How BBC warmists abuse the science

[Big Don]

How BBC warmists abuse the science

Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, is an expert in genetics, not climatology, writes Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker 7:00PM GMT 29 Jan 2011 Telegraph.co.uk EXCERPT:




The timing was immaculate. Last Tuesday, across a two-page extract from the memoirs of Peter Sissons, the senior BBC newsreader, was the headline: “The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots – I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent.” The previous evening the BBC had put out a perfect example of the zealotry which had made Mr Sissons, as a grown-up journalist, so angry. Horizon’s “Science Under Attack” turned out to be yet another laborious bid by the BBC to defend the global warming orthodoxy it has long been so relentless in promoting.

Their desperation is understandable. The past few years have seen their cherished cause crumbling on all sides. The Copenhagen climate conference, planned to land mankind with the biggest bill in history, collapsed in disarray. The Climategate emails scandal confirmed that scientists at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had distorted key data. The IPCC’s own authority was further rocked by revelations that its more alarmist claims were based not on science but on the inventions of environmental activists. Even the weather has turned against them, showing that all the computer models based on the assumption that rising CO2 means rising temperatures have got it wrong.

The formula the BBC uses in its forlorn attempts to counterattack has been familiar ever since its 2008 series Climate Wars. First, a presenter with some scientific credentials comes on, apparently to look impartially at the evidence. Supporters of the cause are allowed to put their case without challenge. Hours of film of climate-change “deniers” are cherrypicked for soundbites that can be shown, out of context, to make them look ridiculous. The presenter can then conclude that the “deniers” are a tiny handful of eccentrics standing out against an overwhelming scientific “consensus”.

Monday’s Horizon exemplified this formula to a T. The scientist picked to front the progamme was Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, now President of the Royal Society (which has been promoting warmist orthodoxy even longer than the BBC). The cue to justify the programme’s title was all the criticism which greeted those Climategate emails leaked from Sir Paul’s old university, East Anglia, showing how scientists had been manipulating their data to support the claim that temperatures have recently risen to unprecedented levels.

END EXCERPT
Gee, I thought no one but climatologists were qualified to speak on the climate? I mean, that is what we've been told...

 

[Tez3]

Not THE senior newsreader at all, in fact he hasn't read the news since 2003, he hasn't been on television since 2009 as he left to write his memoirs. Peter Sissons has been at loggerheads with the BBC for many years accusing them of ageism, as well as a few other isms, still if it helps sell his book...........
He should have stayed at ITV if he didn't like the BBC.

The programme wasn't about climatology it was about science, wrong end of the stick again I'm afraid.

http://royalsociety.org/news/paul-nurse-presents-horizon/?from=homefeature
"Sir Paul Nurse PRS took to the nation’s television screens last night to present Horizon: Science Under Attack on the BBC. The programme looked at why some people do not trust science and scientists. He examined issues such as climate change, GM crops and the link between HIV and Aids.
Sir Paul questioned why, in a world built by science, many people fail to recognise that the authority of science comes from evidence, open argument and transparency in debate rather than from ideology and dogma. He argued that scientists must be key players in public debates such as how to feed the world’s growing population, tackle climate change and treat disease. "

http://royalsociety.org/

By the way the programme was called 'Science under attack' and was shown on the BBC, it wasn't 'Science under attack on the BBC'

 

[yorkshirelad]

It's well known Don, that the powers that be at the BBC, have, for many years had a biased slant. This thread is nor really news. Their reportage of the 2000, 2004, and 2008 general election in the US was laughably biased. They also destroyed Kilroy-Silk's career because of his views against Islam.
It's the same over here though, as you know, network news, especially NBC and their cable arm MSNBC do the same thing.

 

[Tez3]

It's well known Don, that the powers that be at the BBC, have, for many years had a biased slant. This thread is nor really news. Their reportage of the 2000, 2004, and 2008 general election in the US was laughably biased. They also destroyed Kilroy-Silk's career because of his views against Islam.
It's the same over here though, as you know, network news, especially NBC and their cable arm MSNBC do the same thing.

Whatever bias the BBC has is nothing to do with the programme concerned. There's wires crossed here somewhere. The programme was about scientists and science, not about global warming. The new president of the Royal Society a scientist presented the point of scientists on a number of subjects including HIV and AIDs, they were saying that scinetists should be allowed to present their findings without political activists jumping on the band wagon. Seems fair.


Whatever coverage the BBC has of American elections may seem biased to certain people with certain views but as only a few people here are interested in watching have little effect on views of America here. Those who are interested will follow the elections on other media too.

