JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

BBC tells journalists that IPCC is God, can not be wrong –”No debate allowed”

If the IPCC are wrong, the BBC will be the last place to say so

Media Bias, voting behaviour of journalists.

Lets all bow to the IPCC — a modern God that shalt not be questioned. The Holy Sacred Climate Cow!

The IPCC is an unaudited and unaccountable foreign committee. Not only are no scientists paid to check its findings, now the publicly mandated BBC is making sure none of their journalists will check its findings either.

Carbonbrief has a copy of the BBC new internal guidance on how to report climate change.

In April, the UK regulator, Ofcom, found the BBC was guilty of not sufficiently challenging Lord Lawson, a skeptic. So in response the BBC now promises they will never sufficiently challenge the IPCC. That’s “false balance” for you.

The BBC issues a guidance to journalists

What’s the BBC’s position?

  • Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.
If only BBC baby-scientist-rulers knew what “proves” means in science. The IPCC can never be “proven” right, though it has been proven wrong, and many times.
  • Be aware of ‘false balance’: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.
Define “denier”? The original meaning, from 1475, it is to deny a religion. The God has changed but the meaning has not.
These guys are supposed to be master communicators — I defy anyone to explain their definition in 25 words or less:
  • Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday^. The referee has spoken.

The climate is a soccer game? Geniuses. This could be the tritest reduction of a complex multivariate chaotic system ever. Is climate sensitivity 1, 2 or 4 degrees C? Score 1-nil. The BBC appoints themselves as ultimate umpire in a science debate with only Yes-No answers.

^UPDATE:  GWPF point out that Actually we do deny [the Manchester claim.] And so should the BBC.  The match was played last Sunday. Such is the arrogance of the BBC. They claim to be “referees” of the truth, but don’t even bother to get their own facts right.  h/t Hot under the collar

Having called skeptics filthy names and made it clear the IPCC is God, the BBC then plays a safe “get out of free-speech-jail card” knowing that virtually no journalist will want to risk a trip in this minefield:

  • However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier.
  • There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.
If the BBC must report “group funding” will it also warn the audience that government funded climate scientists will lose funding and status if the climate turns out to be controlled by the sun and not your car?
Helpfully, the BBC is offering training for journalists so that they can learn to spot goals:
…we are offering all editorial staff new training for reporting on climate change. The one hour course covers the latest science, policy, research, and misconceptions to challenge, giving you confidence to cover the topic accurately and knowledgeably.
After the extensive one hour program, BBC journalists will be qualified to dismiss PhD holding skeptics and ignore nobel prize winning scientists.

The document concludes with a list of “common misconceptions” produced by the Science Media Centre (SMC). The list appears to be an adapted update of a document (pdf) published by the SMC in 2012.

There are no surprises here. All publicly legislated media outlets end up being mouthpieces for Big-Legislators.

The Brits are paying for propaganda. Will they protest?

h/t Willie Soon, Pat.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (84 votes cast)
BBC tells journalists that IPCC is God, can not be wrong --"No debate allowed", 9.7 out of 10 based on 84 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yc7ebdzx

101 comments to BBC tells journalists that IPCC is God, can not be wrong –”No debate allowed”

  • #
    Mal

    In Australia we have auntie ABC. In Britain they have BBC. Is it uncle, mother or father?
    Either way, it is obvious mass stupidity runs in the family.
    It reinforces how mass propaganda has taken over the west.
    Is it just the devolution phase of society as we dumb down, or is there a more hidden molevolent intent behind this.
    Either way, it’s a major battle now looming.

    440

    • #

      It’s Big Brother, BB-C, guess the ‘C’ stands for
      ‘coterie,’or
      ‘collective,’
      or maybe
      ‘conspiracy.’
      Orwell just got the date wrong, not 1984 but 2018.

      340

      • #
        Mal

        Big Brother Coming?
        I fear it’s already here
        It appears we may be heading for new dark ages where science, knowledge and reason are taken over by ignorance and faith in authority.
        How long did it take for the renaissance to arise after the last dark ages. How many will be burnt at the stake as heretics in trying to oppose it?
        We are at a tipping point,
        We have to win

        381

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Wont stop me from calling IPCC climate science unproven and a lie…..

          People will fight back and hard….

          171

        • #
          PeterS

          Things will have to crash and burn first before the people as a whole wake up and fight back. This is nothing new – it happened time and time again in the past. If it wasn’t global warming it would be something else that will cast an evil shadow over the whole world and create a subversive environment. “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” – source uncertain, misattributed to George Orwell. Whatever to root cause the result is a sort of cancer that has gone viral such that the patient is terminal. Our modern society can’t be fixed and so has to die to make room for a good one.

          110

    • #
      Another Ian

      But don’t forget the things covered by

      “ABC News Maths”

      40

    • #
      Hot under the collar

      Stupid, yes, but also totally inaccurate (as often the case at the BBC); but this is a spectacular ‘own goal’:

      “To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.”

      They would be right to deny that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday, the match was on Sunday!

      https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-climate-change-guidelines-get-it-wrong/

      80

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      There is indeed a not really hidden malevolent intent. The destruction of capitalism, no matter the cost. And a reduction in the world’s population.

      It’s past the stage where it can be called a conspiracy. In my lexicon conspiracies were raised against governments, not by governments.

      30

    • #
      reformed warmist of logan

      JO … JO,
      As you know, I love love your work!
      But please please don’t fail to mention that the BBC. Super Fund has approx. $10 million Pounds invested in renewables (Source to follow).
      Now that’s totally without a vested interest isn’t it?! (L. O. L.!)
      As always, warm regards,
      Reformed Warmist of Logan
      PS. When are you &/or your husband next doing a speaking gig in Brisbane?

      90

  • #
    Raving

    “I adore political parties. They are the only place left to us where people don’t talk politics.” – O. Wilde

    110

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘….very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening.’

    I deny global warming is happening and offer the hiatus as proof, 19 years and counting.

    221

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Yeah,
      They’re not even brave enough to be accurate and call it “Climate Change”, let alone the original AGW.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      220

      • #
        Carbon500

        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz: regarding your observation that ‘They’re not even brave enough to be accurate and call it “Climate Change”, let alone the original AGW.’
        Whenever I write to a newspaper or post a comment, I always talk about ‘the supposed dangerous man-made global warming due to CO2′.
        The English have a saying that you should ‘call a spade a spade’, and that’s what I always do!

        10

    • #
      sophocles

      I deny global warming.
      It is no more.
      It is now Global Cooling and it’s going to get worse.
      I’m offering rising food prices as proof. That isn’t going to stop any time soon.

      50

      • #
        Latus Dextro

        …aside from the unfalsifiable UNFCCC definition of “climate change”, has anyone asked the BBC whether they permit UNFCCC defined “climate variability” to be discussed, the chaotic entity that accounts for 99.999% of observed climate (and weather) or for that matter while we’re on the topic of free-speech and the right to hear, the UEA CRU climate-gate emails, hide the decline, and the obvious:

        Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005

        
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

        Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009

        
”Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

        It did and they are.

        The current solar minimum and declining temperatures have accelerated the intensity and repetitiveness of the UN eco-Marxist polemic. If they don’t get then World tied up, and sewn together, lock, stock and barrel, imminently, they’ve lost.

        Actually, they’ve lost anyway. They just don’t realise it.

