that way. I’m sorry for you, but we can no longer help. You are either delusional or you are here just to make people angry through repetition of stupid unscientific notions, or possibly you hope to be blocked (its’ very hard work here isn’t it?). Any which way, I can see no cure. You need too much snipping. I have asked the mods to tolerate you for too long. There is not the remotest sign you can improve. I wish it were otherwise.

        For the benefit of any sane readers, since Michael will ignore me, No, the science of bushfires is not so simple. The chain of holes in his argument:
        1. There is no empirical evidence to support the models predictions. (See The Evidence posted x 50) The world is warming, but CO2 does not seem to have a large role.
        2. The hottest places are not where the worst bushfires are – think Alice Springs right? Cool Victoria gets much worse fires. Fires are more about fuel loads and population density than an extra 0.5C degrees.
        3. Other factors in fires include wind speed, wind direction, soil moisture, humidity. None of the models is remotely close to predicting these things. Anyone who pretends they know that CO2 causes more bushfires when we can’t predict half the variables (nor the cause of the warming either) is practicing witchcraft.
        4. Deaths in fires are more about people building homes next to unmanaged bush.

        To which I predict MTR might come back with a response saying that he doesn’t ignore me, and will post a link to SkS or to a study that depends on broken models. It’s too late Michael.


        Report this

        342

        • #
          Heywood

          Michael the Activist. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

          Let’s check here for the reaction of the rest of the blog contributors.

          I stated when Michael first started posting here that he reminded me of those annoying idiots dressed in koala suits at the local shopping centre. No matter how much you ignore them, argue with them or just tell them to pi$$ off, they are still there to wave their bucket and push the same old tired message.

          Farewell AAD, make sure the door doesn’t hit you in the ar$e on the way out….


          Report this

          131

        • #

          Hey, I like that.

          I mentioned this a long while back and I really didn’t think anyone got the point.

          See how a line has been drawn under Michael.

          Cool!

          Tony.


          Report this

          100

        • #
          Winston

          It’s too late Michael.

          Does that mean that it’s time for the dead parrot sketch?


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          In my professional life, we are starting to bump up against other people like Michael.

          Quite a few countries in the world have an educational system that is based on the idea that the teacher is there to impart the content of the lesson, and the children are there to learn. In such a society, to question the teacher is to show disrespect. To be an independent thinker, can get you into serious trouble.

          The countries to which I refer, tend to be communist (in one form or another), or based on religious principles (of one sect or another).

          It seems that the Australian school system is now falling into line, and adopting a similar educational philosophy. This is why Michael cannot see anything wrong with an appeal to authority. In this type of educational system, that is the whole point.

          To people like Michael, an efficient society is one where everybody gets along with each other, and that requires a consensus approach to solving any problems. People who reject the consensus agreement must be made to see the error of their ways, both by argument and by example. In the more advanced versions of these societies, those who do not follow the consensus position can be removed from society and placed … elsewhere.

          People like Michael will feel threatened by the free-thinking, and non-conventional opinions, expressed on this site, and he would not want his children to see what went on, nor to be exposed to lateral thinking, and be affected by it. In that regard, it will be perceived as being almost on a par with pornography, and both need to be suppressed, for the sake of the children.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          bobl

          I think it’s kind of sad is come to this but it’s clear from his last reply to me that Michael is either paid to disrupt us or is genuinely misanthropic. Either way the debate is not enhanced by arguing with an alarmist misanthropic brick wall.

          Recently, there haven’t been too many warmists who are even prepare to do the most basic of math, and even when they do they miss the import of it. Yes JB I’m looking at you.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          bobl

          [snip accidental double posting]


          Report this

          00

      • #
        ROM

        Rather interesting attitude Michael the realist has there.
        If he is as correct as he thinks he is and he thinks the science is on his side then why the need for any censorship at all against anybody such as the so called “deniers” by the alarmists ?

        Censorship of the so called “deniers” is rife through out the alarmist camp but why if the science is on the alarmist side?.
        What and why are the alarmists so psychologically warped and twisted up and so paranoid and so frightened and running so scared of allowing the “deniers” to have any say at all?

        What is it that the so called “deniers” have that frightens the hell out of the alarmists so much that they try mightily to shut down any questions or doubts from even luke warmers as well as “deniers” about their claims?

        You would think that believers like Michael the Realist would try to appear so confident in their beliefs about CAGW / climate change etc or whatever it is called as of today, that he would just go his own way with the belief that those “deniers” are wrong and will be proven wrong as of tomorrow so why should he and his brethren of the CAGW cult bother their tiny minds about a few “deniers” which according to the holy writ as handed down by Cook, Nuccatelli, Gore, Lewendowsky and etc and etc only amounts to a tiny handful of “deniers” in total if you believe that lot at all.

        Or does Michael the Realist still have some serious doubts about the claims of Cook Nuccatelli and etc and therefore by definition doesn’t really know what he is supposed to believe as he seems incapable of any realistic analysis of the climate science for himself.