Kilroy silk is a rather sickening figure, the stuff he advocates fall only a little short of what the BNP peddle, the party UKIP he joined threw him out pretty quick because of his extremist views.

The Irish. In 1992 the Daily Express apologised for printing a Kilroy column which described Ireland as a country peopled by peasants, priests and pixies. (9 Nov 1992.) He has been wary of going public on the subject ever since, though a couple of years ago his Sunday Express column included a swipe at "no-mark countries such as Belgium and Ireland" (28 Jul 2002) - "no-mark" being a favourite Kilroy expression of contempt.
The Scots. No better than the Irish. "The Scots suffer from a bit of an inferiority complex when it comes to the English," Kilroy reveals (19 May 2002). "Scotland is dying," he adds. "Between a quarter and a third of its graduates escape every year, mostly to England!.. They cannot bear to live in their own country" (9 Mar 2003).
Pakistanis. "Here we go again," Kilroy sighs. "The minister responsible for defining the British identity, Michael Wills, still obviously feels the need to pander to the multicultural lobby, even at the cost of making himself look ridiculous. He solemnly proclaimed: ‘The essence of being British is that you can be British and Pakistani, British and Scottish, British and Geordie.’ What a dumbhead!... Will someone please inform him that Scots are British, that Geordies are British, but that Pakistanis are not. They’re Pakistanis!" (23 Dec 2001). And Kilroy takes a dim view of the Pakistanis. "Rather than promote peace and understanding between people, the Pakistanis want to generate hate," he writes. "But then what else can we expect from Pakistan?" (7 Jul 2002)
French. Not Kilroy’s favourite race - "devious" (2 Feb 2003), "treacherous... not to be trusted" (16 Feb 2003) and "self-regarding" (9 Mar 2003). In short, they are utterly unlike the British and Americans, who "can be relied upon to keep their word and to act with altruism to a degree that would seem foolish to the French" (13 Apr 2003).
Germans. Kilroy finds the Germans "truculent" (2 Feb 2003). As he asks: "Is there no limit to their brazen cheek?" (13 Apr 2003).
Russians. They are "opportunist" (2 Feb 2003) and "posturing" (9 Mar 2003). But maybe not quite as bad as the French.
Africans. No bloody good at all. "Africa’s plight is mostly the fault of Africans," Kilroy notes (5 Oct 2003). "Most of what is good and decent in Africa has been provided by Europe and the United States."
Iraqis. What a rabble! "They are not grateful for being liberated. They do not appreciate that the coalition forces are attempting to build a decent, democratic, civilised country. They certainly do not appear to be either able or willing to contribute to its reconstruction. Why should we put British lives on the line for this lot? They are not worth the life of one British soldier, not one. All they seem to do is moan, incessantly, about their lack of amenities" (29 Jun 2003).
Asylum-seekers. "The barmy liberals like Diane Abbott don’t like the word ‘swamped’ when used by the Home Secretary to describe schools and GPs’ surgeries being overrun by asylum seekers who cannot speak English. What word would they prefer? Overwhelmed? Drowned? Submerged? What is the problem with using proper English words to describe an appalling situation that many British people have to put up with?" (28 Apr 2002). But Kilroy has a solution: "It is simple enough. We station paratroopers a mile from the British end of the [Channel] Tunnel.. The paras herd the immigrants together and cart them off to Dover where they are dumped on a secure slow boat to -- wherever" (17 Mar 2002).
Black people in general. "Can we ask why whites are usually better swimmers than blacks?" Kilroy wonders (5 Jan 2003). "Can we, moreover, articulate some other, less palatable truths: that there is, for example, more racial prejudice within and between ethnic minorities in Britain than there is between the white indigenous population and immigrants? Can we acknowledge that black youths are responsible for the majority of gun and street crime and that it is they who ought therefore to be targeted without feeling the necessity to point out that the majority of burglars and conmen are white?... Yes, of course we can -- and we should." Kilroy can’t stand "pushy blacks" or "talentless blacks and Asians" (19 Aug 2001.) Or whingeing ones: "Are you fed up of some bleating blacks and Asians blaming their own failures on how their forefathers were exploited by the British Empire?... Why don’t they stop whining and get a life?" (7 Dec 2003). Not that he’s slow to defend black people when they’re genuinely oppressed: a few years ago he took up the case of a black motorist who was stopped by the police in Cheltenham. The man in question was, er, Kilroy’s chauffeur.
Foreigners in general. Otherwise known as "parasitic foreigners" and "dodgy foreigners". (2 Dec 2001). Kilroy gets very angry if anyone blames the rise in British HIV cases on sexual promiscuity or suggests that TB might have something to do with inadequate sanitation, bad diet, poverty, etc. "The indigenous population is not responsible. The diseases are being brought here by refugees, immigrants and tourists... It is the foreigners that we have to focus on" (1 Dec 2002). And focus he does.
Arabs. "Can everyone stop blaming the British and Americans for the fact that there are a load of thieving Arabs in Iraq?" he demands (4 May 2003). "The orgy of thieving in Iraq has more to do with the character of the people than the absence of restraining troops." So what is the Arab character? "There could be few starker demonstrations of the difference between Britain and the United States and the Arabs than the manner in which they treat their civilians and their dead," he writes (4 Jan 2004). "While the Arabs desert their dead soldiers in the desert to be buried with reverence by the Americans, we go to enormous lengths to retrieve every single body... Who says that all cultures are morally equal?" Certainly not Kilroy, who regards the Arabs as a waste of space. "Few of them make much contribution to the welfare of the rest of the world. Indeed, apart from oil -- which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West -- what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I." Copyright Pressdram Limited 2004. Reproduced by permission. The full article can be read at http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6203
​