        40

        • #
          sophocles

          Latus Dextro said:

          anyone asked the BBC whether they permit UNFCCC defined “climate variability” to be discussed,

          Worth a try, but I think we can see what will happen: no matter how much Climate Variability is claimed, the ultimate shutdown will be that ever-ready Climate Denial labelling. But there is still interesting argument to be had there.

          However, let us not lose sight of the UN’s ultimate goal: it’s not fixing Climate Change or Mending the Climate, that’s just the excuse for all the hand-waving and propaganda. Hidden behind it all are the UN’s preparations for a massive power grab: Agenda 2030. The Great Saving of The Planet. From Mankind.

          I don’t think Agenda 2030 has lost. Not yet. That’s the real and nasty surprise behind all the hand waving and herd-scaring projections which the UN is plotting. Climate is just a justification for a global coup-de-tat. And the pollies are too dumb to spot it.

          Agenda (urk ugh shudder) 2030 is truly horrible. It’s a race back to the eighteenth century with all the bad bits and not much of the good ones. Climate variability is going to make it the early eighteenth century (just after the Maunder Minimum —-brr) rather than the warmer later part (just before the Dalton Minimum).

          It’s going to be a bureaucratic tyranny like we’ve never imagined. A two layered society with the ruling caste and the rest. I can see food rationing to everything rationing.

          30

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    There’s no longer any doubt about the media.

    It is not working in ignorance out of lack of skill, it is in a deliberate Propaganda Mode designed to push a particular view.

    Whether it’s the very prominent Lord Soandso making a mottza on his country estate via windmills or one of the many other forms of Climate Skimming, climate change catastrophism is a boom industry for those with connections.

    KK

    270

    • #
      el gordo

      The ABC is the propaganda wing of the Klimatariat and they have cost us dearly.

      ‘In 2018, 59% of Australians (up five points) say ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem’ about which ‘we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’.

      ‘Almost all Australians (84%, up three points) say ‘the government should focus on renewables, even if this means we may need to invest more in infrastructure to make the system more reliable’.

      ‘Only 14% say ‘the government should focus on traditional energy sources such as coal and gas, even if this means the environment may suffer to some extent’.

      Lowy Institute

      180

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Lowy institute and their polling are both dubious .

        172

        • #
          el gordo

          To put it more bluntly they are dodgy, but lets go with their numbers just for fun.

          We have our work cut out for us, to sway the masses back to reality in six months.

          70

          • #
            sophocles

            el gordo said @ # 4.1.1.1

            We have our work cut out for us, to sway the masses back to reality in six months.

            Cold and food shortages with very high food prices will help.
            We “Deniers” can keep chanting: “We tried to tell you …”

            50

    • #
      Greg in NZ

      K Keith, you’re onto something: carbon, noun, the chemical element of atomic number 6, symbol C, therefore –

      Climate Change Catastrophism

      6limate 6hange 6atastrophism

      or in NZenglish – sucks sucks sucks

      130

      • #
        Harry Passfield

        Greg, I’ve said it before: the PTB chose to express CO2 as ‘carbon’ because they wanted to set up a bogeyman (what colour were bogeymen when you were a kid?). In doing so they showed their repressed racism by choosing a substance which is black – as opposed to the general implication that CO2 is not – and built on this their scare story. It’s disgusting – but ignored.

        92

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          Purple… the bogeymen were purple… dressed in long robes, with cane in hand, thrashing young kids to teach ‘em about love and goodness. But I digress.

          http://snowreport.co.za/facebook/

          Updated pics (as of 8 Sep) of South Africa’s ongoing snow blizzard: scroll down to view De Aar Solar Farm in the Northern Cape BURIED UNDER SNOW. Also a pic of the rare – and endangered? – South African snow donkey, aka the IPCC ass. And elephants! In the snow! Won’t somebody please think of the elephants…

          50

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Well said.
          There are a lot of unsavoury aspects to this current stain on humanity’s progress.
          Great summary.

          KK

          10

    • #
      PeterS

      The absurdity of it all is “our” ABC and “our” public education systems are the vehicles of the propaganda machine yet no politician is willing to do anything to stop it. Students are coming out in droves not only believing in AGW but also detesting the West to the point they want it destroyed. The cancer will continue until the obvious happens – unless someone stops it, which is now extremely unlikely.

      80

  • #
    TdeF

    It’s not about the nebulous “Climate Change”. It never was.

    It was about and only about alleged Man Made Global Warming and its consequences, one of which is called Climate Change.

    So what proof does anyone have of Man Made Global Warming? None.

    What proof exists that the increase in Carbon Dioxide is man made? None. (In fact this can be proven factually false with certainty)

    Then what proof does anyone have that Global Warming, even +0.5C produces more extreme weather events? None. In fact I have never seen how anyone arrived at this conclusion.

    Man Made Global Warming is not debatable science. It is just made up science. The temperature has hardly changed in 20 years.

    So in that sense Man Made Climate Change is very real.
    It was Man Made in 1988 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to justify their own existence.

    341

    • #
      TdeF

      When ever did the BBC actually have a debate between two scientists? Why has it always been Lord Lawson or Lord Monckton or journalist James Delingpole?

      What ever is wrong with the BBC actually having a real debate between professional scientists? Why is that forbidden?

      It would be even better if at least one of whom was not paid from the proceeds of Climate Change?
      Or would that blow the whole thing out of the water?

      231

      • #
        TdeF

        Or consider that Cook invited 10,000 qualified people to respond to his survey which found that 97% of all scientists agreed with man made Climate Change, ask one of the other 9,900 people for an opinion.

        170

      • #
        John in Oz

        ‘Debates’ are useless and ineffective in swaying a non-expert point of view when they are between 2 supposed experts in the field.

        The Happer and Karoly/Tamblyn ‘debate’ shows that there are multiple ways of interpreting the ‘data’ which gives these scientists opposing views. Good luck expecting the majority of the masses to understand the science they are debating as most cannot make small change without a calculator.

        Politicians, having to show they are ‘in charge’ and ‘doing it for the people’, choose one of these views, right or wrong. After spending squillions to ‘fix’ the problem they are unwilling to be seen as wrong so are loathe to change their stance.

        The masses are only going to change their minds when the hip pocket pain becomes untenable or when the slow changing climate makes it more obvious that (generic) Man (includes all sexes so don’t sue me) does not control it, perhaps when ice is again knocking on a few doors.

        50

        • #
          sophocles

          as most cannot make small change without a calculator.

          Some still have to be assisted even when they do have a calculator.

          30

    • #
      TdeF

      Actually I get really annoyed when people who do not believe in Man Made Global Warming start off by agreeing that we have increased the amount of CO2 by 50%. How do they know that?

      Science teaches us a very important lesson called equilibrium. Mechanical systems and feedback systems find equilibrium, the point where all changes are resisted. The bottom of a valley or the bottom of a hole. Systems are rarely sitting on a knife’s edge, as alleged without any proof and to create drama. Tipping points etc. Again, no explanation.

      There is simply no case for a man made CO2 increase except vague correlation and in twenty years the idea that increased CO2 alone increases temperature has also been disproven by simple observation.

      The other simple observation is that despite spending $1,500,000,000,000 a year to control CO2, the biggest waste of money since WW2, there is no effect whatsoever on CO2 levels.

