BBC back peddling on Climate Change/Global Warming

Finally a mainstream broadcaster begins to doubt the AGW claptrap being spouted far and wide.

BBC

They have decided to edit a documentary made by non other than Sir David Attenborough a very highly respected commentator, who originally claimed in the programme that temperatures had risen by 3.5 degrees.

Instead they have simply deleted the comment out.

It would have imo been far better if they had got Sir David to explain why his comments have been deemed as codswallop and exposed the AGW conspiracy.

I suppose that would be too much to expect. But this is a step in the right direction. I guess the sea is not going to rise after all

This hole global warming thing seems like a scam.. Pay some people some money and it all goes away..

Originally posted by bigyin
Finally a mainstream broadcaster begins to doubt the AGW claptrap being spouted far and wide.

Misleading headline, misleading summary.

The article only refers to one specific detail of a one specific temperature change at one specific place.
Nowhere in the article I see any reference to a general backpedalling of the overall concept of AGW.

reply to post by alfa1


Agreed, but if it was not retracted/edited out it would be toted as the truth No?
Keep repeating untruths and sooner than later they become facts.

Regards, Iwinder

Anyone with half a working brain cell can work out what its all about.

1. Carbon tax. Lots of money there!
2. They want total control of the earth and for that they need global wide laws.

There are many more scientists who say its nonsense than there are who believe it, and many of those who claim to beleive do so only because their funding relies on their obedience.

Originally posted by Iwinder
reply to post by alfa1

 

Agreed, but if it was not retracted/edited out it would be toted as the truth No?
Keep repeating untruths and sooner than later they become facts.

Regards, Iwinder

That's very true. It was a 'The Guardian' reporter who contacted the BBC that prompted the change. It seems like just so many people who should know the real story, and without bias, are on the bandwagon for other reasons. The whole science through research community over GW/AGW/GD/CG....., has turned out extremely, and excruciatingly embarrassing.

Originally posted by bigyin
They have decided to edit a documentary made by non other than Sir David Attenborough a very highly respected commentator

I used to like his nature programs, but then I noticed his GW BS he included in them, then we heard how he faked parts of his shows by filming in a zoo while deceiving us into thinking he was at one of the poles.

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by bigyin
They have decided to edit a documentary made by non other than Sir David Attenborough a very highly respected commentator

I used to like his nature programs, but then I noticed his GW BS he included in them, then we heard how he faked parts of his shows by filming in a zoo while deceiving us into thinking he was at one of the poles.

Circuses and free bread for everyone as long as you don't really pay attention.......:-)

There is no free bread in a Zoo.....
Good post Void.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by bigyin
Finally a mainstream broadcaster begins to doubt the AGW claptrap being spouted far and wide.

Misleading headline, misleading summary.

The article only refers to one specific detail of a one specific temperature change at one specific place.
Nowhere in the article I see any reference to a general backpedalling of the overall concept of AGW.

Please yourself.

Could I interest you in some carbon credits ?

The BBC is the corrupt establishments mouthpiece.
Maybe this was a double bluff?

there is talk of a mini ice age in britian
i think they had NO CHOICE but to pull that temperature rise remark or waste the whole project

no morals about it
it was probably an expensive investment

which is the more believable conspiracy.....

all the climatologists are in on it for.....well, can't think of a reason, or the big oil companies are smearing the climatologists so they can keep selling oil ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
which is the more believable conspiracy.....

all the climatologists are in on it for.....well, can't think of a reason,

Your not thinking hard enough...its really obvious.
It is called "Redistribution of Wealth" .

A high-ranking member of the U.N.'s Panel on Climate Change admits the group's primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth news.investors.com...

For the love of all things Science please do your homework.

reply to post by bigyin


It is not back peddling it is simply saying the 3.5 degree temperature change was disputable.

reply to post by burntheships

It is called "Redistribution of Wealth" .

That is a bit of a distortion of what Edenhoffer actually said. He's talking about a policy (global trading) which does not exist. He's saying that any global environmental policy, by its very nature becomes economic in nature but not because that is the intent. I'm confused though, he's talking about how such a policy would result in the wealth of huge corporations being "redistributed" to less developed nations. I'm a bit surprised you find that offensive.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capital basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

real-agenda.com...

So warming is nothing but a scam to take money away from oil companies and give it to poor African nations? Because that's the redistribution that Edenhoffer was talking about. Poor big oil, they would indeed take a hit. But I bet they would survive it. That may be the result if a global exchange is ever developed (highly unlikely) but it isn't the intent. But that is where all the discussion ends up...economics, not environment.

well here is a bit of what was said then and what is happenening now

Snowfalls now just a thing of the past...

“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

“Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up “without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world – open-air skating”.

“David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

iceagenow.info...

Now Piers [piers corbin of weather action the guy who has been right all along while the beeb was forcasting warm and fuzzy winters..DB] has a very good record of forecasting the weather. He has been bang on about these cold winters...

