11 2 mins 11 yrs

THE BBC was criticised by climate change sceptics yesterday after it emerged that their views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinion.

In a report by its governing body, the BBC Trust, the corporation was urged to focus less on opponents of the “majority consensus” in its programmes. It said coverage should not be tailored to represent a “false balance” of opinion if one side came from a minority group.

What a bunch of hypocrites. The BBC has been to the fore in advocating eco-lunacy and anytime a critics such as myself was afforded a few nano-seconds to argue that this is faux science we were shot down anyway. Now we are not to be given even those few seconds. The science is settled, I guess. The facts are clear, it seems. AGW is an article of faith for the BBC and none may dissent on the license-payer funded State Broadcaster.

Just one small detail…

I suppose one could extend the logic of this report to suggest that Islam should stop getting the vast amount of time it enjoys on the State Broadcaster given the small minority of people who belong to this faith? Looking forward to the BBC pursuing their own logic.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

11 thoughts on “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED FOR THE BIASED BBC..

  1. So that’s the “majority consensus (of scientists and North London Guardian readers)”.

    Let’s have real “majority consensus” reporting if that’s what the BBC is after.

    Report it on the EU, immigration, islam, fascist equality laws and across the vast range of Power Elite opinion which the BBC inflicts on a population whose traditions and culture have been trashed for so long by the state broadcaster.

    Yes, what a thoroughly good idea.

  2. Is Monckton still describing himself as “a member of the House of Lords”? What a charlatan.

    Anyone who takes Monckton seriously needs to get help.

  3. The BBC’s coverage of scientific issues should reflect the degree of disagreement within the scientific community- not the disagreement within the political commentariat.

  4. Peter – which parts of Monckton’s speech can you show to be incorrect i.e. factually incorrect and not merely at variance with your opinions?

  5. Allan

    Monckton has been totally discredited, many times, as you must surely know.

    “The problem is that people like Lord Monckton, Ian Plimer, Christopher Booker and James Delingpole act as an echo-chamber for each other’s discredited beliefs. However nutty their views are, they will be affirmed by other members of the closed circle. Speaking and listening only to each other, as we saw at the Heartland Institute conference last month, their claims become ever weirder and more extreme as they isolate themselves from reality. In circumstances like this, it doesn’t matter how comprehensively they are discredited, they will merely dig their holes even deeper.”

    Link here

  6. Peter – watch the video and after having done so, please state clearly which parts of Monckton’s speech are factually incorrect. The first speech by Monckton claims that Australia’s carbon tax will make an immeasurably small difference to the man-made component of atmospheric CO2 and thus will make no measurable difference to temperature, even if the theory is correct. He also claims that the cost of carbon tax exceeds the cost of adapting to the warming, also assuming that the theory holds. Neither of these points were refuted so, can you focus on the claims of Monckton and refute them?

  7. Allan

    “Lord” Monckton may well be right aboot the uselessness of a carbon tax in Australia. But this loon denies the basic science of greenhouse gasses. He claims that we can go on adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere for ever, with zero consequences for surface temperatures. Do you share that view?

  8. The basic science of greenhouse gases? That’s demonstrable in a test lab – but the Earth’s atmosphere is a complex system and its behaviour cannot be simulated: it’s far too complicated. I don’t agree that we can add CO2 forever without consequences, although Monckton never said that, and it is clear that CO2 level is a minor determinant of atmospheric temperature, but a major determinant in plant growth. Because of the latter, higher levels of CO2 would be beneficial.

  9. Thanks Allan.

    And thank your deity for “scientists” like Monckton, who tell you and the rest of Rightworld just what you want to hear: let it rip.

Comments are closed.