      Besides consider if they were right. If a 50% increase in CO2 meant 0.5C over a hundred years, how long do we have to wait for another 0.5? Another hundred years. Unfortunately this is already 20 years off schedule. We are already at our Paris target without doing anything.

      So where do people get their numbers? Oh, computer models. Infallible then. Kangaroo expert Tim Flannery says so. Al Gore’s thesis was of the effect of television on Richard Nixon’s Presidential campaign. Another scientist then.

      Still, meteorologists apparently know nothing about the weather, but according to the BBC, the climate is just the collection of all weather over time.
      So we are to believe that climate scientists like Flannery and Gore know what causes the weather when the meteorologists have no idea?

      250

      • #
        el gordo

        This yarn emanated from ANU and it went viral.

        http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-08/07/c_137373174.htm

        ‘Systems are rarely sitting on a knife’s edge …’

        What about climate change as a random walk which occasionally, through a blending of natural cycles, disrupts the flow.

        50

        • #
          TdeF

          You would have to think Will Steffen is desperate.

          50

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            TdeF:

            He is. The entire AGW confederation is frantic that Trump will prevail in the USA. Another 2½ years of Trump and the USA powering ahead with cheaper electricity AND emissions reducing would collapse the whole scam. So would a drop in Global temperature due to the coming Gleisberg event.
            The question the ABC/BBC will never ask is “if a 1℃ rise in temperature will cause a runaway effect, why didn’t that rise happen in the Holocene climate optimum?”. They will mumble something about the higher CO2 level but then leave themselves open to supplying proof that CO2 causes warming.

            120

      • #
        Dave in the States

        Moreover, if their hypothesis is correct, for the sake of discussion, that a doubling of co2 concentration, by whatever means, causes x amount of warming, then we have already experienced most of the warming will see from it.

        60

      • #
        Anton

        We know what the concentration of CO2 was in the atmosphere before the Industrial Revolution from air bubbles in the arctic and antarctic ice sheets.

        30

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      TdeF, you have overlooked that the UHI effect proves positively that human activity does indeed cause warming. Even the bodies of the people give off heat, concentrated in an urban environment. So you need to isolate that fact and put it in its true perspective. Else the warmists will run over the top of you with it.

      We have never denied warming. What we deny is that there is proven cause for alarm. The UHI covers only a very small part of the globe.

      As for Cook and the 97%. If 97% is the answer, what was the question?

      Just to make you feel sick, see this. 34 articles. 117 comments.

      https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-cook-3280

      30

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Three things are certain:
    The BBC is a biased left wing propaganda machine.
    The BBC does not have a single “knowledgeable interviewer”.
    The BBC no longer covers proper science. Its science coverage was taken over by two non-scientists many years ago (Shukman – geography and Harrabin- English).

    180

  • #

    A few years ago I was in Sydney and with family, enduring an episode of an “edgy” BBC series I would never have watched normally. At one point a hung-over woman wakes up in bed to find a little toddler under the sheets. There is a suggestive humorous moment I won’t describe, not completely explicit but enough for me to leave the room and go email the BBC with a complaint. (Okay, okay…it was also an excuse to get away from the TV and a gritty, edgy pom-drama that was getting more boring by the second.)

    Sure enough, when the response came much later there were the predictable explanations about artistic integrity, fluidity of interpretation etc. The Beeb was fine with their work. You see, the Beeb is always fine with their work. They’re the Beeb and you’re just…you! Challenging the Beeb is like the peasants challenging Richard II.

    Note how they start with “man-made climate change” but then make the typical shift to just “climate change”. This gives the authoritarians a terrific back exit while making debate on specifics impossible. I can be defined as a man-made climate change denier (which I certainly am) but dismissed as a climate change denier (which I certainly am not). Good trick, warmies. An oldie, but a goodie.

    In fact, I do believe in climate change, while the BBC and the IPCC clearly do not…but we won’t go into that.

    Here’s a good summation from a few years back of these slippery tripe-mongers: https://www.corbettreport.com/the-bbc-exposed-video/

    141

    • #
      John in Oz

      Not only the terminology changes but also the definitions of words.

      Don’t forget that the IPCC’s definition of climate change is ONLY the man-made type, not the naturally occurring type. They can tell the difference, of course, and their existence is predicated on convincing us that they are correct and that there is a problem that needs further research.

      The IPCC’s position vs a ‘deniers’ is comparing apples to onions.

      50

  • #
    NB

    Climate change is real.
    Socialism works.
    The fourth dark age approaches.

    140

    • #
      sophocles

      the fourth dark age approaches

      Yep, and far more quickly than we might be expecting.

      From http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/09/06/bangkok-bulletin-un-calls-time/

      You people need to put your skates on and:
      1. push coal generation as a temporary (reliability) measure
      2. LFTR (Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactors) all over the continent as a permanent long-term cure for the Unreliables

      This from the UN at Bangkok:

      -Aussies love their coal. A new report by Australian academics, however, points out that market forces alone could see the country’s coal use fall sharply in the 2030s.
      -Australia tried to dilute a resolution agreed by country representatives at the Pacific Island Forum on Wednesday, backing away, among others, from calling the USA to return to the Paris Agreement, the Guardian reports.

      The 2030s? Only if you believe that 400ppmv of CO2 is three orders of magnitude more powerful than our star …
      Otherwise Victorian children will learn all about just what snow is … and they won’t need to go to Canberra to see it, either.

      10

  • #
    StephenP

    I seem to remember that Ben Santer made a seeming mockery of the whole IPCC in 1995 by changing his committee of scientists’ opinion that there was no discernable effect caused by mankind on its head after all the said scientists had agreed on their final draft and gone home.
    It seems that someone was playing ‘God’!

    120

  • #
    Mark M

    Expert bad-weather-preventing bureaucracy isn’t cheap: “UNFCCC sessions are estimated to cost $100,000/hr, it says on the site” …

    Bangkok Bulletin: UN calls for more time

    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/09/06/bangkok-bulletin-un-calls-time/

    (h/t Tom Nelson)

    60

  • #
    Peter C

    Define “denier”? The original meaning, from 1475, it is to deny a religion. The God has changed but the meaning has not.
    These guys are supposed to be master communicators — I defy anyone to explain their definition in 25 words or less:

    The BBC definition of denier is hopelessly confused and confusing.

    Jo’s definition is very clear. Just 20 words!

    100

  • #
    Phoenix44

    How do they know the IPCC is right? How can they know?

    The role of a free press – after reporting clear, unambiguous facts like football scores – is to question. The BBC and the rest should be questioning the IPCC, finding weaknesses, testing their arguments, not meekly bowing their heads to authority.

    Of course they don’t accept authority about stuff they don’t like, say economics. There any crackpot whose theories have been endlessly disproven gets a hearing.

    101

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Meh BBC , ABC , they’re both peddling the same junk and proud of it .

    Time for the Government to sell the ABC .

    122

  • #
    Phillthegeek

    Lol! Libs getting smashed in Wagga Wagga. Their primary is down from 54 to 23%. that, with Morrison’s announcements today will mean an interesting week as parliament goes back. Is there enough popcorn in the world??

    43

    • #
      el gordo

      This is purely a State issue, Premier Gladys is on the nose and will sink at the NSW election in March.

