Skip to content or view screen version

Stop BBC Global Warming denial

R.A.McCartney | 21.06.2011 15:35 | Analysis | Climate Chaos | Other Press

BBC staff are required to refer material on some subjects to higher management before it is broadcast. This system should be extended to stop any further broadcasts of material which either explicitly or implicitly contradicts the science on Global Warming.

A few months ago a panellist on Radio 4’s “Questions, Questions” program said that temperatures in Europe were higher during the Early Medieval period than they are today. This claim has been thoroughly disproved and should not have been broadcast. This program was a Whistledown Production for BBC Radio 4.

Comedian Steve Punt has railed against the fact that such untruths about climate keep being repeated, despite having been disproved. Substantial numbers of people are being conned into doubting the threat from Global Warming. This means they do not act to counteract the threat. It also acts as a restraint on the action which policy makers are willing to take.

The BBC is possibly the most important news organisation in the world, it is publicly owned, and it has a legal duty to educate and inform its audience. Global Warming is the most important issue our species has ever faced. It is of the utmost importance that the BBC should tell the truth about it, and only the truth.

The biggest source of misinformation about Global Warming is not explicit, but implicit. Business, economic, and political forecasting is given far more airtime than climate science. All such forecasts about the rest of this century seem to assume that Global Warming will not be a serious problem. This is crazy. Last year India’s economic growth was affected by the bad harvest the previous year, and this year Australia’s economic growth has been hit by the terrible weather it has suffered (drought in the south west, storms and flooding in the north east). However, this is nothing to what is expected in the future. On his return from the 2010 UN climate summit in Cancun, Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said that we were “on track” for a 5˚C rise in global temperature by 2100. According to The Guardian (30 May, page 7) this would render “uninhabitable” the tropics, the sub tropics and even “the lower mid-latitudes”.

In a 2010 Hardtalk program on BBC News 24, Zeinab Badawi interviewed Stephen King HSBC Chief Economist and author of “The World in 2050”. King and Badawi talked seriously about China and India becoming the dominant economic powers in the world. Their discussion ranged as far as 2060, and even at this late date neither of them seemed to think that Global Warming would have any effect on economic growth. If India is going to become “uninhabitable” by 2100, surely that must adversely affect economic growth by 2060!

Right now, the BBC World service (TV & Radio) is broadcasting a major season entitled “Power of Asia”. This too is spouting rubbish about how Asian economies will dominate in the future. Clearly, the powers that be at the BBC do not believe scientific predictions about Global Warming. They prefer the predictions of economists, even though they couldn’t even predict the banking crash of 2008 a few days before it happened!

The BBC should ensure that all predictions about the future which it broadcasts, including those about economics, are scientifically credible. It should state what level of global warming it assumes will take place by 2100, and its justification for that assumption. If anyone makes a prediction which is nonsense, and the BBC feels it needs to broadcast that prediction for some reason, then it should at least point out why it is nonsense. The judgement on what is scientifically credible should ideally be made with the advice of an independent panel of scientists, possibly elected by members of the Royal Academy.

R.A.McCartney

Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

Google

21.06.2011 15:56

Well I just randomly Googled medieval English temperatures and I found the following claim in the attached link. It may be right or wrong, but why do you say that this has been disproved?

"Temperatures in Europe were higher during the Early Medieval period than they are today."


 http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html

Mr Fish


One of the few freedoms left for an individual ...

21.06.2011 16:13

is being able to give an opinion. A commentator on a BBC programme may say what he wishes, in the same way that commentators here ought to be able to express opinions freely.
If I want to deny the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is not Indymedia's place [or it ought not to be] to censor me.

bentham


but freedom

21.06.2011 16:22

of speech....
is the first thing that MUST be controled when the WRONG message is being sent.

its not about correct truth only Good Truths

anon


But they were right

21.06.2011 16:37

My first point is that people have opinions and it is no one place to say people are not allowed to say what they think.You can debate/ argue but not censor people.
My second point is that he is right about temperatures, they were much higher in the medieval period. This almost is almost a fact with the scientific and historical evidence. Some sources admitted to lying (by saying their was no medieval hot period because of governmental pressure to 'prove' global warming) so be careful. There is actually NO evidence global warming is caused by human activities at all (please provide me one an independent source).
Ironically global warming caused by human means is one thing that activists and government appear to be brainwashed to believe, but please actually consider evidence look up 'apocalypse? No!' which proved Al gore lied about 9 examples of the effects of global warming and provides evidence which proves corporations lied about the evidence for the man made hypothesis to global warming.

Gman


One nut or many?

21.06.2011 16:44

I wonder if all these comments were made by the same nutcase? They are close together in time.

Sane person


@ Mr Fish

21.06.2011 17:29

There's a simple answer: the recorded medieval warming temperatures are *regional* and not representative of the global average temperatures.

Here's a good article with further links to peer-reviewed studies to support

The Real ClimateGate, Part 2: Why the IPCC stands stronger than ever
 http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2010/09/real-climategate-part-2-why-ipcc-stands.html

Hope this clears this up, thanks.

G


Oh really..............

21.06.2011 17:34

>> BBC staff are required to refer material on some subjects to higher management before it is broadcast. This system should be extended to stop any further broadcasts of material which either explicitly or implicitly contradicts the science on Global Warming.

WTF!!! Why??????? Because you say so?! Utter tosh - how very impartial of you:
"All material that does not fit GW is explicitly banned."
Wow, we'd make great progress with science there.


>> A few months ago a panellist on Radio 4’s “Questions, Questions” program said that temperatures in Europe were higher during the Early Medieval period than they are today. This claim has been thoroughly disproved and should not have been broadcast. This program was a Whistledown Production for BBC Radio 4.

No it hasn't been thoroughly disproved at all.

I didn't even read the rest of the post as you are so obviously completely biased and just concerned about censorship.

fed up of idiots


So what efect would this have on Indymedia?

21.06.2011 18:49

'of speech.... is the first thing that MUST be controled when the WRONG message is being sent.'

That would shut the troofers up!

bentham


Extreme weather is a scientific fact

21.06.2011 19:43


Fearce monsoons & typhoons start to hit Asia. -FACT
Weather problems are already damaging harvests all around the world. -FACT



But what to do?
The Koyoto Agreement is just handing billions to corupt russia for their giant carbon credit fraud, I dont see how that willl help matters. Has russia really halved their CO2 since 1990? I dont think so! Japan pulled out of that agreement and so could we!

It would be better spent making food production more resiliant. And providing active support to enviromental victims. And even reforesting Africa. The real work is sorting out a sustainable electricity supply. Doing nothing is not an option.


The *art* of fckwit totaliarianism!
Your strange call for the Royal Academy to control science policy is truely bizarre.

r


FACTS

21.06.2011 23:32

> Fearce monsoons & typhoons start to hit Asia. -FACT
> Weather problems are already damaging harvests all around the world. -FACT

Monsoons and typhoons have always hit Asia. -FACT
Weather problems have always damaged crops. -FACT

You only need to look at the historical futures market for agricultural products to see that climate issues have always affected crops. And you can go further back with historical records. -FACT

No one is saying that the climate will remain the same temperature etc. forever
Only climate idiots actually think that the temperature will remain constant without human interference. -FACT

facts


Anything else would be bizarre

23.06.2011 13:31

"Your strange call for the Royal Academy to control science policy is truely bizarre"

What I wrote was "The judgement on what is scientifically credible should ideally be made with the advice of an independent panel of scientists, possibly elected by members of the Royal Academy"

Essentially, this is a call for judgements to be made by qualified and impartial people. Anything else would be bizarre.

R.A.McCartney