        Or maybe Michael the Realist is just another of those fanatical cult followers who are convinced and determined without any proof other than what fits into their thick cranium that salvation shall be theirs if they bring a few more souls into the fold of their global warming cultist beliefs.

        Or even maybe Michael the realist is not at all that sure that he has backed the right climate horse and comes here to reassure himself that he is right after all and everybody else here who doesn’t agree with his beliefs in every tittle and dot is outside of the holy writ of CAGW / climate change.

        It must be a truly sad, traumatic and almost terrifying existence to wander this planet by car and plane with this constant gnawing anguish that you are looking at the end of time as you know it just around the corner all because those “deniers” out there refuse to give up their life styles and go back to their caves and stop all their “carbon” increasing the planet’s temperature by a degree or so.

        Lots and lots of interesting questions and unknown unknown’s there for the Lewendowsky’s types of this world to spin, twist, corrupt and generally make a hash of in their own twisted minds sometime into the future re alarmists like Michael the realist.

        Now trying to get skeptics organised and agreeing is a bit like herding cats.
        There are about 15 different opinions for every ten skeptics so i think the following applies particularly to the ant like, toe the line or else, beliefs of the catastrophic, Armageddon, End of the world climate change cultists that Michael the Realist who appears to be a member of that camp.

        A long time ago there use to be some pertinent slogans printed on the back of tram tickets.
        One I particularly remember and which seems particularly applicable to all the “Michaels the realists” of this world I have come across. It went thus;

        Some minds are like concrete; All mixed up and set hard.


        Report this

        160

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Michael, if you need something else to do you can take up air guitar. You would be good at it.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Michael, if you need something else to do you can take up air guitar. You would be good at it.

        Don’t forget, you’ll need spare strings.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    the website reporting the Peter Gwynne story by Doug Struck:

    About DailyClimate.org
    Mission
    The Daily Climate is an independent media organization working to increase public understanding of climate change, including its scope and scale, potential solutions and the political processes that impede or advance them.
    The Daily Climate does not espouse a political point of view on the news but instead reports the issue to the best of our ability. Editorial integrity is the foundation of our mission…
    Funding
    Funding for the Daily Climate comes from a variety of sources, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Oak Foundation, the West Wind Foundation, the Mill River Foundation Fund of The Boston Foundation and the Overbrook Foundation, as well as individual donations from the general public. The Kendeda Fund provides core support to EHS. Software was developed in a collaboration with the Edgerton Foundation.
    EHS is a project of Virginia Organizing (Charlottesville, Va), an umbrella organization providing back-office and administrative support to EHS and the Daily Climate. Gifts to Virginia Organizing for the Daily Climate qualify as charitable contributions…
    http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/about

    Kendeda Foundation
    The Kendeda Sustainability Fund is a donor-advised fund of the Tides Foundation. It appears that the Kendeda Fund and the Kendeda Sustainability Fund are two separate entities…
    Sample grants:
    $3,000,000 over three years to American Public Media in renewed support for continued in-depth news coverage and programming on global sustainability issues across several American Public Media programs. Tide Foundation’s Kendeda Sustainability Fund, a donor-advised fund, was the original funder of American Public Media’s Sustainability Initiative (2008).
    $1,000,000 to Grist Magazine in general support (2008).
    $558,000 to WGBH Educational Foundation for FRONTLINE’s Heat Program (2008)…etc
    Total giving: $37,486,712 (2008).
    http://www.apts.org/node/206/view

    About Doug Struck
    He reported from Iraq repeatedly over 14 years, and helped cover conflicts in Afghanistan, the West Bank, Lebanon, East Timor, the southern Philippines and Sudan.
    He ran bureaus in the Middle East, Tokyo, and Toronto, and has reported from six continents and all 50 of the United States. At his last posting as Canada bureau chief for the Washington Post, Struck specialized in global warming issues, reporting from the Arctic, the Northwest Passage, Greenland, and glaciers on the Andes mountains. He continued that specialization at the Harvard University Center for the Environment in 2008.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-struck/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    no surprise – it’s now in Scientific American:

    10 Jan: Scientific American: How the “Global Cooling” Story Came to Be
    Nine paragraphs, written for Newsweek in 1975, continue to trump 40 years of climate science. Its a record that has its author amazed
    By Doug Struck and The Daily Climate
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciam%2Fenergy-and-sustainability+(Topic%3A+Energy+%26+Sustainability)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    PeterS

    One thing I’ve noticed during this summer so far is that most nights and mornings in Sydney are cool to cold even if the preceding day was hot. I wonder of they take this into account when the alarmists shows us graphs in a way to try and scare us into believing their nonsense that we are doomed unless we make a sacrifice to their global warming god.


    Report this

    51

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      Your part of OZ is experiencing High Pressure, as shown here:
      http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/synoptic_col.shtml

      This map will change so: it is for 0 UTC on Monday 13, 2014. The closed isobar along the southeast is 1023 = high pressure.
      High pressure provides for sinking air and clear skies. Sunshine in the day and loss of energy through those clear night skies. Low pressure and humidity with clouds will change this. CO2 not so much.


      Report this

      20

      • #

        If forecasts included the enthalphy of air and how it changed during the day and from day to day, people might be educated that it’s water vapour that determines the storage of heat in the atmosphere.

        A brief tour of practical Psychrometrics

        Airconditioning practice aims for 24⁰C with 50% RH (at 101.3 kPa) which gives a specific enthalphy of about 48 kJ/kg (dry air). During the recent heat pulse in Perth, enthalpy peaked at around 83 kJ/kg which could fit a range of temperatures between 26.5⁰C at saturation (100% RH) through 42⁰C @ 30% RH up to 51⁰C @ 15%RH. The difference between the 42⁰C and the 51⁰C is made by just 4 grams of water per kg of dry air and the difference between 26.5 and 42 degrees is made by about 6 grams.

        Or, looking at the “extremes”, 10 grams of water vapour per kg of dry air makes the difference between 26.5 and 51 degrees C with the same amount of heat in the air. (That’s near-enough correct for this illustration.)

        A kg of dry air takes up a volume of between 880 and 930 litres over those ranges of temperatures and moisture contents.

        It should come as no surprise why direct evaporative cooling is popular in hot, dry climates.

        It also illustrates the folly of “scientists” using only the “temperature record” which is typically only comprised of daily/monthly extremes of dry bulb temperatures, as an indicator of climate change.

        NB: You can check the above for yourself in a few minutes by referring to a psychrometric chart; an engineering visualisation and calculation tool. (Plenty available on the www free of charge). If you’ve never seen one before, then it might take half an hour to mentally untangle the apparent “spaghetti”. It’s just a rotated Mollier diagram with some extra lines for related quantities; if that makes you more comfortable. ;-)


        Report this

        31

    • #
      Streetcred

      Same here in Brisbane … some warm days as is typical for this time of year but it is generally noticeably cooler overall.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      PeterS

      Thanks for the interesting background and explanations, most of which I already knew (I did atmospheric research in my younger days). I was only making a comment about how cool most of our summer nights are compared to years ago, and how they might or might not be incorporated in long term temperature patterns as reported by the alarmists.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    Who were falsely told THAT THEY NEEDED TO CHANGE THE WEATHER. JoNova

    CHANGE THE WEATHER!!!!!

    Now that is a great line! WOW! Rebranding at its best!

    And its true! That’s what the last twenty years come down to — tens and tens of billions spent attempting to change the weather.
    That will resonant with people! It is the type of mockery that gets people’s attention exposing the warmists for the fools they are.

    Gee, I wish I had said that.

    Eugene WR Gallun


    Report this

    111

  • #
    Peter

    It’s worse than we thought:
    ‘Climate Justice’ is the new fear phrase the Warming Religion is using on the listening public. Like I wrote before sinister and dangerous people. It implies confiscation and imprisonment. What next, Climate Justice Courts.
    All be upstanding for the Honourable Al The Gore presiding U.N Judge.
    ‘ ok Monckton you’re gonna get a fair trial and then we’ll lock you up’.

    English Aborigine


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Catamon

    BBC workers don’t work under the discipline of the market, they get paid what big-government is willing to give them and the bigger the government the better.

    Oh i do love coming back here on occasion. :) Gems such as the above are true classics that should be enshrined somewhere for posterity and reflected upon by generations yet unborn.


    Report this

    48

  • #
    Agnostic

    Is there any better argument to explain why state funded media is not just a waste of money, but irresponsible, immoral and unethical political advertising?

    Jo, I’m sorry but I think you are wrong about this.

    The BBC is not “state-funded” in the way you think it is. In the UK, you pay a TV license which goes to pay for primarily the BBC with a small portion also subsidising channel 4. There are 2 layers of over-sight for the BBC – they have a board of directors and a board of governors, both independent of one another and of the government. If they want a larger budget (the TV licenses to be increased) they have to appeal to the government of the day and this usually involves a cross-party non-partisan oversight committee to ensure the fee payer are getting value for money.

    I am not arguing that this situation is not a scandal. It is a scandal because the BBC is not supposed to get money directly from government and they are mandated to be impartial – something that has clearly not happened here. But you don’t throw out what is actually a pretty good institution based on a mistake like this – it’s not even a particularly big mistake compared others they have made in the last few years. But compared to the overall good they do in terms of stimulating creativity in the arts and generally impartial news coverage the positives far outweigh the negatives.

    The setup with the BBC and its arms-length distance from the government is very good IMO. What would be the alternative? Another privately owned “impartial” news outlet like, say, “The News of the World”?

    The principle benefit that having the funding structure that BBC have is precisely impartiality, and the ability to take risks. The problem with the BBC of late is that their willingness to take risks has been hugely diminished by the Andrew Gilligan scandal that cost an excellent CEO in Greg Dyke his job. After that, the Beeb has become timid and submissive. It has been all to pervasively steeped in political correctness, and compared to 10 years ago and going back a generation is much weaker. But before that the BBC drove creativity and innovation in programming, taking chances on shows that would not and did not pass the desks of commercial controllers. “Fawlty Towers” would never have been made without the BBC for instance, never mind Monty Python. Now it suffers for being overly concerned with ratings, and decision-makers are terrified of taking chances.

    It should also be pointed out, that while we deplore the lack of representation of the skeptical, alternative view point criticising the “consensus” science in all MSM, not just the BBC, there have been critical voices tackling policies based on climate alarmism. Recently Andrew Neil did a pretty good job savaging Ed Davey on “The Daily Politics”. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see the BBC return its robust ways and true impartiality, but it is wrong to think that the BBC is dependent on the state and thus routinely subject to political manipulation. Broadly speaking it IS independent and it works well, and only very strenuous efforts by the government, or scandalous abuses of its mandate such as the case with 28gate, undermine it.


    Report this

    26

    • #

      Agnostic, thanks for the detail. I do appreciate it.

      It seems to me that my point is as valid as ever. Whatever accountability there is with two layers of oversight has still failed.

      It’s not about this one incident. It’s about the last 20 years. At any point the BBC could have phoned up Ivar Gievar and Buzz Aldrin, and asked “why”?
      They could have interviewed skeptics with curiosity instead of an agenda. They never did.

      However, I take your point with Faulty Towers. Perhaps we just need to stop the BBC doing news, documentaries, current affairs, foreign affairs, biographies, … anything “non-fiction” with political implications, (which means everything except comedy, except it really includes that too). So I’m back where I started. Even kids TV can be turned into politically correct training tapes.

      If there was no BBC, do we really think the Monty Python guys would not have found an outlet? Would no one in the free market see the potential? Just because the BBC did it first, doesn’t mean the rest wouldn’t have.

      No, seriously, this is a point worth discussing. I’d be happy to be convinced that some part, some function was best served by state funding…


      Report this

      111

    • #
      Justin Jefferson

      Sorry, that’s just nonsense.

      Obviously the BBC’s financial dependence on the government means it is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that they are “independent” of the government – it’s the exact opposite of the truth.

      And obviously reporting on political matters necessarily involves matters of social interpretation depending on opinion. There is no way it can be otherwise, there is no objective or rational standard to hold them to that they can’t squirm out of, as they have just demonstrated. It’s completely arbitrary and facile.

      And if there were such a standard, it’s obvious they’re flagrantly flouting it in favour of consistent bias in favour of the left wing of the left wing, and it’s laughable to suggest otherwise.

      Let’s get one thing straight. These people don’t care about the truth, about reason, about impartiality. It’s about power, and propagating their political beliefs. The result is a parasitic racket.

      As for the alleged social benefits, this is mere economic illiteracy. If your assumption were correct, than an assumption in favour of full and totalitarian socialism would be valid. It’s just simply irrational nonsense.

      You know how the socialist regimes of the 20th century produced tens of millions of deaths by starvation, and the died-in-the-wool socialists still didn’t get it, they thought it was all some kind of strange coincidence, nothing to do with taking public ownership of the means of production? Well that’s what you’re doing Agnostic. The disgraceful abuses that we are witnessing – the sheer lies involving huge sums of money, and then sheer waste trying to cover them up – which would see the BBC’s directors imprisoned for many years if they were a private business – are not some kind of strange coincidence as you seem to assume. They are an inevitable outcome of the socialisation of the means of production.

      It is an irrational methodology to merely allege particular benefits as justifying the BBC. Obviously if you take no account of the values sacrificed and opportunities foregone, anything will seem beneficial. The error is as basic and as huge as confusing gross costs with net costs. How many people have died and will die as a result of this re-run of the same old socialist belief in big government having total control of all human activity and decisions, this stupid, anti-rational, anti-social, anti-human, superstitious belief system? That’s what we should be asking. Monty Python would have been popular in their own right. And if people don’t want to pay for it, there is no reason why they should be hornswoggled into it by a monopoly of coercion criminalising the broadcasting of information in the first place (a licence is, in law, permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal) and then charging a compulsory fee to fund a “service” which JUST HAPPENS to be a non-stop propaganda department broadcasting LIES in favour a political ideology of total government control of everything. It’s disgraceful, it’s vicious, it’s unjustifiable.

      The BBC should have to get its money from people’s voluntary donation like everyone else, with no special deals, no special privileges, and those who want the BBC’s products need to pay for them voluntarily, simple as that.

      The BBC and ABC should be abolished immediately.

      ————————-
      Justin, congratulations! And on that note. You are the *lucky* 200,000th commenter. You win, not-a-lot (sorry), but Thanks for dropping in. : -) – Jo


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Winston

        Well said, Justin. On the money.