      71

      • #
        Phillthegeek

        Bulldust eg. Its all interconnected. A lot of the voters are only barely aware of the difference between state and fed when they vote. Amazing t me in QLD that many PHON voters were asking at the booths how to vote for Poorline….who wasn’t actually running in the by elections. :)

        Spin it how you like but people will draw the obvious parallel between this one and Longman in terms of the drop in Lib primary. Stick a fork in em mate, they are done. Libs are heading for serious defeat federally.

        Kaos and a happy clapper that want to enshrine religious discrimination? No serious economic or energy policy? They literally have little or nothing positive to offer and have spent too long defining themselves on what they oppose rather than what they can do for people.

        Actually, twist the a fork in em, they are done badly unless Morrison can convince the center of the electorate he isnt owned outright by the right wing fanatics in his party and that he is not one himself…and then they may not be done quite as badly. Really, they are looking for least worst outcomes now, not good ones.

        54

        • #
        • #
          GD

          unless Morrison can convince the center of the electorate he isn’t owned outright by the right-wing fanatics in his party

          You’ve got it backwards.

          unless Morrison can convince the centre of the electorate he isn’t owned outright by the left-wing ‘Black Hand’ members in his party

          150

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Its all interconnected.’

          Premier Gladys will blame Canberra but in reality its all her own doing.

          I mentioned on a previous thread how I ventured onto the new M4 extension the other day and it was practically empty in peak hour. Drivers are rat running or dawdling along Parramatta Road and coming back on the M4 where not tolled. They are on strike, its called people power.

          The premier is on the nose bro and about to experience a fall from grace.

          60

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘No serious economic or energy policy?’

          Before the election Morrison will seek tenders for coal fired power stations and a continental bullet train network.

          40

          • #
            Phillthegeek

            Before the election Morrison will seek tenders for coal fired power stations and a continental bullet train network.

            Im quite sure there will be a lot of the normal Liberal, “allocate $ but never spend them” behavior in the leadup to the election. Thats pretty normal for them.

            Where are you getting the “bullet train” assertion from? I know there has been talk of a Sydney / Melbourne fast train?? Anyway Lib Nats dont really do infrastructure. They will talk a lot, do nuthin, and then leave it to an ALP govt.

            Unless its dams? Some of the idiots in the LNP are holding their obsession with turning rivers into toxic drains and it may be a way of rehabilitating the Beetrooter of the bush??

            26

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          I don’t necessarily want Libs to win, after letting our former President get away with what he did, they don’t deserve much support or sympathy.

          It’s just that I never want Labs to win.

          And perhaps, just perhaps, Scott Morrison is actually going to lead Australia forward.

          KK

          20

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    If the IPCC is God then Satan may well be this robot.
    [ https://www.energid.com/solutions/robotic-autonomous-oil-drilling ]
    Unveiled in March 2017 and only a prototype at this stage, but it is a fully functioning autonomous oil drilling rig.
    The robots are taking over, but don’t cue the Terminator theme music yet. The robots are here to save us – by finding more oil apparently.

    40

  • #
    yarpos

    Odd attitude by the BBC. Bit like the sulky child that withdraws when they realise they cant win the argument and tantrums dont work anymore.

    80

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    8 Sept: UK Times: BBC freezes out climate sceptics
    by Ben Webster
    PIC: (polar bear “stranded” on ice) caption: The broadcaster has updated its policy to say that man-made climate change exists

    The BBC has told staff they no longer need to invite climate-change deniers on to its programmes, suggesting that allowing them to speak was like letting someone deny last week’s football scores.
    It has also asked all editorial staff to take a course on how to report on climate change and said that its coverage of the topic “is wrong too often”…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-freezes-out-climate-sceptics-fqhqmrfs6

    7 Sept: Daily Caller: BBC To Reporters: No Need To Put Global Warming ‘Deniers’ In the News
    by Michael Bastasch
    The BBC has renewed its crackdown on reporters interviewing skeptics in TV, radio and print coverage of man-made global warming…
    The BBC Trust reported in 2014 (LINK) that 200 journalists had gone through training on how to not give “undue attention to marginal opinion” when covering scientific issues, including global warming.
    Global warming skeptics have criticized BBC and other media outlets for trying to silence dissent on the issue.

    BBC did say there were certain occasions where “contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates,” including “debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt.”

    But even then, BBC told reporters to challenge those viewpoints and to “make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective.”

    It doesn’t seem there are similar guidelines for environmentalists or activists making alarmist claims about global warming or those trying to link every single weather event to greenhouse gas emissions…ETC
    https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/07/bbc-reporters-global-warming-deniers/

    40

  • #

    “Sustainability” is the word to pay attention to in the following quote from these BBC guidlines:-

    “There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debate”

    The IPCC science reports make no mention of “Sustainability.”

    There is no sustainability debate because they dare not “debate” it.

    Zero percent of scientists say that anything is sustainable (in the sense that the BBC and environmentalists mean it). In fact I can’t find ANY scientists who voice opinions on the topic at all. It’s mostly evidence-free believers like economists and sociologists who talk about it.

    And yet the political, social and economic transformations that are being enforced in its name are far more totalitarian and harmful than those of just “de-carbonisation.”

    Just for one example – “One Planet Fremantle” in Fremantle, Australia is a plan for “sustainable development” that requires reducing the material standard of living of Fremantle by three quarters. That’s three quarters less food, water, housing, transport commerce etc.

    “http://www.bioregional.com/one-planet-fremantle/” reveals that “Freemantle is the 2nd city to implement the “One Planet” methodology for sustainable development”
    see also:- https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/one-planet

    “One Planet Fremantle” is the same plan as “One Planet Brighton” which is being implemented in Brighton (UK) where I live. It is also being implemented as “One Planet Wales” throughout the entire country of Wales (UK).

    I have documented “One Planet Brighton” on my blog at:-
    http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/sustainable-happiness-is-no-laughing.html
    (or – for some of you -
    http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.com.uk/2011/01/sustainable-happiness-is-no-laughing.html)

    “One planet” is methodology for evaluating “sustainability” that is so precise that it calculates a numerical co-efficient of “sustainability”. That numerical coefficient for Brighton is 3.2 and for all of Wales is 2.7 and it turns out to mean that Brighton is considered to be consuming material resources as if it had 3.2 planets worth of resources available. The plan is to reduce that to the “correct” amount which is One Planets worth – hence the name of the plan – “One Planet Brighton” which is a plan to REDUCE Brighton by 2/3. That is:- 2/3 less food and 2/3 less water etc..

    Australians should be concerned that the methodology calculates that the average Australian consumes the resources of FOUR planets and thus needs to reduce their consumption by THREE-QUARTERS.

    “One Planet Living is an international sustainability initiative based on the idea that we all need to live within the limits of one planet’s natural resources. If everyone continues to live like the average Australian, we would need more than four planets to support the current world population.”
    https://www.landcorp.com.au/innovation/wgv/initiatives/One-Planet-Living/

    see also
    https://cofremantle.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/world-environment-day-one-planet-and-freo/

    One of the things that politicians are demanding that Australians hand over to (australian) politicians is direct control of “Happiness”

    Australian politicians are going to be able to put people in jail for having the wrong kind of happiness.

    Australians should also check out:-
    * One Planet Living Greater Geelong,
    * BARWON Water’s Salt Torquay in Victoria Australia,
    * WestWyck Ecovillage in inner-city Melbourne

    One Planet sustainability is coming for you whereever you live.

