|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 25, 2011 11:48:16 GMT 1
Nov 24, 2011 BBC Alex Kirby (BBC Environment correspondent) in email 4894 on the BBC's neutrality.
"Yes, glad you stopped this (he is referring to an article produced by the Marshall Institute and The UK Scientific Alliance) -- I was sent it too, and decided to spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats."
------
BBC impartiality, ho, ho!
It's hard to disagree, particularly on reading some of his output.
Thanks to Bishop Hill.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 25, 2011 11:51:54 GMT 1
Alex Kirby(BBC environment Correspondent)
"It is not fanciful to envisage our children living in a Britain where the Gulf Stream has ceased to flow, and where climate change means winters as cold as northern Canada's."
Buffy Minton puzzles
I'm confused. Aren't we supposed to be living in a Britain where our poor children "won't even know what snow is"? [As per UK Met Office's David Viner's AGW prognostications]
--------
Never mind, Buffy, it's all grist to the BBC's climate change mill!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 25, 2011 11:55:21 GMT 1
From an Alex Kirby speech, Kirby giving advice to his junior journalists:
... Don't know too much about climate change. When I was being interviewed for the job of BBC environment correspondent someone asked me a question which I was completely unable to answer. So I said: "I know so little about the environment that you ought to appoint me as your correspondent, because I will not be able to confuse the listeners." It was true then – and it's true now. I have a very short memory span, and every time I have to write something about climate change I have to look up the latest statements from the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) or the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) or whoever it is. In the same way, you don't need a science degree – in fact you are probably better off without one. Not long ago I met an Australian journalist who summed up the understanding of science in her newsroom. "If it's green and wriggles, it's biology," she said. "If it stinks, it's chemistry. And if it doesn't work, it's physics. That's all the science we know."
You certainly won't be able to confuse your audience if that's all the science you know.
----------
And the BBC is now looking to recruit another Science Editor who does not need a science qualification?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 25, 2011 12:02:22 GMT 1
Simon Anthony reported
I saw another impartial (ho, ho) BBC environmental correspondent on the discussion panel at a lecture given today in Oxford by Myles Allen. With a masterstroke of tact and diplomacy, Richard Black managed to alienate an audience which otherwise seemed very sympathetic to the established view of AGW.
Apropos of nothing very much, Mr Black opined that climate sceptics were mainly middle-aged, white, male, Anglo-Saxons (Mawmas?). It wasn't at all clear why he felt the need to say this. I think he meant to be insulting in some way but, as he was sitting on a panel 5 of whose 6 members were Mawmas, in front of an audience which was dominated by Mawmas, talking about climate science whose academic luminaries are mainly Mawmas while himself being a Mawmas, his motives were rather mysterious.
Rather less ambiguous was the distinct murmur of disapproval from his audience and the slightly embarrassed silence that followed.
Bishop Hill Nov 24, 2011
-------
Do I count as an honorary Mawmas? How lovely!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 25, 2011 12:04:20 GMT 1
Lets admit it, the BBC climate coverage is in the hands of opinionated, ignorant, political activists. Even The Guardian displays more climate rationality than the BBC, that's how BAD things are!
Breaking News from a BBC Environment Correspondent!
"Climatology research scientists say.............LIFE EXTINCTION IMMINENT SOMETIME SOONISH."
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 25, 2011 12:36:48 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Nov 25, 2011 15:40:42 GMT 1
Buffy Minton doesn't seem to know much about climate change. One potential consequence is that the Gulf Stream might stop. This would leave us with a climate similar to other countries at our latitude - i.e. very cold in winter.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 25, 2011 16:58:25 GMT 1
If you knew anything on the subject rather than spouting green propaganda, you'd know that the gulf stream has zero effect on our climate. The North Atlantic Drift has a minute effect. It's the Northerly current flowing up the continental shelf to the west that keeps us warm for our latitude. More eco-twaddle.
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Nov 25, 2011 18:50:51 GMT 1
If you knew anything on the subject rather than spouting green propaganda, you'd know that the gulf stream has zero effect on our climate. The North Atlantic Drift has a minute effect. It's the Northerly current flowing up the continental shelf to the west that keeps us warm for our latitude. More eco-twaddle. You're aving a laff, ain't yer son? "Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream"Surface temperature in the western North Atlantic. North America is black and dark blue (cold), the Gulf Stream red (warm). Source: NASA" upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Golfstrom.jpg/300px-Golfstrom.jpg
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 25, 2011 19:18:21 GMT 1
If you knew anything on the subject rather than spouting green propaganda, you'd know that the gulf stream has zero effect on our climate. The North Atlantic Drift has a minute effect. It's the Northerly current flowing up the continental shelf to the west that keeps us warm for our latitude. More eco-twaddle. You're aving a laff, ain't yer son? "Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream"Surface temperature in the western North Atlantic. North America is black and dark blue (cold), the Gulf Stream red (warm). Source: NASA" upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Golfstrom.jpg/300px-Golfstrom.jpgGood illustration of my point striker. If you look at your map, you'll see that the warm current fizzles out south of Newoundland. For your homework could you tell us how far Newfoundland is from the UK?
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Nov 25, 2011 20:40:04 GMT 1
UK is in northern Europe. Penny dropped yet? If not, please read again. 'Points zéro', I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 25, 2011 21:10:11 GMT 1
"...the Gulf Stream might stop. This would leave us with a climate similar to other countries at our latitude - i.e. very cold in winter."
I pointed out this was nonsense.
You confirmed it... "there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be due to the North Atlantic drift,"
This is slightly misleading as the NAD has a very minor effect compared to the shelf current. So the Gulf Stream actually does almost nothing to our climate.
[snip]
|
|
|
Post by Joanne Byers on Nov 25, 2011 21:32:52 GMT 1
Stick to the thread topic, please, guys - the "impartiality of the BBC (ho ho)" as revealed in the latest email disclosures, the conflict of interest scams and the general scientific incompetence revealed.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by striker16 on Nov 25, 2011 21:40:05 GMT 1
I am not prepared to accept David Attenborough, who represents the BBC, has not thoroughly examined the evidence for AGW and concluded it has been demonstrated. Are you calling him a liar?
|
|
|
Post by Joanne Byers on Nov 25, 2011 21:45:46 GMT 1
Striker16
Is that an example of what some call the "argument from authority"?
David Attenborough can be as mistaken as the next man, I'm afraid.
If this is the level of "debate" I'm closing the thread.
|
|