        Whatever benefits derived from the BBC and ABC as they were originally conceived have long gone, and instead they have become monstrous parasitic entities free from the constraints of serving the interests of the general public, or even representing the opinion of the majority of the country’s citizens, accountable to no one due to sham charters and codes of practice that are completely ignored, negotiated around, or contorted to avoid accountability or even the semblance of impartiality.

        They are dinosaurs of a bygone age, and deserve to be consigned to the annals of history as a failed social experiment that grew and mutated beyond its original intent and design.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        AndyG55

        “You win, not-a-lot ”

        Jo… we all win !! :-)


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        a monopoly of coercion criminalising the broadcasting of information in the first place (a licence is, in law, permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal)

        That’s hot-headed exaggeration, you can broadcast information in the UK legally and for free in a whole bunch of other ways from community newspapers to WiFi.
        The origin of the BBC’s broadcast fee is actually less insidious than that:

        Encouraged by the Post Office, a number of companies with interests in the production of radio receiving sets formed the British Broadcasting Company Ltd in late 1922. The main shareholders were Marconi, GEC, British Thomson Houston, Metropolitan Vickers, Western Electric and the Radio Communication Company. It was essentially what today we would understand as a subscription service: listeners paid an annual fee for a licence to operate radio sets capable of receiving the BBC’s broadcasts.

        In other words, when it first began the only people who paid it were people who listened to the BBC because there was basically nothing else to hear. However this has been an obsolete arrangement since 1955. It is unfair extortion today and should be replaced with a combination of encrypted no-ads channels for paying subscribers and free-to-air channels with adverts to whatever extent is culturally and economically justifiable for the BBC’s traditional public service and news role. So the BBC would still exist and people would still receive the BBC on their TV antenna, but they would start seeing occasional ads and only a subset of all BBC programming. To get all the shows and no ads they would pay a subscription and get a decoder box with a SIM in it, similar to satellite TV.

        As to your ruminations about licenses to broadcast, if you do not think spectrum should be licensed then you are arguing against the application of private property rights to the commons of the radio spectrum. I struggle to see what supporting argument that could have, not just in terms of accidental radio interference in the short term (which a free registry could solve), but in maximising production of market value from frequency bands in the longer term.

        The BBC should have to get its money from people’s voluntary donation like everyone else

        Yeah okay and the same logic applies to the ABC.

        The BBC and ABC should be abolished immediately.

        No, that may happen as a market outcome, not your political decision, that’s the point of the funding reform.
        The ABC would be privatised. They could start showing ads (for cafés presumably) but since they currently show a lot of BBC content which assumes there are no ad breaks, to continue their BBC reseller relationship without cutting 8 minutes of content per hour they would have to be directly subscriber funded instead. The method of “pay-to-air” TV that I suggested is one way, by transmitting some of their shows encrypted within the same spectrum they already use for analogue TV. The way free-to-air TV companies currently transmit digital and analogue channels in the same band shows this can be done (due to analogue TV being very wasteful of bandwidth by modern standards). Paying to watch terrestrial antenna TV via decryption boxes is not a new idea. I mean, if Kenya can figure it out then the ABC has few excuses.
        If leftism and British period dramas are so darn trendy then Aussies should be falling over themselves to buy an annual ABC subscription. With so many rusted-on Auntie supporters the capitalists should be queuing up to buy a share of the ABC on privatisation day, to monetise the brand if nothing else. Now why would the ABC crowd be so reluctant to put this theory to the test?


        Report this

        00

  • #

    ABC (and BoM) are now referring to just 2 hot days in a row as a “heat wave”. Well, they weren’t even 2 whole days that were very hot; more like 1.5. I hope that Adelaidians aren’t going to be disappointed by only sweletering for about 2 days when a “heat wave” has been forecast.

    I saved the planet by turning off the TV when the taxpayer-funded “climate change” spruikers dribbled out the first reference to “climate change” just after the bush fires were mentioned by Leigh “Setarseean” Sales for the daily episode of the 7:30 Endarkenment. Indeed it is sunset on reason, science and enlightenment.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Peter C

      I saw that too. The meteorologist seemed to be trying not to mention climate change but finally could not help himself after persistent urging by Sales.

      She will be off on maternity leave soon, thank God.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Jo,

    Many thanks for the kind words in your header post.

    David Rose has done a fine job getting the main thrust of the story across, but there is much, much more to be revealed. Over the next few days I hope to provide more context.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    richard

    Damn fine work Mr Newbery.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    While state supported media is nothing to crow about – they will only give you the state side – private media is not much better when subsidized. In the states, the broadcast media and print media is searching for government protections – i.e. subsidies. They do not want to print the truth. They only want to print what conforms to their bias.

    But it is better than state supported media in that anyone can get in. And has. That is why Fox News is the biggest news in the Broadcast media. They do print almost everything. And have become an anathema to the current administration. Not because they are overtly antagonistic, but because they do ask hard questions at times.

    The US broadcast media gets by subsidized by the entertainment portions of their corporations. The print media is dying. But alternate media has arisen that means the news is getting out, despite the efforts of what is termed the Mainstream media.

    In the end, the victors in the private media battles will be the ones that provide news. Good bad and indifferent. If they are allowed to. Already there is efforts underway to convert the private media of the US to the models employed by other English speaking nations. The Constitution is what stands in its way.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    AndyG55

    I had a strange thought as to what to do with the ABC.

    Give it back to the public.

    Every voter gets say 100 shares.

    Maybe those that currently work there get extra shares.

    Then the government says.. Ok its all yours, and washes their hands of it.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      That is a tremendous idea Andy.
      In 1979 The Social Credit government of Bill Bennett did exactly that.
      The British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation consisted of a number of resource companies the government had bailed out. Every man woman and child got five free shares, and a chance to buy more. I did OK, as I sold about a week after they were floated. I think the return was about ten fold. It was a good idea at the time, as the company was viable, but they made some poor investments and a lot of uninitiated investors with a “buy and hold” didn’t fare so well. It was rather unfortunate, because it was exciting for a lot of folks that were not familiar with owning stock in a company. It is a damned shame that the board went a little haywire and started buying junk.
      Nevertheless, it is a viable solution to an annoying problem.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark F

        Yeah, BCRIC, aka “brick”. Like many boards that lack oversight, they bailed out their friends who had invested in some turkey ventures. I won’t elaborate on the antics of one group who acquired control of the public tech firm I worked for. Which is gone now, too.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    David, UK

    Your funds used to hide deception…

    I say! Steady on, old girl! (He says with traditional British outrage.) You can count me out of that accusation, Jo. I never have funded, nor do I ever intend to fund, the BBC. For one thing, I always found my TV operates perfectly well without a scrap of paper with my Government’s written-permission-to-watch-TV written on it. Hence I have never had the need to purchase one. I simply do not require (recognise) anyone’s permission to watch the box.

    And for another, Auntie Beeb (as she insists on being lovingly referred to; fat old matriarch that she is) can go f*** ‘erself.

    Tally-ho!



    :-) I stand corrected. Thanks! Jo


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Agnostic

    If there was no BBC, do we really think the Monty Python guys would not have found an outlet? Would no one in the free market see the potential? Just because the BBC did it first, doesn’t mean the rest wouldn’t have.

    No, seriously, this is a point worth discussing. I’d be happy to be convinced that some part, some function was best served by state funding…

    This is my particular area, and as I am professionally involved in the arts over here, so I feel I should declare an interest. I am a composer by trade working primarily in TV. While I do get a lot of work from the Beeb, I am freelance so I am not in their employ and not trying to speak for them.

    My take on this is absolutely no, the Python guys would not have had an outlet, nor would we have had the Young Ones, Blackadder, The League of Gentleman and of late Sherlock, Peaky Blinder and news shows such as Panaroma, Newsnight, The Daily Politics – I mean the list goes on and on of programming that has defined TV culture both here in the UK and abroad for 2 or 3 generations. The content is mandated to be different from commercial enterprise, but commercial stations have hugely benefited from the laboratory that the BBC is supposed to be.

    The reasoning works thus: It is hugely expensive and risky the TV business. In order to fund programming, commercial stations have an interest in the cheapest possible production for the largest possible viewership, in order to attract advertisers. This makes them extremely risk averse – they simply cannot afford failures. They create their own content for sure, and it used to be well funded, but generally speaking they copycat whatever format was made successful by the BBC. ITV in particular used to have a much higher viewership and revenue working on this basis, but as digital channels have sprung up and drained audience share, its mostly cheap to make reality TV shows these days. I can’t stand it….even the Beeb have headed in that direction for a while after they pissed money up against the wall on various ill-thought out ventures.

    By contrast, the BBCs mandate is to take risks. They are supposed to innovate, try things out and occasionally fail. In the past it meant they would take chances on fresh talent and leave them to fly or fall. Now, they are more circumspect, more concerned about ratings, and much more risk averse. The quality of production has subsequently suffered. It also pisses off the commercial broadcasters, because they are not supposed to hunt for ratings. The BBC can and often do make profit from some of their ventures. Tellytubbies famously was so successful it made as much money in one year from being sold abroad as the entire Drama budget for the same year.

    I think your view of BBC journalism is far too simplistic. They are extremely proud of their impartiality and often go to unnecessary (and irritating) lengths to prove it. One such case – the Andrew Gilligan affair – caused the government so much ire that they got involved and after a long and protracted bitch-fight managed to get the CEO of the BBC fired. The problem there is government interference in the BBC, not the BBC as a state-run mouthpiece for the government – it simply does not work that way. The best analogy is that it has the same distance from the government (and probably more) as the judiciary. They also report pretty balls-out on their own misdemeanours and stuff ups. It’s always pretty amusing to see BBC reports on the BBC and edgy interviews with members of their own organization.