...I see from the BBC website that there are scientists who say that “global warming” is indeed the cause of the cold and snowy winters we seem to be having.....there are at least some other reputable scientists who say that it is complete tosh, or at least that there is no evidence to support it.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

say..what ever happened to "Blood and Gore", Al Gore's carbon credit trading org...?
Is Al still buying up the sea side mansions?

l

The article was about editing out the comment on a 3.5 degree increase as it was deemed to be disputable,it hardly constitutes a debunking of global warming.

Personally speaking I'd like nothing more than global warming to be proven a myth and for oil reserves to be endless.I'm a lifelong petrolhead and a lover of the internal combustion engine,the remotest possibility of electric cars leaves me utterly cold but it seems hard to argue that climate change is bs.

The change in the climate,the difference over the last decade and particularly the last 5 or 6 years is blatant.It's become unpredictable and at times quite dramatic.

In the North of Scotland we've been getting much wetter summers,if you can call it a summer and while the rest of the country's been snowed under we've had 2 days of snow,that's it.Also flooding in the UK has increased dramatically in recent years though that's due to rainfall rather than sea levels rising.

Now is that down to global warming or a more natural climate change I couldn't say for sure but there is a change.

Is it more likely that the scientific community made up global warming to gain research grants or that the big oil companies are trying to discredit the enviromental debate to protect their profits I'm afraid to admit my gut feeling is that the oil companies are more likely to be playing dirty but there's so much opposing info,misinfo and disinfo out there these days who knows for sure !!!

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by bigyin
Finally a mainstream broadcaster begins to doubt the AGW claptrap being spouted far and wide.

Misleading headline, misleading summary.

The article only refers to one specific detail of a one specific temperature change at one specific place.
Nowhere in the article I see any reference to a general backpedalling of the overall concept of AGW.

Quite - the BBC article linked in the OP even says they edited because the specific detail was "disputable". That could mean that instead of a 3c rise, it is 1 or 2c rise.

Now, I am not 100% convinced that climate change is man made, we may have a hand in it we may not or it may be a bit of both (nature & man), but I think it is quite indisputable that something is happening to the climate. It is actually just as bad what the OP has done in trying to spin this article as anyone he is trying to criticise on the other side of the argument.

Originally posted by Danbones
there is talk of a mini ice age in britian

Every winter, when the first snow flake falls and the country grinds to a halt, the Express and Mail declare it to be the coldest Winter ever and love to relish in the fact we're all about to be buried under a 1Km ice sheet...

Doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by Danbones
i think they had NO CHOICE but to pull that temperature rise remark or waste the whole project

Whether climate change is man made or not, something is happening. If polar ice continues to melt, then the seawater salinity falls which would affect the gulf stream. If the gulf stream gets disturbed, then northern Europe, including the UK, gets very cold. It actually gets the weather fitting it's latitude.

So, the point I am making is that even if there is global warming, the end result would be an ice age - this is fact and matters not whether man did it or whether it was nature. I often see this confusion in people who argue against climate change.

I'd like to make my position clear since a few posters have criticised my op.

I'm not a scientist but I can think for myself.

I accept that weather patterns are different now to what I remember from years ago.

Whether this is due to mans activities or not I don't know.

I am all in favour of reducing pollution of the environment where possible.

What I have noticed especially on the BBC is a relentless mention of Global Warming or more recently Climate Change and it is always linked to some activity by man. We are constantly reminded/bombarded with comments about temperature rises, the effect on wildlife (Polar Bears), CO2, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, etc, etc

What annoys me is that it is all one way hysteria, designed for what I'm not sure, but somebody is making money from it at my expense.

Fact is the actual facts on the ground are not the same as those being broadcast.

Yes some glaciers are melting, like they always have and always will. Others are growing.
Sea levels are not rising, in fact some studies show they are falling.
Polar bears are not as bad off as Sir David made out in a previous programme.
Temperatures are not rising like Sir David claims, in fact the are falling.
Climate is changing like it always has and always will.

If the BBC told us that one guy claimed the temp was going up but then went on to say that another guy says it's going down and summed up by saying that we can't be sure, then I wouldn't have a problem with them.

What does bother me is the BBC taking one side of the argument and pushing it as if it was a proven fact when it isn't.

Why make false claims.

If the BBC accept that this particular 'fact' was not in fact true, then why don't they get Sir david to come on TV and explain to the audience why the 'mistake' came about. He could go on to explain that there are two sides to the Climate Change theory. It is only a theory. There are other theories. There are other forces of nature which could account for some of the climate changes we experience and buying energy efficient light bulbs is not going to make any difference against those.

Sure some people are going to feel better thinking they are doing something to save the planet, but imo they are either being conned, or living in a fantasy world.

I saw a bus the other day with a sticker on the back stating it was a Carbon Neutral bus .......what does that even mean ........ made me laugh at least....... but heh if it gets more passengers on board it must be a good thing.

I am going to admit that I should not have used the word backpeddling, because when I think about it the BBC have not backpeddled. They have been caught out once again and have decided to airbrush an inconvenient truth out. They still have not admitted that the whole agenda could be wrong.