He really, really doesn't like you foreigners.

 

[Tez3]

Oh and Kilroy Silk is a, wait for it, Socialist....he is a former Labour MP. He appeared on a programme called 'I'm a celibrity get me out of here' and bullied the women. Nice man.


Views on the BBC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/24/bbc-under-attack-conservatives-public-loyalty

 

[yorkshirelad]

Oh and Kilroy Silk is a, wait for it, Socialist....he is a former Labour MP. He appeared on a programme called 'I'm a celibrity get me out of here' and bullied the women. Nice man.


Views on the BBC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/24/bbc-under-attack-conservatives-public-loyalty

Tez, it may shock you to realize this, but Kilroy-Silk has been penalized for merely speaking his mind. You, yourself have expressed what I consider hatred towards certain elements of Irish society, in one of our past debates. You obviously believe that your view is warranted but Kilroy's isn't.
As a guy who was born of parents from the North of Ireland and who has spent considerable time in Ireland, I actually support his views on the subject, (although I have yet to meet a genuine fairy). Ireland does consist of a majority peasant class, of which I am one. I also support his views on the Pakistani populace. I don't consider his views hate, as I don't consider your anti American views as hate. It amazes me that certain Islamic politicians in the UK get a pass on dismissing a female politician as being "too Jewish" and gets a pass, but Kilroy is reamed for his views on Pakistanis in the UK.
ust because you don't like his views, doesn't mean they don't have merit. In fact, his views on the Germans and French are populist in the UK. Don't pretend for a second that the Brits hold the Germans and French in high regard, on the whole they do not.
By the way, his Socialist tendancies don't bother me in the slightest. I think the majority of politicians who express socialistic tendancies have noblre intentions, albeit naive expectations.
He may not particulary like us foreigners (and thank God I'm now an American) but I have no problem with his views. It seems that the powers that be at the tax payer funded BBC, have punished him for his views-Juan Williams anyone!!

 

[yorkshirelad]

Oh and Kilroy Silk is a, wait for it, Socialist....he is a former Labour MP. He appeared on a programme called 'I'm a celibrity get me out of here' and bullied the women. Nice man.


Views on the BBC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/24/bbc-under-attack-conservatives-public-loyalty

The_Guardian Now that's not exactly an unbiased news source is it Tez?:rofl:

"The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing opinions has led to the use of the epithet "Guardian reader" as a label for people holding such views."

 

[Tez3]

Nothing shocks me sadly especially about the right wing views of certain members here.
Kilroy Silk was sacked from his programme which was one of those bullying chat shows designed for him to give his say on anything and everything, for views which the BBC and many of the viewers felt were unacceptable, he was also sacked for bullying the female staff until one left and then giving his daughter the job lol. he's a thoroughly despiciable man frankly. He's also bright orange a fact alone he should be sacked for.
His show on the BBC was a cheap daytime one, his political party he started after leaving UKIP failed miserably and he's a nothing now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas_(political_party)

If his views were all that populist why didn't people vote for him and where is he now?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Robert_Kilroy-Silk

 

[yorkshirelad]