    But that is not to say that movers and shakers who have an extreme interest in getting their view across will not do all they can to influence reporters, editors, or whoever they can get a hold of. The BBC is made up of fallible humans. But you only have to contrast the way the owners of privately owned media are able to be charmed and seduced by politicians doing their utmost to get their views favourable coverage – I mean if you are worried about impartiality THAT is no way to achieve it. And incidentally, I don’t blame the politicians for doing that – that’s their job, that’s what they have to do. I worked for a producer on show (for ITV actually) who was dating journalist from the Sun Newspaper around the time of the election that saw Tony Blairs government come to power. A bunch of them went to a curry house to thrash out who was going to be the next government of the UK. That’s how arrogant they were – they honestly believed that their papers influence was so great that all they had to do was say the word and people would vote for who ever they decided.

    Look – there is no doubt this 28gate thing is a scandal. The BBC are not perfect – believe me. But their funding structure is not like the ABC, where the ABC have to lobby the government of the day for a budget. The BBC have the TV license – it’s guaranteed funding collected for them separately from the government. The only time the government gets involved is when they want to raise the TV license, which has to be legislated. to get this done they have to go through a select committee which is cross-party – ie it is not supposed to be partisan. Their job is to scrutinise the BBC for value for money on behalf of the licence fee payers. There is accountability for content at the board of directors. They set the budgets, decide on the mission (working out strategies for the industry) and I think the board of governors just try to make sure they don’t do anything too stupid. Doesn’t always work, but if the BBC do something stupid and/or wasteful, they can and do sack the directors.

    You need to look at the BBC in the context of the vast amount of things they are into – not just the fact that some hessian-underpant wearing green-loonies got into a meeting and started spouting politically correct mumbo-jumbo, or that the government managed to bribe some of their staff to say what they probably thought was the right thing anyway. They ARE quite separate from the government – as they should be – and I would say as a model that would promote impartiality in news reporting, I doubt there is a better one. Private ownership is absolutely not the answer. Never-the-less I certainly agree that the BBC has fallen far short of balanced reporting regarding the AGW issue. But to say that this failing is a result of being state-owned and funded, is simply incorrect, because they are not, and while the issue of climate change might seem huge to us, it’s not that big a deal in the grand scheme that comprises the whole of the BBC.


    Report this

    11

    • #

      Thanks Agnostic.

      This is much more than 28gate, and it’s more than the science reporting. The science unit went completely religious — making themselves into an propaganda unit, which ultimately cost the nation billions as it pursued pointless energy changes. The science unit could have been doing interviews with both sides all along, it could have doing killer doco’s to open eyes even in the late 1990s.

      If this were not a whole-BBC cultural problem, and BBC were as impartial as they say, then when the science unit went off the rails, the economics-unit would have scoffed at the financials of renewables. The political-unit would have reported the saner voices from the small-government side of politics and the comedy-unit would have had a field day mocking scientists who kept getting it wrong. The education unit would have reminded schools that science was about evidence, and not opinion polls, and it would have talked about logic and reasoning.

      But none of these things happened. The whole BBC is the problem.

      And it’s not like they’ve reported on 28gate is it?

      But surely we don’t need an enormous flawed and politicized organisation to make sure we give opportunities to the python gang and Fawlty towers type work? Perhaps expanding Arts grant funding to cross subsidize the risk for commercial stations would be a lot more effective? (I can’t believe I’m considering an increase to arts funding, which at times has been an ode to excrement.)


      Report this

      72

      • #

        Conflict of interest identified above at #29.2.

        It’s in their pension fund. The worse the “crisis”, the better the returns on their pension fund.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        What I saw was the relentless march of Marxism v the almost relentless failure of the coalition parties to see it.

        Julia Gillard staked her career on getting the carbon tax, because this was the last tool they needed to abolish private ownership and control of industry.

        Barnaby Joyce, the only small/medium business accountant in the parliament, has brought the coalition to its senses. Too late for hundreds of thousands of private operators. And many more will be forced out this year.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Agnostic

    Perhaps expanding Arts grant funding to cross subsidize the risk for commercial stations would be a lot more effective? (I can’t believe I’m considering an increase to arts funding, which at times has been an ode to excrement.)

    LOL – you are so right. Pretentious drivel half the time. Actually much more than half the time, but occasionally something really good gets through and I think that’s the point….

    Arts funding IS extended to the commercial stations. Channel 4 gets a piece of the pie and so to does ITV if I am not mistaken. The BBC co-fund independent british films which launch the careers of many of the star film-makers who go one to be commercially successful. It’s the BBCs ability to fail, to make a bad choice, to get it wrong, that allows it to uncover fresh ideas. It’s focus is on innovation, not profit.

    The science unit went completely religious — making themselves into an propaganda unit, which ultimately cost the nation billions as it pursued pointless energy changes. The science unit could have been doing interviews with both sides all along, it could have doing killer doco’s to open eyes even in the late 1990s.

