The BBC – actively stifling dissent

Apparently, this story is sourced from the Daily Telegraph but I’m unable to find it online. The Daily Mail’s version doesn’t make too much sense but it does appear to suggest that the long-awaited review of the BBC’s science output is recommending the stifling of any debate against the so-called consensus view.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the report draws heavily on an independent review of BBC coverage by Steve Jones, a professor of genetics at University College London.

Prof Jones is understood to have cleared the BBC of any suggestion of bias in its programming.

That depends on how you define bias, I suppose.  Here’s Peter Sissons’ view:

The BBC’s editorial policy on climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’.

The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.

But the Trust continued its pretence that climate change dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’

And this is Jeremy Paxman’s view:

I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.

I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.

Straight from the horse’s mouth, we have this from the BBC’s June 2007 report ‘From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century';

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

So how on earth does Professor Jones determine that there is no bias? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with his sideline as a regular BBC ‘talking head’ could it? (see here for just page 1 of a Google search).

But the main conclusion made by Prof Jones is that in cases where there is a widely held scientific view, such as on GM crops or the MMR jab, the BBC shouldn’t give airtime to critics of the scientific consensus.

Good grief! Who is the arbiter for such a decision? The government? Professor Frankenstein? The Flat Earth Society? Or, perhaps, one of those august public bodies who, as discussed yesterday, no longer appear to have any accountability?

The moment we suppress debate on these issues – and both GM crops and the MMR jab have significant ethical dimensions, remember – we effectively place our faith in the hands of ‘experts’ who may be fools, tyrants or, worse, pushing an agenda.

Climate ceased to be about science long ago: what Jones is doing is recommending the suppression of one whole area of political debate; he is advocating tyranny.

If this report proves to be true, I’ve bought my last TV licence. Join me; we need to starve the beast.

Update When I threw this together through the red mist this morning, I was not aware of a recent paper by Nasif S Nahle which – on the basis of the conclusion – would seem to show that the greenhouse theory is wrong.


Through this controlled experiment, I demonstrate that the warming effect in a real greenhouse is not due to longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the building, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.

From which I gather that the greenhouse effect is a function of the flask in which the CO2 is contained rather than the CO2 itself.

Such is the danger of the consensus controlling the media. You can bet that the BBC will choose not to give you the details of this or any other story that undermines their chosen view.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Adventures in Time Travel, Big Brother, Climate, Environment, Liberty, Media, Politics, TV and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The BBC – actively stifling dissent

  1. A K Haart says:

    For me, the BBC is a national disaster. We need hard-nosed sceptical reporting in a world dominated by PR, misinformation and vested interests. The BBC has the resources but not the nous to provide it – so may as well be sold off. I don’t know anyone who takes it seriously.

  2. Scud1 says:

    I’m with you TT. The BBC are fast becoming a national embarrassment and dangerous to boot. I hold them at least partly responsible for our artificially and criminally inflated energy bills and a whole raft of other ‘measures’ that have cost our family probably decades worth of their ‘licence fee.’ Not to mention their unremitting bias for all things EU, their acceptance of illegal ‘loans’ from the EU, approval of everything Islamic, hatred of Israel…etc…etc… and of course their keenness on sending members of its staff off to be indoctrinated by common purpose at our expense (Brain Gerrish of ‘stopcp’ fame reckons there are now more than a thousand CP cockroaches wondering the corridors of the oh so very honest and noble beeb.)

    An interesting article here about ‘refuseniks’…includes Noel Edmonds of all people!

    It seems that the most effective method of avoiding prosecution for non payment to what has emerged as an enemy within, is to simply refuse to enter into any correspondence with them. Slam the door on the rare occasion you get an unwelcome visitor, tear up all brown envelopes from ‘TV Licensing’ and apparently there is nothing that they can do. The only admissible evidence in court is your signature confirming that you own a television…

    Keep up the good work TT!

  3. Update When I threw this together through the red mist this morning, I was not aware of a recent paper by Nasif S Nahle which – on the basis of the conclusion – would seem to show that the greenhouse theory is wrong.

    I don’t think any credibility points are earned by extrapolating Nahle’s experiment to the atmosphere. Nahle appears to demonstrate that greenhouses work by preventing convection out of the greenhouse, and not by conversion of LW to SW radiation. This is unrelated to the way that CO2 forcing works.

    That the climate forcings attributable to GHGs is called “The Greenhouse Effect” is an unfortunate coincidence; the term was coined, I think, to better communicate to an unscientific public what is otherwise quite a complicated physical process. That doesn’t mean that CO2 forcings are necessarily correct, just that Nahle’s result doesn’t relate to CO2 forcing in any way.

    Totally agree on the BBC BTW.

  4. Janet says:

    I read a lot of interesting articles here. Probably you spend a lot of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of time,
    there is an online tool that creates unique, google friendly articles in seconds, just type in google – laranitas free content source

  5. Hi there, mydło aleppo I just wanted to mention, I liked this
    blog post mydło sandałowe. That it was funny mydło sandałowe.
    Keep on submitting!

  6. Hi, mikrodermabrazja radom I just want to mention, I loved this article p5870348.
    It was helpful depilacja laserowa radom. Continue submitting!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s