Nothing shocks me sadly especially about the right wing views of certain members here.
Kilroy Silk was sacked from his programme which was one of those bullying chat shows designed for him to give his say on anything and everything, for views which the BBC and many of the viewers felt were unacceptable, he was also sacked for bullying the female staff until one left and then giving his daughter the job lol. he's a thoroughly despiciable man frankly. He's also bright orange a fact alone he should be sacked for.
His show on the BBC was a cheap daytime one, his political party he started after leaving UKIP failed miserably and he's a nothing now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritas_(political_party)

If his views were all that populist why didn't people vote for him and where is he now?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Robert_Kilroy-Silk

It's not his views that are unpopular, it's his personality, as you have already attested to. It's also the way he is portrayed by the media. Just because the guy is knob head, doesn't mean his views aren't popular. I agree with many things Glen Beck says, but I don't like him and I definately wouldn't vote for him. I don't think many leftys would vote for you either Irene, but you complaining about Kilroy's anti Irish views is a little hypocritical considering one of our former debates.

 

[Tez3]

It's not his views that are unpopular, it's his personality, as you have already attested to. It's also the way he is portrayed by the media. Just because the guy is knob head, doesn't mean his views aren't popular. I agree with many things Glen Beck says, but I don't like him and I definately wouldn't vote for him. I don't think many leftys would vote for you either Irene, but you complaining about Kilroy's anti Irish views is a little hypocritical considering one of our former debates.

I'm not standing for any political office so don't care whether people would vote for me or not. Was I complaining about his views or was I pointing them out to you? I told you what his views were, I told you they were close to what the BNP believe, where did I say his views and mine co-incide and where have I called the Irish any names? I'm not anti Irish, I'm anti terrorist, the terrorists in Northern Irleand are still targeting British troops, they are still shooting people, they are still killing each other and they are still planting bombs so is that anti Irish?

 

[yorkshirelad]

I'm not standing for any political office so don't care whether people would vote for me or not. Was I complaining about his views or was I pointing them out to you? I told you what his views were, I told you they were close to what the BNP believe, where did I say his views and mine co-incide and where have I called the Irish any names? I'm not anti Irish, I'm anti terrorist, the terrorists in Northern Irleand are still targeting British troops, they are still shooting people, they are still killing each other and they are still planting bombs so is that anti Irish?

It still just smacks of hypocrisy when you point out others statements when you yourself have made bigotted statements. I remember us in another debate speaking about the people of Ireland and you making a derogatory remark that well beyond singling out terrorists. I haven't got the time right now to go rummaging through old postrs, but I will within the next couple of days.
And yes Irene you did merely point out Kilroy's views, but you stuck to the negative in order to uphold your view the he's a villain. All I'm saying is that you're a little hypocritical.

 

[Tez3]

It still just smacks of hypocrisy when you point out others statements when you yourself have made bigotted statements. I remember us in another debate speaking about the people of Ireland and you making a derogatory remark that well beyond singling out terrorists. I haven't got the time right now to go rummaging through old postrs, but I will within the next couple of days.
And yes Irene you did merely point out Kilroy's views, but you stuck to the negative in order to uphold your view the he's a villain. All I'm saying is that you're a little hypocritical.

I don't remember us ever having a conversation about the people in Ireland, Yorkshire yes but not Ireland so methinks you are flinging mud and hoping it sticks.

 

[Tez3]

Took a while but went through mine and your posts. This is all I found that we 'discussed' about Ireland and you even thanked me for it.
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78422&page=6


I haven't had a discussion on the Irish with anyone on here nor have I ever made a derogatory remark about the Irish or any other nationality.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Took a while but went through mine and your posts. This is all I found that we 'discussed' about Ireland and you even thanked me for it.
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78422&page=6


I haven't had a discussion on the Irish with anyone on here nor have I ever made a derogatory remark about the Irish or any other nationality.

No it's not that. It's the conversation we had about you doing some kind of covert ops in the North of Ireland. You said that someone dear to you had been killed there. Your comments obviously came from an emotional connection, but they were your view non the less. I'll spend a while finding it, but I'll probably doze of before I do. It might have to wait until tomorrow.

 

[Tez3]

No it's not that. It's the conversation we had about you doing some kind of covert ops in the North of Ireland. You said that someone dear to you had been killed there. Your comments obviously came from an emotional connection, but they were your view non the less. I'll spend a while finding it, but I'll probably doze of before I do. It might have to wait until tomorrow.

yes my fiance had been killed out there by a land mine when he was on patrol but I still haven't said anything derogatory against the Irish as a whole, I call those who killed him and all the other British troops and innocents murdering b's but I've never said anything against the Irish people themselves so you are very definitely wrong.