    Of course, and its a major failing. But you’re missing the point that that is a single (not very important) issue. There are those who worry about climate change, there are those who worry about those who worry about climate change, and there are those at the mere mention of climate change roll their eyes and go back to the footy. Don’t forget, a lot of us were swept up in the hysteria, and for the BBC, which developed a politically correct, health and safety, equal opportunities, touchy feely culture, climate change was a pretty good fit. They bought into the IPCC viewpoint and the need to create a groundswell of support needed to make the change in lifestyle we all thought the world would need to combat global warming. With an editor like Richard Black, whose job it was to understand the issue and guide editorial decisions, of course it was going to be one-sided. But on many other issues, that most other people find more important, they have a good track record of impartiality and investigative journalism. You can’t look at this one single issue and claim that all of the BBC is faulty, biased and broken or that somehow private enterprise would do any better. Take the Guardian for example. Have you seen the latest hatchet job Nuccatelli has done on Lindzen?

    Don’t forget, there are still a lot of really intelligent erstwhile honest scientists who genuine believe that global warming is a problem. They are dwindling now for sure, but it seems pretty harsh to judge an entire organization for not fully investigating and reporting in balanced way on this one single issue. It is also not the BBC’s fault that policies devised in the wake of the AGW scare “cost the nation billions”, only that they were complicit. As Steve MacIntyre pointed out at his seminar in London, if you are the government of the day you have a duty and responsibility to listen to advice you have paid for. That is to say, the best advice they had at that time suggested that AGW was a big problem. The dereliction of duty comes from lack of due diligence, independently scrutinising the advice and policy decisions.

    The issue is now being reported with a little more balance in the BBC, especially since Richard Black left. When it comes up it tries to characterise what “critics of the IPCC” say – rather than talk about deniers. Sometimes it is what is not said that provides the beginnings of balance. I don’t think they are really going far enough but the whole AGW scare has lost a lot of momentum and I don’t see anything coming from the BBC to try and get it going again. What we really want is some vindication – but it’s not going to happen. It’s pretty clear based on the shift in policies around the EU that politicians have seen through the scare. But they aren’t going to come out and say it. They’ll pay lip service to climate change and say how important it is to tackle it and rah rah rah and then continue with policies that are unpicking much of the renewable agenda. They are committed to some projects and contracts, and thus aren’t going to come out before us, slap a hand to their forehead and say; “Sorry guys! Sorry! We got it all wrong. We just spent a huge amount of money on a whole bunch of stuff we didn’t really need. Our bad. Turns out a couple of our boffins got it wrong.”

    But surely we don’t need an enormous flawed and politicized organisation to make sure we give opportunities to the python gang and Fawlty towers type work?

    Well firstly what human endeavour is without flaw? And just because of this one issue why do you conclude that the whole of the organization is politicised?

    I think you have concluded that the only successful means of human progress comes from capitalism. I work within an industry where that is patently not the case. This is because a great deal of human endeavour is not driven by profit (of the financial kind). There is nothing stopping free enterprise from sending film crews to the four corners of the globe to shoot the sort of wildlife documentaries for which the BBC clearly are at the absolute top of the game – except that it is not profitable. Capitalism exists to make profit. The BBC is not supposed to focus on profit, it is supposed to stimulate creativity, and provide niche unprofitable content. Think of it as stimulating creative bio-diversity. By definition, a commercial venture HAS to choose and broadcast what will appeal to the most number of people, for the least cost it can, and mitigate risk as much as possible. This isn’t the world of numbers and empirical evidence here, it is the world of vogue, on-screen chemistry, and a mysterious pooling of talent and ideas that sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. People aren’t in the industry to primarily make lots of money (if they are they usually fail) they are there to see their ideas realised, to be part of human culture, or to investigate and explore. Those with the best ideas rise to the top, money and fame follow. Natural selection is in the quality of ideas and craftsmanship. It is massively massively competitive, and the BBC don’t just pick people off the street.

    —–

    The truth is pernicious, but like acid, it cuts through the surface unevenly, and can take a while to really get going. People like you hold the handle of the beaker, making sure the acid pours out. Its obvious to any intelligent person who has not invested their ego what the truth is (or rather – what the truth isn’t), should they take but a moment to understand the science, so I have no doubt the surface will melt away with time. I don’t think you should stop going after the BBC for the 28gate scandal – you need to keep that acid going to burn away the stain on their reputation. But its a chancre on an otherwise pretty healthy body, not the visible sign of a cancer. if you really think about it, do you really think that each and every member of the organisation should stop to look at the evidence of an issue they would feel ill-qualified to assess in the way you have? When many “reputable” scientists still haven’t? Is that reasonable? Is that really what you would expect?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova has an excellent post up today covering David Rose’s exposé of the shameful 28gate saga. Here’s an [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova has an excellent post up today covering David Rose’s exposé of the shameful 28gate saga. Here’s an [...]


    Report this

    00