BBC's biased reporting of Global Warming

[JM]

YouTube - BBC's biased reporting of Global Warming - the consequences

 

[michael32]

YouTube - BBC's biased reporting of Global Warming - the consequences

Good link.

But you're wasting your time if you think any of the global warming cult worshippers are going to pay attention. Anything that goes against their worldview just HAS to be not only wrong, but the product of EVIL flat earthers.

 

[rambot]

"This industry has literally 10 of thousands of jobs.... talk about vested interests".
That is ludicrious; how many people are employed in the carbon fuels industry?

"None of the climate changes in the last 1000 years was caused by CO2."
So what? Really, why would that mean it cannot be a factor now?

"If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas then the temperature will go up but the ice core record shows exactly the opposite". Don't see a cite for a graph, even a SHRED of evidence anywhere in this speech and while I couldn't be bothered to watch the whole thing, I feel pretty confident it is devoid of these tools.

Probably 75-80% of this video is vepid misrepresentation of nonscientific pseudostories. There's a LOT of conspiratorial language in there.

 

[tinkle]

Ever heard of ocean acidification? It's when the Carbon dioxide dissolves into the ocean from the atmosphere. We pump unimaginable amounts of CO2 into the air that later end up in the ocean. Don't worry about global warming, it's more likely we'll destroy the ocean ecosystem first.

 

[rambot]

Good link.

But you're wasting your time if you think any of the global warming cult worshippers are going to pay attention. Anything that goes against their worldview just HAS to be not only wrong, but the product of EVIL flat earthers.

Just wanted to point out that i actually DID watch the majority of the video.... and you are right, in didn't change my mind. And it didn't change my mind because it was a load of horse hooey. It has nothing to do with my "biases"; if y'all would provide something of substance to comment on, you'd see some movement.

Worshipping at the altar of facts and data. I wish I was free from the shackles of rationality as pleb skeptics are.

 

[michael32]

Just wanted to point out that i actually DID watch the majority of the video.... and you are right, in didn't change my mind. And it didn't change my mind because it was a load of horse hooey. It has nothing to do with my "biases"; if y'all would provide something of substance to comment on, you'd see some movement.

Worshipping at the altar of facts and data. I wish I was free from the shackles of rationality as pleb skeptics are.

I didn't expect it, or anything else, to change your mind. And we don't need to change it. Time will prove you wrong, and we simply have to prevent you from doing any political and economic damage in the meantime.

Free from the shackles of rationality isn't what you need to be. Being able to understand that, despite your arrogance you don't have all the answers, is what you need to be. Your 'Oh, I see we were completely wrong in how we were looking at that' moment will eventually come. Those of us who have faith in science, but still have common sense, just have to put up with you in the meantime.

 

[rambot]

I didn't expect it, or anything else, to change your mind. And we don't need to change it. Time will prove you wrong, and we simply have to prevent you from doing any political and economic damage in the meantime.

So what if YOU are wrong and 97% of climatologists who study the issue are right? I mean, hypothetically, what if?

Free from the shackles of rationality isn't what you need to be. Being able to understand that, despite your arrogance you don't have all the answers, is what you need to be. Your 'Oh, I see we were completely wrong in how we were looking at that' moment will eventually come. Those of us who have faith in science, but still have common sense, just have to put up with you in the meantime.

Here's the thing see, there is virtually no evidence to contradict what climatologists believe. There is a miniscule amount of evidence that provides alternate theories (that have not been addressed) but nothing other than bunkity bunk science (and rationalizations) that attempts to debunk the current stream of though. The "flattenning" of the hockey stick (and minimizing of the, so called "Little Ice Age") graph is the grandest example of that EVER.
Sadly, when explanations are presented in a way meant to provide you with greater understanding, they are ignored.


I imagine that there would be water skiing at the north pole and skeptics would still be tanning on northern Baffin Island in September saying "Yeah but, no but, yea but, no but....". There is absolutely no scientific evidence to dismiss anthropocentric climate change.

EDIT:
In lieu of putting some talking head video up here to rebut, I will take the intellectual high road and simply guide you to a site that discusses the actual science being put out there. Because it actually presents the science, I know no skeptics here will read it. But I would hope someone would cause it deals a paper that Tony Watts recently heralded as another smoking gun against ACC:
http://www.realclimate.org/

 

[jsn112]

So what if YOU are wrong and 97% of climatologists who study the issue are right? I mean, hypothetically, what if?

Here's the thing see, there is virtually no evidence to contradict what climatologists believe. There is a miniscule amount of evidence that provides alternate theories (that have not been addressed) but nothing other than bunkity bunk science (and rationalizations) that attempts to debunk the current stream of though. The "flattenning" of the hockey stick (and minimizing of the, so called "Little Ice Age") graph is the grandest example of that EVER.
Sadly, when explanations are presented in a way meant to provide you with greater understanding, they are ignored.


I imagine that there would be water skiing at the north pole and skeptics would still be tanning on northern Baffin Island in September saying "Yeah but, no but, yea but, no but....". There is absolutely no scientific evidence to dismiss anthropocentric climate change.