    Sustainability is poverty and slavery
    Sustainability is ghetto and gulag
    Sustainability is starving to death in a hovel.
    Sustainability is shivering in the cold and dark so that in the future they can shiver in the cold and dark
    The Age of Green is a new and terrible dark age

    60

    • #

      Well said Dan. Further facts and comments:

      A SUMMARY OF BETRAYAL

      The 2030 Agenda: Australian Government invites the UN to control our rights, laws, freedoms, private property, energy use, & life style
      Graham Williamson
      July 2016
      The UN, having spent more than half a $trillion in 70 years, is an undemocratic, unaccountable international policeman that is in the business of inventing ‘global problems’ which can only be ‘solved’ by a transfer of power and money from nation states to the UN. It has been elevated to this status by cooperative national governments. As noted by Peter Faris QC, thanks to the eager cooperation of successive Australian governments “laws are imported (as some sort of universal truths) from the UN.”
      On 27th September 2015 the UN continued their campaign of global control and undemocratic interference in the affairs of nations around the world with their ‘Transforming Our World‘ 2030 SDG agenda which was signed by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on behalf of all Australians. With a predicted annual price tag of $2-3 trillion, the agenda is to be sold to the people as ‘voluntary’, although the people will be given no choice, and essential provisions will be undemocratically enforced by national governments. Although both major Parties refused to mention this during the recent election campaign, implementation of this undemocratic bipartisan supported agenda commenced in Australia on 1st January 2016.
      The 2030 agenda is a UN driven “master plan” or “roadmap to global socialism” aimed at controlling the planet, including so called ‘climate change’, and the life styles and energy consumption of all people and all countries. Their 15 year goals include:
      • Redistributing the wealth of Australia and other Western nations, under the control of the UN, to poorer countries, especially impoverished dictatorships, around the world. According to the 2030 Agenda, ‘poverty’ can only be addressed by undemocratically giving money and power to the UN.
      • The COP21 Paris climate change agreement, comprising SDG 13, is just one part of the 2030 Agenda. The UN version of climate change though, is about global power and money. As UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres pointed out, the aim of the UN is to bring about a “centralized transformation“… “one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.” Figueres continues: “global society, is moving to the point where we are going to need more and more global governance muscle… Climate change is only the first of the major, major planetary challenges that we are being given, almost as a playground… to go into that playground and exercise our global governance capacity”
      • Controlling lifestyles, energy use, and consumption by defining which activities are accepted by the UN as being ‘sustainable’. Only the UN can control ‘sustainability’.
      • Controlling education around the globe to ensure all children become activists promoting the UN sustainability agenda.
      • Moving towards global enforcement by developing global monitoring, accountability mechanisms, and surveillance systems so “no one is left behind”.
      • The UN 2030 agenda is completely open ended, stating no total costs, and stating no limits as far as loss of sovereignty and enforcement mechanisms are concerned.
      The people have been betrayed. The 2030 Agenda is all about betrayal, UN control, and global socialism, and expanding global law. The United Nations has “conned governments, citizens and business into adopting the 2030 Agenda“, but “business does not understand” that it will destroy “Capitalism and Free Enterprise.” And all this has been made possible by the Australian government, and governments of other ‘democratic’ countries, who invite the UN to interfere in the domestic affairs of their respective countries WITHOUT the democratic approval of the people.
      The choice is clear: do you want UN control and interference, or do you want democracy, freedom and prosperity? Should our destiny be decided by us, or by the dictators that comprise the UN? Do you want democratic Australian laws, or foreign laws dictated by the UN?
      PDF version of this report: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/a-summary-of-betrayal.pdf

      The proto-global supra-national State operating the UN Transformational Agenda has captured Australia. Done deal. It’s over down-under. The only way the Marxist charade will collapse is either with the disintegration of Europe or the UN. Neither could survive without the other.
      Australia signs Framework Agreement to boost cooperation with European Union
      http://www.businessacumen.biz/index.php/25-news/import-export/2582-australia-signs-framework-agreeement-to-boost-cooperation-with-european-union.html
      The signing of the Framework Agreement marks the beginning of a new era of strategic cooperation between Australia and the European Union (EU).
      The agreement will enhance cooperation between Australia and the EU to tackle challenges in foreign and security policy, sustainable development, climate change, and economic and trade matters. It will encourage closer links between leaders across government, business and civil society. (aka. UN Transformational Agenda – implementation date, 2030)
      Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said, “Australia and the EU are natural partners. We share common values and cultural heritage, and are committed to free and open markets.
      “The Framework Agreement builds on our already close ties and aspirations for deeper cooperation and will strengthen Australia’s bilateral relationship with the EU, in an era of unprecedented global development and volatility.”
      Vice-President Federica Mogherini said, “Europe and Australia are geographically very far apart, but we work together on a daily basis on the global stage, as like-minded partners and friends. Ours is a partnership of opportunities: bringing our populations closer together to facilitate exchanges, trade, and sharing knowledge.
      “The agreement we have signed today reflects how strong our ties are already and how they will become stronger through our increased exchanges and cooperation, for the sake of our peoples and of the world.”
      The agreement will guide future engagement between Australia and the EU and complement work towards launching negotiations for a comprehensive, high quality free trade agreement.

      “The Despotic Green New World is coming. Climate alarm is the stalking horse, “sustainable development” is the war cry, and global government is the goal.”

      11

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Thanks Steal, I’ve seen items about agenda 2030 but never really saw it until now.

        I got 3/4 through your post and couldn’t continue.
        I felt like going on strike.

        We really have a lot of work ahead of us but can take heart from the actions of Americans and the British.

        They have shown through Trump and Brexit that populations can rise to the challenge of attempted removal of Democratic process from their lands.

        KK

        01

  • #
    pat

    not worth reading:

    8 Sept: Daily Mail: Manmade climate change is so ‘indisputable’ it does not need to invite ‘deniers’ on to its shows for balance, declares the BBC
    •Fran Unsworth told journalists the issue should be treated in the same way they would report the score in a football match
    •Miss Unsworth’s email also directed staff to training materials stating that the broadcaster had too often failed to strike the right balance on climate change
    •The issue was highlighted last year by a Today programme interview with Lord Lawson, a former Tory chancellor and climate change sceptic
    By Katherine Rushton
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6145115/BBC-says-Manmade-climate-change-indisputable.html

    quite a few of the Lucas replies hope it leads to more censorship – of the Brexiteers, for instance:

    7 Sept: TWEET: Caroline Lucas, Green Party UK: Brilliant to see BBC finally setting things straight! “To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.”
    https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1038108652614418433?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Caroline Lucas would claim Manchester United won even if their opponents scored 2 goals more.

      50

    • #
      Doug

      Rather it’s this
      “To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright publication of scores in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United will lose 0-9 next Saturday. The IPCC has spoken.”

      30

  • #
    pat

    writer India Bourke: LinkedIn: Senior researcher BBC June 2013 – June 2014; MA Oxford Uni; BA Modern History & English, Oxford Uni.

