Archive for the ‘media’ Category

bbc-greenpeace-medToday, MP’s vote on whether it should cease to be a criminal offence to buy and watch a TV without paying a hefty fee for the production their propaganda, whether or not you choose to watch it. Nearly 10% of all court cases in the UK are for non-payment of this extortionate impost. Which of course is another burden on the taxpayer, who has to cover the cost of this TV tax enforcement. Most non-payers are people who don’t have enough money to cover all their costs and are claiming benefits. They need legal aid to fight their case. Triple whammy for everyone else.

If the BBC was a high quality broadcaster, we might be prepared to continue putting up with all this expense. But a string of scandals has so damaged its reputation and output that it has blown its credibility. The public has had enough of its antics, sins, omission, and bias. I won’t rehearse the list here, everybody knows. However there is one issue which has been successfully hidden by the BBC which deserves another mention. 28gate.


From GWPF’s summary of David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday:

bbc-greenpeace-medA BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.

Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.

Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on  February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.

It reads:

When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics. If a programme does run such a discussion, it will… be in breach of the editorial guidelines on impartiality.



Photo credit: Ken Gregory Friends of Science 2014: Unrestricted use

Rather than hit people, tell them they are bad, a kinder approach, this apparently is a new Friends Of Science billboard. In the snow.

Is this good thinking or is the only way aggression?

Will it change any minds or is it affirmation?


We held our local UKIP branch AGM last night where I was elected as vice chair and webcomms officer. I’m looking foward to working more closely with my committee colleagues Craig Sweaton (chair & media comms), Anne Murgatroyd (secretary) and Phil Banks (treasurer). The mainstream media is mis-portraying what UKIP stand for, so I thought I’d republish this short piece from Stuart O’Reilly at Oxford University to counter the misinformation:

Stuart O’Reilly


There seems to be an awful lot of misinformation about UKIP. And believe me, if the discourses were true, I would certainly not be a member. We’ve had a few problematic characters: Godfrey Bloom and David Silvester being those that Oxford students will probably be the most familiar with. But our goals are far too important for us to be deterred by such people.

‘UKIP dislikes immigrants, right?’ Wrong. The vast majority of immigrants come to Britain to contribute, socially and economically. But our immigration system is flawed. We have a huge oversupply in the labour market, particularly in relation to unskilled and low skilled workers. It cannot be right that our government increasingly adds to this problem by having an open-door policy. The result is that wages are driven down, people are exploited and unemployment remains relatively unchanged. UKIP want a points-based system that does not discriminate against people from Africa, Asia and South America as the government’s current policy does.



Around ten days ago I made an enquiry to Copernicus (the innovative science unpublishers) asking when they would be billing me for the order I made at the end of 2013. It turned out they had forgotten to do so, and they provided an invoice for a fresh order on Jan 27, 10 days after they axed the journal.


No system is perfect, and sometimes papers with errors in them get past peer review into the scientific literature via journal publication. The checks and balances in the system operate to deal with this. The scientific method works through the process of the proposal and rebuttal of hypotheses, conducted in the scientific literature in as rational and objective manner as possible. If one group of scientists get papers published and another group believe their work to contain errors, they write a rebuttal paper pointing out the errors and get it published in the same journal the original work was published in, or in another journal if the editors don’t accept their rebuttal paper.

However, in the highly politicised and emotive world of climate science, things work differently, as the excerpts from the email chain below demonstrate:

josh_three_stooges> >>>—–Original Message—–
> >>>From: Phil Jones []
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 6:23 PM
> >>>To: Mike Hulme;
> >>>;;;
> >>>; Subject: Re: Recent
> >>>climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Research
> >>> (more…)

It seems that the Bloggies have decided to axe the ‘Best science or technology blog’ category this year, probably due to the amount of earache the organisers were getting from the usual suspects about the climate sceptic blogs consistently packing the category finals. So I thought I’d get my own back by publishing a comparison of global traffic rank for the talkshop vs flagship global warming science site


Stitch that Gavin.

But surely Realclimate will beat the tiny Talkshop on its home turf in the US? Let’s have a look:



The view from my bedroom window yesterday morning


There’s nothing like a good strong ethics controversy to sort out friends from foes, and the last five days have been decisive in laying out the battle lines. The trouble started when James Annan whipped up an email campaign directed at science publisher Copernicus, complaining about our Special Edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics. Although the various proponent authors of the Planetary Solar Theory have different ideas about viable mechanisms we came to the same conclusions via different phenomenological methods: that an imminent solar slowdown is upon us, and it is likely to be deeper than the Dalton Minimum, possibly stretching until the latter decades of this century.

In the General conclusions paper all the contributing authors signed, we agreed that “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”. This did not please the proponents of the ‘trace gas levels control Earth’s climate’ theory, AKA cAGW, and emails trickled into Copernicus headquarters in Gottingen, Germany.

Doug Proctor: Essay on West and beyond

Posted: December 27, 2013 by tchannon in books, media, Philosophy, Politics

Doug has posted an essay[1], book review with wider commentary

I’m reading “American Betrayal”, by Diana West, macmillan (2013).

It is concerned with not the fact of Soviet influence (through placement and support of specific pro-Communist figures in the WWII+) American government, but with the refusal to recognize American political (and military and intelligence) life had been infiltrated by agents working against American (and British) best interests. Her book is a polemic, unfortunately, a rant written in a self-indulgent way that will be easy to dismiss as shrieking from a soapbox in Hyde Park. But her point is extremely well made and very, very pertinent to our on-going fight about CAGW: it is not the facts that are in dispute but the “implication” (her term) of those facts. To accept the implication of Soviet penetration is to accept that our view of the last 70 years is false, that the control and decision-making of our wise fathers was not for our but of Stalinist betterment. This is a paradigm shift that is simply unacceptable so as each unassailable point comes up, something is done to destroy the reputation of the teller, or negate the point as a “detail” within a broader, “normal” background.

Sound familiar?


I recently sent another complaint to the BBC, which they have now replied to. Their reply fails to address my main point, which is that all available scientific evidence shows extreme weather events have not increased in frequency or intensity since records began. Their utterly lame justification is that NGO’s and aid agencies say they have, so it must be true:

bbc_logo1Dear Mr Tattersall
Reference [redacted]
Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Breakfast’ broadcast on the 17 November.

We understand you were unhappy with the interview with Oxfam’s Max Lawson as you felt that Max wasn’t challenged sufficiently.

We make no editorial comment or judgement on the views expressed by contributors to our programmes, and our aim is simply to provide enough information for viewers to make up their own minds.

This may include hearing opinions which some people may personally disagree with but which individuals may be fully entitled to hold in the context of legitimate debate.

The BBC is committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue.
There is broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly;however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.