EDIT:
In lieu of putting some talking head video up here to rebut, I will take the intellectual high road and simply guide you to a site that discusses the actual science being put out there. Because it actually presents the science, I know no skeptics here will read it. But I would hope someone would cause it deals a paper that Tony Watts recently heralded as another smoking gun against ACC:
RealClimate

When will I be able to water ski at the North Pole? If that happens, it means I can buy an ocean front property, right? Please tell me when. I was told that snow will be a thing in the past starting the year 2000. That didn't happen. Please tell me when...please pretty pleaassseeee... that there is a global warming and the poles' ice will melt and LA, NY, NO, etc. will be underwater leaving new shorelines. I can't wait. I hope global warming scientists are right. I'm going to start saving up right now.

 

[mzungu]

When will I be able to water ski at the North Pole? If that happens, it means I can buy an ocean front property, right? Please tell me when. I was told that snow will be a thing in the past starting the year 2000. That didn't happen. Please tell me when...please pretty pleaassseeee... that there is a global warming and the poles' ice will melt and LA, NY, NO, etc. will be underwater leaving new shorelines. I can't wait. I hope global warming scientists are right. I'm going to start saving up right now.

Climate change does predict adverse weather patterns. Global warming does not mean no snow!

You cannot simplify climatology to whether it is snowing in your neighbourhood or not.

Your post reeks of unscientific speculation.

Just like the Creationists; You will never be convinced even if palm trees start growing in Siberia.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yup althought it has it's faults the Beeb does like it's science.

 

[michael32]

Just like the Creationists; You will never be convinced even if palm trees start growing in Siberia.

I'm preety sure the folks with chattering teeth in Siberia would be pleased to have palm trees instead.

Your mention of creationism is apt, I think. The AGW cult worshippers are more narrow-minded and blind about their religious dogma then we Christians.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Yup, just as it as bias towards atomic theory, germ theory, and gravity. It tends to take it's que from the scientific communty when it comes to it's science reporting. If skeptics of AGW want to change things they need to present their own data and models of the climate.

 

[jsn112]

Climate change does predict adverse weather patterns. Global warming does not mean no snow!

You cannot simplify climatology to whether it is snowing in your neighbourhood or not.

Your post reeks of unscientific speculation.

Just like the Creationists; You will never be convinced even if palm trees start growing in Siberia.

Why don't you tell that to Dr. David Viner, a senior research "scientist" at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, about the snow thing and "reeks" of unscientific speculation.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

 

[mzungu]

Why don't you tell that to Dr. David Viner, a senior research "scientist" at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, about the snow thing and "reeks" of unscientific speculation.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

During Climatic change the Earth will experience adverse weather patterns. This year Europe had record snow fall and Tasmania had snowfall in December (it is summer in the southern hemisphere), Flooding, droughts etc. In general, global warming will result in a warmer climate and this will mean less snowfall per year and more rainfall. However every few years we may experience "freak" weather where (like it did in Saudi Arabia when it snowed in the desert) snowfall will happen and in some cases quite heavily.

The Climate is changing towards a warmer one. The Earth's climate was never stable and will continue to change through the aeons. However the fact that human activity (Deforestation, increased output of greenhouse gasses, etc.) has contributed in the acceleration of this change. Instead of it being a gradual one it has accelerated to the point where one will see the effects within 1 lifetime:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Kilimanjaro_glacier_retreat.jpg

 

[Supreme]

Shame on the BBC for including scientific evidence in their scientific reports! What next? Economic evidence in their economic reports? The mind boggles!

For the record, the BBC is actually one of the most scientifically literate new sources out there. They devote quite a large amount of time to science reports (when other broadcasters would be devoting the time to celebrity or sport news), and have a devoted and large team of scientific researchers.

 

[mzungu]

Shame on the BBC for including scientific evidence in their scientific reports! What next? Economic evidence in their economic reports? The mind boggles!

For the record, the BBC is actually one of the most scientifically literate new sources out there. They devote quite a large amount of time to science reports (when other broadcasters would be devoting the time to celebrity or sport news), and have a devoted and large team of scientific researchers.

I seriously doubt if the Yanks even know what the BBC stands for and how its track record speaks for itself. BBC documentaries are not only unbiased but are well researched and extremely well made. If one word comes to mind when I hear the name BBC; It is "QUALITY"

 

[Supreme]

I seriously doubt if the Yanks even know what the BBC stands for and how its track record speaks for itself. BBC documentaries are not only unbiased but are well researched and extremely well made. If one word comes to mind when I hear the name BBC; It is "QUALITY"

I wouldn't say that the BBC is perfect or completely unbiased, as I don't think it's completely possible to be. There are certain occasions when the BBC seems, for example, to favour and give more coverage to a Labour policy than a Conservative one; however, those are rare and largely unnoticable.

But I agree that BBC documentaries are simply second to none in their research and facts per minute, especially with regards to science, travel and history. Even religion is becoming better covered by the BBC as of late, such as the excellent The History of Christianity series that was aired last year.

Quality and honesty are certainly two traits that the BBC associates itself with.

 

[Tielec]

Done to death - oh well:

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

 

[michael32]

I seriously doubt if the Yanks even know what the BBC stands for and how its track record speaks for itself. BBC documentaries are not only unbiased but are well researched and extremely well made. If one word comes to mind when I hear the name BBC; It is "QUALITY"

Your comment confirms my experience in Europe precisely. Europeans, and particularly Brits, think they know all about America, and, in reality, could not be more ignorant. But they are very sure of themselves!

 

[Skaloop]

I just have a couple of quick questions for the global warming/climate change deniers.

1) Do you deny that CO2 contributes the the greenhouse effect?
2) Do you deny that atmospheric CO2 levels are increased due to human impacts through the burning of fossil fuels and other activities?