    7 Sept: New Statesman: “We’ve always had spells of warm weather”: how 2018’s UK climate change communication fell short
    How many “hottest ever” summers will it take for climate change scepticism to be dispelled for good?
    By India Bourke
    It’s September now and the UK’s rain is back: soft, wet, and predictable. Yet just a few months ago, things were very different. Global temperature maps turned a fearsome blood-red, as heatwaves raged from London to Lapland.
    The reality of climate change had become so inescapable, it seemed, that even the major press outlets acknowledged the arrival of a new normal. “Scorchers could go on for decades say boffins”, warned the Sun’s frontpage in late July…
    “It is human-induced climate change that has made such a situation as we’ve seen in 2018 more likely,” the Met Office’s Professor Peter Stott spelled out in the accompanying article.

    Yet not everyone took Stott’s message on board. A poll conducted by Deltapoll, reported in the Sun on Sunday, suggested that most people thought the heatwave had “little or nothing to do with climate change”…
    The way the poll was phrased was flawed and leading, experts have explained to DeSmogUK…

    But should the Met Office also prioritise getting such information out in a more timely manner – especially considering the great sway it carries within the UK?…
    When I called up the Met Office’s press team in early July, for a comment on the heatwave’s causation, I received a super explanation of the mechanics of the jet-steam, plus recognition of the way that the background of generalised global warming “creates the potential for extreme weather events to become perhaps a little bit more regular, or more extreme.” Yet I was also told that the climate is “infinitely variable” and so “we’ve always had spells of warm weather, and some of those have been extreme throughout the climate record.”…

    When the notion of “naturally occurring cycles” was articulated by the Met Office’s own blog of 27 July, it was made very clear that global warming sets these natural cycles in a totally new context. Yet if this sense of departure from normality is not stressed, then concepts of cycles and continuity can play into the hands of those who wish to downplay climate change’s man-made cause…

    So what can be done to dispel the myth of hot spells-as-normal? It is encouraging to see the BBC issue a new set of guidelines to journalists covering climate change, as reported by CarbonBrief (LINK). Another possible improvement could perhaps be a shift in the Met Office’s resources so that it can give greater priority to climate change attribution assessments (and speedy, confident communication)…

    With the disturbing impacts of climate change already upon us, there should not still be confusion around this urgent subject. Scientists and journalists alike must do more to ensure that awareness of the climate threat shifts from “mixed” to “clear”.
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/energy/2018/09/we-ve-always-had-spells-warm-weather-how-2018-s-uk-climate-change

    20

  • #
    pat

    Indian cricketers at The Oval using hand warmers, wearing sweaters today:

    8 Sept: UK Express: UK weather forecast SHOCK: Early winter FREEZE to blast Britain due to CLIMATIC ANOMALIES
    BITTER winds and sub-zero temperatures threaten to plunge Britain into an early winter freeze amid predictions Arctic misery will grip the nation WITHIN WEEKS.
    By Nathan Rao
    A dramatic change in the weather is forecast to set in during the second half of October prompting warnings to wrap up for a bone-numbing end to 2018.
    Climatic anomalies associated with colder than normal UK winter weather appear to be building across the globe.
    Solar activity forecasts point towards the sun entering a period of reduced output during winter 2018/19 – a so-called solar minimum…

    Exacta Weather’s James Madden: “However, we should not be lulled into a false sense of security as this does not mean the whole of autumn will be warm nor that this will lead to a milder winter.
    “We expect things to turn significantly colder and more wintry during the second half of autumn and we are facing the prospect of an early big freeze this side of the New Year on current projections.”…

    A spokesman for the UK Met Office said: “These events are due to strong and extensive interactions between the ocean and atmosphere.
    “They are associated with widespread changes in the climate system that last several months, and can lead to significant human impacts affecting things such as infrastructure, agriculture, health and energy sectors.
    “El Niño years are one factor that can increase the risk of colder winters in the UK.”…ETC
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1014602/UK-weather-forecast-latest-met-office-long-range-weather-forecast-uk-winter-snow

    6 Sept: Fox9: Northern Minnesota sees record-breaking cold temperatures Thursday morning
    (KMSP) – The National Weather Service reports some record-breaking cold temperatures for Sept. 6 in northern Minnesota with both International Falls and Hibbing finding themselves waking up to a very chilly morning.
    International Falls reached 28 degree Thursday, breaking the previous record of 31 degrees for Sept. 6. Hibbing fell to 29 degrees, breaking the previous record of 33…
    Summer was nice while it lasted.
    http://www.fox9.com/weather/record-breaking-cold-temps-record-in-northern-minnesota

    40

  • #
    pat

    includes anti-Brexit replies, of course:

    7 Sept: TWEET: Pilita Clark, Financial Times: New BBC guidelines for covering climate change say outright deniers aren’t needed for balance, “in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken”

    from replies:
    Ben See, Literature teacher informing pupils of the scientific reality of the ecological Catastrophe and urging them to act. Please follow @urgenceclimatiq & @ClimateHound

    Hi @pilitaclark

    Does @FT convey the urgency of the #climatecrisis?

    Could you regularly make clear the dire consequences of inaction to your readers, by using terms like #climatebreakdown & #ecologicalcollapse to highlight the threat of runaway warming?…
    PIC: stranded polar bear
    https://twitter.com/pilitaclark/status/1038086955664375808

    7 Sept: Paul Homewood: BBC Issues New Guidelines To Shut Down Debate On Climate Change
    One could hope that this new training course might inform BBC journalists about the realities of climate change, so that they might avoid broadcasting these sort of lies…ETC
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/bbc-issues-new-guidelines-to-shut-down-debate-on-climate-change/

    40

  • #
    pat

    2 Sept: ClimatePsychologyAlliance.org: BBC coverage of Global Climate Emergency
    by Kate Dufton
    The letter below was sent to the BBC on 7th August 2018…
    “We are members of the Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA). We are a group drawn from the psychological professions who aim to contribute our specialist knowledge to the area of climate change. We are not a campaigning group but we have become increasingly troubled by how the BBC covers and does not cover climate change in its news broadcasts. We are writing to you to express our concerns about this…
    It is our contention that the BBC is failing lamentably to fulfill this purpose in relation to its coverage of climate change in its news programmes.

    We know that, without significant and urgent reduction in carbon emissions, we are on course to render the planet uninhabitable for human and animal life. The only scientific debate now is about how much time we have got and whether runaway climate change is already upon us. The gravity and urgency of the situation cannot be overstated, and it is not being reflected in BBC reporting. Climate change deniers have been given a platform on the BBC over a considerable period of time and while a recent complaint about this was upheld, we are not aware of any commitment from the BBC to desist from hosting climate change deniers in the future. In hosting climate change deniers, the BBC assists a well funded climate change denial movement that aims to protect individual and corporate financial interests and undermine public confidence in climate science. We call on the BBC to confirm that it will no longer host climate change deniers and report accurately what 97% of climate scientists are saying which is that the situation is exceptionally serious…ETC
    (20-PLUS SIGNATURES)

    The BBC replied as follows:

    (excerpt) We will seek a range of voices when it comes to climate change policy, as there are different governmental approaches to this as an accepted political issue. Rather than blacklist one side of an argument, we can hear from minority viewpoints when appropriate – that involves introducing them clearly, explaining any vested interests and also setting out the actual context that the vast majority of scientists agree that man-made climate change is occurring.

    We don’t agree that we’re distorting facts or downplaying the significance of research and the local impact of global warming around the world.
    We do cover climate change issues regularly on BBC News here but we realise some parts of our audience would prefer less or more of every possible topic…ETC

    Our reply 31/08/2018…READ ON
    http://www.climatepsychologyalliance.org/explorations/blogs/290-bbc-coverage-of-global-climate-emergencywe-have-become-increasingly-troubled-by-how-the-bbc-covers-and-does-not-cover-climate-change-in-its-news-broadcasts

    20

  • #
    WXcycles

    Well I for one welcome our new Overlords!

    People should not be permitted to disagree. It’s just an invitation to chaos. The more the public are forced to slavishly comply, the better off we’ll all be. Journalism is not nearly enough, we need frank and fearless coercion to eliminate freedom of speech and assembly.

    Now, everyone in one group, yes, you there! … back in line please!

    …. Baaaaaaaabe! … come to Mother baby let me hold you in my arms!

    M’Lud I never wanted him to get in any trouble, why’d he ever have to leave me? Worm your honour let me take him home?

    Craaaazy, over the rainbow, I am crazy, Bars in the window, there must have been a door there in the wall … when I came in!

    Craaaaazy, over the rainbow … he is craaazzzy ….

    BBC: “The Evidence before the court is incontrovertible, there’s no need for the jury to retire! In all my years of judging I have never heard before, of someone more deserving the full penalty of LAW! The way you made them suffer, your exquisite wife and mother, fills me with the urge to defecate!

    But, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear, so I sentence you to be exposed, before your peers! … Tear down the wall! …

    Tear down the wall!
    Tear down the wall!

    50

  • #
    pat

    more bullying by the CAGW mob:

    6 Sept: The Ecologist: BBC ‘political bias is unmissable, risible, almost the stuff of satire – and that’s dangerous’
    The BBC needs to better educate and inform its audience about the severities of climate change. Children’s author SUE HAMPTON sets out five ways in which it can clean up its act.
    (Sue Hampton is an author writing fiction for children, teenagers and adults, all underpinned by green values. She lives in Berkhamsted, Herts, where she is a Trustee for People not Borders supporting refugees, a Green Party member and a co-founder of Plastic-Free Berko)

    The rise of the Far Right began with the BBC platform that made Nigel Farage ubiquitous (see Question Time panel statistics). News often constitutes misinformation as the BBC takes its agenda and even its vocabulary from the predominantly right wing press.

    Climate chaos
    But I am writing about something even more serious, so dangerous as to threaten the future of life on earth.
    Our most prestigious national broadcaster fails to acknowledge the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. It almost never finds it necessary to share the causes, nature and potential outcomes of climate change these experts identify…

    Weather presenters have smiled about sunshine through this summer, while new temperature records have been set in Africa and Australian cities, Taiwan, Georgia and the west coast of US, heat stroke or forest fires have killed (at least 119 in Japan)…

    Presenters seem more interested in challenging Jeremy Corbyn on every move he makes and breath he takes than in challenging a government about to begin a hugely damaging practice that will destroy our chances of achieving the less-than-ambitious targets agreed in Paris…

    Peace and justice
    I am a Green Party member, but my interest is much less in party politics than in the survival of humanity, in peace and justice. I’m a Quaker and a grandma; I believe in acting on what love requires of us.
    Visiting schools as an author, I’m acutely aware that the young who grow up in the knowledge of climate change wonder why the adults in charge – in government, but also in the media – ignore the truth and in doing so, jeopardise their future.
    I therefore suggest that in order to fulfil its responsibility at this crucial time in human history, the BBC needs to…ETC

    Right of Reply
    A BBC spokesperson told The Ecologist: “The BBC is committed to covering all subjects, including climate change, with due impartiality. The term ‘due’ means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation. This does not mean that there has to be equal balance between opposing views and the BBC is mindful of the findings of the 2011 BBC Trust review of impartiality in science coverage and its recommendations on due weight of opinion.

    “In the case of climate change the BBC acknowledges the weight of scientific consensus around climate change and this underpins our reporting of the subject and we always seek to make this clear. This does not mean, however, that we should never interview someone who opposes this consensus and there are times when it is editorially appropriate to hear from a dissenting voice. The BBC is committed to reporting the facts and most recently has covered a range of climate change based [stories] such as the ‘Hothouse Earth’ scenario, pioneering climate change resistant farming and a study from the Nature Communications journal about rising temperatures.”
    https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/06/bbc-political-bias-unmissable-risible-almost-stuff-satire-and-thats-dangerous

    Swedish election: PM says voting for anti-immigration SD is ‘dangerous’
    BBC News-2 hours ago
    Aside from immigration, climate change is an issue many Swedes care about

    Southern Water: Supplies ‘half of demand’ by 2030
    BBC News-7 Sep. 2018
    Southern Water said climate change, a reduction of the amount of water allowed to be taken from natural sources, and a rise in population

    ‘People need to open their eyes’
    BBC News-7 Sep. 2018
    The Swedish teen wants to raise awareness of climate change

    ‘Twitter mining’ for ants, spiders and birds
    BBC News-6 Sep. 2018
    … a data point for scientists interested in the influence of climate change

    Large-scale wind and solar power ‘could green the Sahara’
    BBC News-6 Sep. 2018
    … reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting mitigation of climate change

    The sinking islands of the Southern US
    BBC News-5 Sep. 2018
    The Gullah Geechee and their culture are at risk as climate change

    Nationalist vote set to shatter Swedish calm
    BBC News-4 Sep. 2018
    And it has not been all about immigrants, because climate change has become a top issue for voters

    UN treaty would protect high seas from over exploitation
    BBC News-3 Sep. 2018
    “The half of our planet which is high seas is protecting terrestrial life from the worst impacts of climate change,” said Prof Alex Rogers

    Heatwave: 2018 was the joint hottest summer for UK
    BBC News-3 Sep. 2018
    A spokeswoman told BBC News: “It’s generally accepted that the risk … But many scientists are also asking about the role of climate change

    Pests to eat more crops in warmer world
    BBC News-30 Aug. 2018
    By the end of this century, if climate change continues unabated

    Wheat gene map to help ‘feed the world’
    BBC News-16 Aug. 2018
    “We need to find ways to make sustainable production of wheat in the face of climate change and increasing demand,” he told BBC News.

    Business Daily
    BBC News-11 Aug. 2018
    Many places around the world have seen extreme temperatures this summer. In California, wildfires have devastated an area bigger than New

    IT’S NEVER ENOUGH. DITCH PARIS.

    30

  • #
    neil

    What’s the BBC’s position?

    United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.

    But the global temperature has not risen for 20 years, how could the referee declare a winner when the score is 0-0

    71

  • #
    TdeF

    There was a time when the Man Made Global Warming people would debate with anyone. They were right. History was on their side. It was the moral challenge of a generation. The polar bears were dying. Righteous anger prevailed.

    Fast forward 20 years. Now they will not debate anyone who disagrees. They will not even have a contrary opinion expressed.

    There is no need to debate. The debate is settled.

    It sure is. There is no Global Warming. Why should we have Climate Change?

    120

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      “There is no Global Warming. Why should we have Climate Change?” Thats why it (AGW) is ow called climate change.

      10

  • #
    Ruairi

    More journalists now being schooled,
    And trained on how to be fooled,
    By the I.P.C.C.,
    Just to nod and agree,
    With their warming, which has cyclically cooled.

    130

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    BBC tells journalists that IPCC is God, can not be wrong –”No debate allowed”

    And so did Al Gore. And for that matter, so did a so called professor of science at the college where I taught after he showed Gore’s Inconvenient Truth on campus. I’m going to be a gentleman and not insert the word in that headline that I really think is the truth.

    No more debate has been possible is the response from tyrants and fools throughout history. Luckily some in our past debated the King of England with more persuasive means or we would speak the same version of English you in Oz do. And that’s not a comment on the relative merits of either variant. It’s simply a thank you to those who stood up and fought the tyrant.

    Who is fighting now?

    40

  • #
    GD

    Musicians and singers generally are not the sharpest knives in the drawer when it comes to science. That in itself is an understatement.

    However, Louis Armstrong got it right in 1967 when he recorded ‘What A Wonderful World’. It was the biggest selling single in the UK in 1968.

    Twenty years later it was still a wonderful world. Louis’s original recording was re-released in 1988 and became a hit again. With the advent of digital music, the same recording clocked up well over two million downloads.

    Perhaps it’s time to release this song with its uplifting message again.

    The planet isn’t being destroyed, coal-fired power stations aren’t polluting our communities or killing the Great Barrier Reef. The temperature isn’t rising, though I wish it would.

    And it is a wonderful world!

    Louis Armstrong – What A Wonderful World ( 1967 )

    61

  • #
    J Martin

    I am pleased to say that none of my money goes to the BBC as I don’t have a television. When I stay in a hotel and turn on the TV in the room the BBC mention climate change within 5 minutes no matter what you watch so I turn it off again. I shan’t buy a TV until I right reach the age when the license is free or the BBC realise they have been complete dickheads and stop with this climate change nonsense.

    30

  • #
    Zigmaster

    The reality is that if global warming or climate change had not been thought of no person would’ve logically thought to themselves ” my God it’s hot today or ” the climate is so different to when I was young, or the sea level never used to be like this” etc. They also would never have thought I wonder why that is . I know it must be that invisible trace gas CO2 vital for human existence that caused it. It is only the indoctrination of the average person that has made people believe the new reality, a new reality shaped by a huge number of vested interests. It is as if via some magical process people have become hypnotised to believe in suggestions they are told that to any normal person are not true .

    30

  • #
    yarpos

    IPCC predictions are never wrong, but like many things they are adjusted as they drift away from reality and look more and more stupid over time.

    40

  • #

    “However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier”….like when we can deliberately misrepresent their statements to make them appear unreasonable and irrational.

    “There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates”….like when they can be falsely represented as being akin to Flat-Earthers or UFO advocates.

    30

  • #
    Robdel

    Just stop watching/listening to the BBC and ABC. When they lose their audience they will disappear.

    60

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I don’t want to be defending the BBC but they do produce some good drama — at least some of it is good. And it gets picked up by our PBS stations (Public Broadcasting System) and run here. BBC shows run 55 minutes and PBS can devote 55 out of 60 minutes to a program. Unfortunately commercial stations can only devote 40 minutes out of every hour to programming and advertising during the other 20 pays the bills.

    PBS is not the same as NPR (National Public Radio) which is heavily government funded and would go out of business if it wasn’t because it spouts off the worst drivel of the left continuously. PBS is listener supported and while not exactly Fox News, has to be selling what people are buying or go out of business like anyone else.

    Anyway, I thought you’d like to know that not everything at the BBC is worthless, only their journalism standards.

    I sometimes wonder which of us has the better deal.

    10

  • #
    Gazman

    I actually think there might be substance to comparing the climate change industry to a game of soccer.
    They are both full of prima donnas who fake fouls to gain an unfair advantage over their oponents. Their opponents all too often accept the deception without calling it out.
    Soccer players and climate alarmists are paid obscene amounts of money to produce absolutely nothing.
    And after what seems like an eternity of fruitless to and fro, final outcomes will be decided on arbitrary decisions that have nothing to do with the preceding match-time.
    No wonder the spectators are rioting.

    50

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    I agree with the article, you can’t have a technological society without consuming fuel, and consuming fuel means producing heat. That heat must be dissipated into the environment (free good in economic terms) and then, mostly, into space. If even a tiny fraction of this extra heat is retained in the environment then warming will occur. We produced the heat, therefore we contributed to the warming. I know this will be unpopular here, but since you support free speech I should be allowed to post

    31

    • #
      AndyG55

      “If even a tiny fraction of this extra heat is retained in the environment then warming will occur
      We produced the heat, therefore we contributed to the warming.”

      You have just shown how LITTLE you comprehend about atmospheric physics.

      Well done. :-)

      10

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      You display complete ignorance of the quantitative aspects of the analysis with respect to daily insolation.

      I can assure you that there is very little warmth left in the environment as each new day starts over.

      Just imagine the temperature IF the Sun didn’t rise tomorrow.

      Only a few locations in the belt around the equator would survive more than 24 hours without the Sun.

      There is no way that Human activity can overheat the earth.

      KK

      00

    • #
      Carbon500

      Peter Fitzroy: Vist Roy Spencer’s website at the University of Huntsville in Alabama (http://www.drroyspencer.com/) and have a look at his satellite measurements of global temperatures.
      How anyone can look at these measurements and claim that we are heading for CO2-induced Armageddon is beyond me.
      Also read his book ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder’ for plenty of real-world information, data, and discussion.
      How all the alleged dangerous man-made global warming nonsense ever gained such traction is easy to see. A nebulous concept, sold to the politicians whose response has been ‘What if they’re right? We must do something!’
      Add to this a coterie of second-rate scientists with their noses firmly in the public money trough, and off we go.
      We also have plenty of pseudo-scientific claptrap which has been used to spread alarm – for example mosquitoes spreading malaria North due to global warming – read Professor Paul Reiter’s comments for the truth on this.
      Then there’s ocean acidification. We’re told that the oceans are 30% more acidic due to mankind – absolute drivel, but a fiddle which is easily seen for what it really is by looking at how the pH measurement system actually works.
      Trust no-one’s view on all this.
      Do your own research, question everything, ask how all the claims are justified, and what’s actually happened since the IPCC was formed in 1988.
      Dangerous man-made global warming? I don’t believe a word of it. Billions of Dollars wasted which could have been usefully spend on so many other things.

      00

  • #
    Phoenix44

    “Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position.”

    Quite the non-sequiter there. There is a world of difference between “proven science” and the “best science”.

    00

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      I don’t know what a sequitur is let alone the non version.

      Are they big?

      Do they report to the unloved?

      Can they reproduce?

      Science is full of unanswered questions.

      KK

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Point taken no problem, thanks Jo.

    00

  • #
    Gerry, England

    Yeah, like when is the result of a football match ever questioned? Oh, yes, the England match on Saturday when England’s equaliser should have stood. And why would a ‘video assistant referee’ be needed if the ref is always right. Fake analogy from the fake news BBC.

    The problem with UK journalists these days is that they aren’t. A journalist is supposed to research a story but Brexit has exposed them completely as just basing articles on what they are told. And so we get personality news based on ‘he says, she says’, and when they are both equally ignorant, the public learn nothing.

    20

  • #
    ferdinand

    The BBC is coming towards the end of its life partly because of these unintelligent assertions. It is getting fewer and fewer listeners and viewers and just does not, or will not, see the causes. How blind are fools.

    00