BBC to be investigated over climate science bias

BBC: impartial climate reporting

And not a moment too soon. The Daily Mail reports that the BBC Trust, the broadcaster’s governing body, has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints about bias, especially on climate matters:

The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the ‘accuracy and impartiality’ of its output in this increasingly controversial area.

The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.

Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been deliberately misrepresented by the BBC.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.

In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC’s stance on climate change.

Peter Barron said it was ‘not the corporation’s job to save the planet’. His comments were backed up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was ‘leading’ the audience, rather than giving them ‘information’.

Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.

His comments had come after the broadcaster had already been accused of not being objective on green issues and of handing over the airwaves to campaigners. In 2007 it had devoted a whole day of programming to the Live Earth concerts.

I wouldn’t hold your breath (except to reduce your carbon footprint, of course).

Read it here. (h/t Climate Realists)

Moonbat media plays down CRU leak

Moonbat media

Moonbat media

Of course we could rely on the lefty media, in thrall to the global warming bandwagon, to trivialise the significance of the leaked emails and documents.

The Guardian (UK) huffs and puffs and wheels out the “poor ikkle alarmists” routine:

Over the past five years, Mann and Jones in particular have been subjected not only to legitimate scrutiny by other researchers, but also to a co-ordinated campaign of personal attacks on their reputation by ‘sceptics’. If the hacked e-mails are genuine, they only show that climate researchers are human, and that they speak badly in private about ‘sceptics’ who accuse them of fraud.

It is inevitable as we approach the crucial meeting in conference in Copenhagen in December that the sceptics would try some stunt to try to undermine a global agreement on climate change. There is no smoking gun, but just a lot of smoke without fire. (source)

And in the same paper Michael Mann gets very hot under the collar: [Read more…]

Jo Nova: Rudd the global bully

Rudd the bully

Rudd the bully

In response to Kevin Rudd’s extraordinary tirade at the Lowy Institute last week, Jo Nova has crafted a brilliant article:

In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.

It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutche Bank, and HSBC.

Read it all.

The ABC: Labor's climate propaganda machine

Labor propaganda machine in action

Labor propaganda machine in action

Whilst the Howard government was given a rough ride by the ABC over every single one of its policies, Kevin Rudd and his cronies are allowed to get away with almost anything. Kerry O’Brien savaged the Coalition on a daily basis on the 7.30 Report during the Howard era, constantly interrupting and badgering, never letting them get a word in edgeways, forever ridiculing and humiliating, but with Labor he’s about as scary as Kerry-Anne (O’Brien’s a lefty of course, so it’s to be expected).

Since Labor has been in power, the ABC has continued in the same vein… except against the Opposition. It therefore comes as no surprise that tonight’s edition of Four Corners will focus not on the government’s flawed ETS and the quiet signing away of billions of taxpayer dollars to developing countries under a Copenhagen treaty, but on the Opposition’s response to it.

Reporter Sarah Ferguson goes inside the conservative parties to find out what the party members really think about climate change and why they’re so reluctant to back their leader.

In October Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull said, “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.”

It was a potentially dangerous strategy because it tied his leadership to a single issue. Just how risky that declaration was is only now becoming clear.

At that stage coalition MPs had clear doubts about supporting an emissions trading scheme but now a range of Nationals and Liberals have told Four Corners they don’t believe that climate change is primarily man-made.

“The earth is not actually warming, we still have rain falling … we can go outside and not cook.”

“If the question is, do people believe or not believe that human beings …are the main cause of the planet warming, then I’d say a majority don’t accept that position.”

This may surprise many voters and it’s led some to ask if Malcolm Turnbull’s position as leader is now untenable.

The problems for the opposition leader are reinforced by Liberal insiders who say his handling of the issue was a “folly”. Another says Malcolm Turnbull is simply too “green” for the party he leads. Yet another senior figure justifies his refusal to support his leader’s views by saying it’s important for him to openly question the idea that man is changing the climate at all.

There are so many questions the ABC should be asking Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong – like why Rudd hysterically condemned all who disagree with him on climate as dangerous (a small step away from silencing critics), or why they are keeping so quite about the Copenhagen draft treaty, or why they unquestioningly put their faith in the science from the IPCC, which has been discredited as a politically motivated and biased organisation to the core? But no – they choose to use it as an opportunity to further expose issues within the Opposition.

The only tangential benefit may be to strengthen the position of the sceptics within the Coalition, and weaken Turnbull’s position as a result, but I doubt it.

Thanks to the ABC, we are in a situation where an opposition is under more scrutiny than a serving government.

Read it here.

Why are we sceptics? Because we're MENTALLY DERANGED!

ABC bias incarnate

ABC bias incarnate

Yes, and if you challenge me on that I will split your skull in two with this axe.

But that’s the level of debate on Margot O’Neill’s execrable blog “Countdown to Copenhagen“. She just can’t get her tiny brain around why people are deserting the climate change bandwagon in droves. She just can’t understand that people are starting to see through the smoke and mirrors of Al Gore, so she, along with all the other alarmist fruitcakes, have to think of another reason. We’re all mentally unbalanced. We’ve been here before, of course, but here’s the ABC, our national broadcaster, peddling it as fact:

CSIRO’s former climate director, Dr Graeme Pearman, suffered a personal crisis after confronting this question before deciding to study psychology, which he describes as the new frontier in climate change:

“Behavioural issues are likely to be much more important than the development of improved descriptions of exactly what happens or might happen to the climate. These are the main barriers to the actions that are needed.

Mr Gore says he conducted 30 “solutions summits” with leading international experts to discuss how to design the multi-faceted battle plan in his book. They included brain scientists who told him the climate threat seemed too remote and unprecedented to trigger survival reflexes. In short, primordial human wiring is tuned to the likes of carnivorous predators, lightning strikes and blood-curdling rival clansmen.

Harvard University’s Daniel Gilbert has provided a sharply amusing account of how global warming challenges our evolutionary psychology – if it doesn’t make us duck or twitch or even feel repulsed, can it really be so bad?

Behavioural scientists also told him that “Simply laying out the facts won’t work … The barrage of negative, even terrifying, information can trigger denial or paralysis or, at the very least, procrastination.” Sounds like a bad rap for his Academy Award winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, which helped raise global awareness of the issue.

But scientists told Mr Gore that the human brain can commit to multigenerational goals although this can be undermined by constant stress and excessive distraction, both of which abound in modern society.

In other words, don’t bother with the climate, just focus on using psychiatry to brain-train everyone to believe unquestioningly in the holy and immutable word of Al God.

Read it here (if you must)

Gore's new work of fiction: "Our Choice"

The follow-up to the first work of fiction, An Inconvenient Truth, which comprised 95% political propaganda and 5% actual science.

Al [Gore] has released a follow-up to 2006 best-seller An Inconvenient Truth, the former US vice president’s rallying cry against global warming.

Mr Gore, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 following the book and movie versions of An Inconvenient Truth [but then again, they just gave it to Obama for doing nothing, and previously to Jimmy Carter, so it’s hardly something to brag about – Ed], aims to offer clear strategies to tackle climate change in Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.

It offers solutions that we can – and must – begin to implement today,” Mr Gore said.

Of one thing we can be certain: every single one of those “solutions” will make Al Gore even richer than he is today.

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: