Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread

Our best bits.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Moggy » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:07 am

Cal wrote:Nobody feels the need to comment on 'TwentyEightGate', then?

How very odd.


You mean other than this post (taken from only two pages back) that replied to you the last time you brought this up? You know, the post from two pages back that you completely ignored?

Winckle wrote:You felt no need to highlight the chap from British Petroleum? Or the guy from the CBI, the business lobby?

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Hexx » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:14 am

Moggy wrote:
Cal wrote:Nobody feels the need to comment on 'TwentyEightGate', then?

How very odd.


You mean other than this post (taken from only two pages back) that replied to you the last time you brought this up? You know, the post from two pages back that you completely ignored?

Winckle wrote:You felt no need to highlight the chap from British Petroleum? Or the guy from the CBI, the business lobby?


Standard :P

7256930752

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by 7256930752 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:41 am

Hexx wrote:
TimeGhost wrote:To be fair to Cal, he tried to show that it's unproven (highlighting the word 'probability' is not clever, though), then gets slammed because there is no absolute proof in most of science! Arrgh.


No. Cal's being his normal self.

Lots of things are are not proven. Most science isn't proved. That's how it fundementally works (although somethings can be disproved, which is what I think FZ means by unproven rather than "not proved"). As you've rightly pointed out - that's science. And yet he's trying to prove something widely admitted, and then claims victory when he does so.

And this has been explained to the him endlessly. Despite this fact he still seems to think "Yeah well. You can't prove it" is something crippling counter argument.

For example the weather report tomorrow here is for rain. Is it proven that it'll rain? No. But on the basis of scienctific modelling it's likely to rain (It also can't be disproven at this point).

There's also Mystic Marge. Who thinks that tomorrow it's going to rain Green Tomatoes and Ham on the basis that she feels a strange vibration from her Uranus..,Is that proven? Nope. Can it be disproven at this point? Also nope.

The normal rational personal would say that the one with overwelming logic, consistency and a rational approach should be conveyed.

Cal says "both are unproven and therefore equally valid. Why did the BBC spend 10minutes on this "Weather Report", and not give Mystic Marge any time? Institutional bias!

Because he's a banana split who wears ignorance as a badge of pride, yet is still arrogant enough to insist inflicting ignorance on people. (Seriously. Go through the thread and see how many people have tried to politely explain this to him. But here he is. Repeating the message. Shout it enough and you'll drown out other viewpoints). The mear fact that this shite stain, laughable "discussion" blog thread is still facilitated is beyond a joke

This should be the go to 'green zealot' post when Cal pastes his now infamous "Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon, it's Anthropogenic............".

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Cal » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:52 am

Yep, all this waffle and petty sniping is very entertaining and all, but I come back to my question: nobody here wants to even acknowledge a major expose of undeniable bias and 'weirding' in the BBC climate reporting as revealed by the 'TwentyEightGate' scandal?

You really - none of you - want to acknowledge that that is what has clearly happened here? :shock:

Image

Staggering. Absolutely staggering.

And you call me a denialist.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Moggy » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:54 am

Cal wrote:Yep, all this waffle and petty sniping is very entertaining and all, but I come back to my question: nobody here wants to even acknowledge a major expose of undeniable bias and 'weirding' in the BBC climate reporting as revealed by the 'TwentyEightGate' scandal?

You really - none of you - want to acknowledge that that is what has clearly happened here? :shock:

Staggering. Absolutely staggering.

And you call me a denialist.


Other than the post I pointed out to you that you are still ignoring?

:lol:

User avatar
Winckle
Technician
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Winckle » Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:58 am

:|

We should migrate GRcade to Flarum. :toot:
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Cal » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:19 am

Winckle wrote:You felt no need to highlight the chap from British Petroleum? Or the guy from the CBI, the business lobby?


Sorry, Winkle, your post got lost amongst the mountain of rants from hexx (that boy does so enjoy swearing his way through this thread). So, to address your question directly:

1. BP are well known eco-scroungers. I know, it seems counter-intuitive, but actually many of the big, 'nasty' oil companies have invested huge amounts in 'greening' their credentials by getting themselves associated with various government climate change initiatives, particularly in BP's case with emergent carbon capture and sequestration technology.



2. The CBI have a vested interest in pimping their nuclear agenda. Matthew Farrow was at the time of this seminar Head of Energy Planning at the CBI.

It's very easy to examine why each of the participants at the BBC sham seminar were there: either to push the pro-CAGW agenda, or to represent 'business interests'. More troubling is that on the full list of attendees we see that the BBC has felt the need to include representatives from Comedy, Drama, Childrens and Entertainment, illustrating beyond all doubt that the BBC's pro-CAGW bias is a calculated, orchestrated manifesto within the bureaucracy, designed to permeate every level of the corporations output.

BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Eleanor Moran, Development Executive, Drama Commissioning
Elizabeth McKay, Project Executive, Education

Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures catriona@tightropepictures.com


Also worth noting two names in particular on that list: Helen Boaden and one George Entwistle. Hmmm. Haven't I heard of them before..?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/b ... more-74210

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Hexx » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:33 am

Winkles and Moggy were 2-3 posts after yours.

Hard to miss (twice) - doubly so if you're going to post 'no response to this then? How utterly surprising and validating' (twice). You think you'd pay more attention to basic facts after the complete tit you just made of yourself in the Savile thread.

Unless of course you're utterly ignoring any responses and solely obsessed with pushing a narrative, and the role you wish to play.

It's charming, in its childishness,your attempts to pretend it's just me belittling you. You might want to give to 20+ people some attention though. They might feel left out.
Got to laugh at the transparent attempt to Ad Homin the multitude of criticisms of you away though.

7256930752

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by 7256930752 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:14 am

I find it funny Cal that you're getting so obsessed over the names mentioned yet you post a link to a site that has been shown to use unreliable sources for it's information.

If you're accusations are somehow true, the better way of showing up the BBC would be to show peer reviewed scientific evidence as proof that what they're showing as CAGW is false. Unfortunately for you this is where most of your arguments fail.

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Skarjo » Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:41 am

I find it funny that Cal is suggesting that the BBC Head of Comedy was there to ensure that the next season of Miranda features a pro-CAGW storyline.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Cal » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:01 pm

Skarjo wrote:I find it funny that Cal is suggesting that the BBC Head of Comedy was there to ensure that the next season of Miranda features a pro-CAGW storyline.


Yep, you could reduce it to that kind of infantile interpretation, Skarjo. You could, but let's try and be all grown-up about it, eh? You know as well as I that it doesn't work quite like that. It's much more subtle, much more insidious.

Just as an exercise - name me one comedian on BBC you've seen calling out CAGW as bunkem. Here's a tip: it should be very easy for you find clips of BBC comedians calling climate sceptics 'nutjobs' and 'loonies'.

Which is quite interesting, when you actually stop and think about it.

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Cal » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:07 pm

COUNTERING THE MISINFORMATION OF AL GORE’S "DIRTY WEATHER REPORT"

November 14, 2012: Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore’s “24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report” runs from 8 pm EST, Wednesday, November 14, 2012 to 8 pm, Thursday, November 15.

ICSC asked four of its science advisors to comment on the statements that appear on the 24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report Website and in Mr. Gore’ video presentation on the same site. Here are the scientists’ remarks. In each case, the site is quoted first and then the ICSC scientists’ responses follow.

Responding to direct quotes from the 24 Hours of Reality project Website:

1 – “Dirty energy has created a world of Dirty Weather. Today, climate disruption affects us all. And it will take all of us together to solve it. Join us for 24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report, when together we will stand up and demand real solutions to the climate crisis.”

ICSC scientists respond:

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: “Actually, our energy systems have never been cleaner, and continue to improve. The idea that we are responsible for extreme weather, let alone that we can change weather patterns is preposterous. Extreme weather is not new, it is natural. For any extreme event we have now, there is precedence in the recent past or distant past. The only difference between past events and now is our greatly expanded population and development of infrastructure that increases impact of extreme weather.

Bob Carter, PhD, Adjunct Research Fellow at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, ICSC Chief Science Advisor: “Dirty weather is part and parcel of living on planet Earth.”

Tim Ball, PhD, Environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg (founded the Rupertsland Research Centre). Now residing in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: “He [Mr. Gore] is talking about CO2 using public relations not scientific terminology. The target is CO2, the byproduct of burning fossil fuels, but he avoids saying that or using the completely erroneous term “carbon”. President Obama incorrectly talks about "carbon pollution". CO2 is a natural gas essential to plants and thereby to life on Earth. It is at the lowest atmospheric level in at least 300 million years and only causes "warming", "change" and "disruptions" in the manipulated IPCC computers.”

Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada: “With clean air technology initiatives, we are able to use much cleaner energy today than say 25 years ago. We will need energy always so we must use cheap energy like oil, natural gas and clean coal!”


http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... cle&id=751

User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Grumpy David » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:09 pm

Exclusive: What Was Discussed at Secret BBC Climate Seminar. Coverage “Exaggerated the Risk of Climate Change” http://order-order.com/2012/11/14/exclusive-what-was-discussed-at-secret-bbc-climate-seminar-coverage-exaggerated-the-risk-of-climate-change/

Guido Fawkes wrote:Yesterday Guido brought you the list of names the BBC has spent six years trying to keep secret, revealing the “scientists” who set the Beeb’s editorial climate policy were nothing more than a crackpot assortment of pseudo-experts and hippy campaigners. Guido can now exclusively reveal what was discussed at the infamous meeting. Held under Chatham House rules, the quotes that have surfaced make for very interesting reading.

An academic paper containing evidence from previous seminars shows that “specialists” and BBC bosses admitted their editorial stance could be exaggerating the risks of climate change. An anonymous documentary maker explains: “shots might be set up this way, with the member of the public saying I’m suffering (from global warming) even if the causal link cannot be directly drawn”. According to one media specialist, “on account of the weak understanding of science, there are now instances of coverages that exaggerate the risk of climate change… this is unthinkable in spheres such as economics or politics”. Unbelievably, these unnamed journalists are admitting exaggerating the risks of climate change.

The report concludes that the seminar highlighted the “tangled web” of the BBC’s editorial policy on climate change, finding that output would often form a “mis-translation” of the truth. The extent of bias in reporting led to “comparisons with the evident normative stance in editorial lines on terrorism, human rights, and child labor”. The BBC spent a six-figure sum to keep this secret. Now we know why…

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Hexx » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:16 pm

Cal wrote:
Skarjo wrote:I find it funny that Cal is suggesting that the BBC Head of Comedy was there to ensure that the next season of Miranda features a pro-CAGW storyline.


Yep, you could reduce it to that kind of infantile interpretation, Skarjo. You could, but let's try and be all grown-up about it, eh? You know as well as I that it doesn't work quite like that. It's much more subtle, much more insidious.


You don't know, you think. You assume. You don't know. I know (because there's evidence) that you have a staggering difficulty in understanding the distinction.

Just as an exercise - name me one comedian on BBC you've seen calling out CAGW as bunkem. Here's a tip: it should be very easy for you find clips of BBC comedians calling climate sceptics 'nutjobs' and 'loonies'.

Which is quite interesting, when you actually stop and think about it.


On the basis of this thread? Nope sounds about right/fair. People call spades spades. (Also - you're still miss using the word sceptic. Could you stop making basic errors. I know it's not in your nature, but personal growth is a good thing)

What "interesting" point do you think you've proved? Much like when you posted the list of names with a knowing "Hmm" (and then ignored any reponses) you seem quite happy that you've demonstrated something, while lacking the intelligence to actually demonstrate anything.

Or are you ignoing the last few pages (surprise, surprise) and think if they call climate sceptics nutjobs 10 times, they have to call climate scienctists nutjobs 10 times.

Standard :lol:

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Skarjo » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:21 pm

Cal wrote:
Skarjo wrote:I find it funny that Cal is suggesting that the BBC Head of Comedy was there to ensure that the next season of Miranda features a pro-CAGW storyline.


Yep, you could reduce it to that kind of infantile interpretation, Skarjo. You could, but let's try and be all grown-up about it, eh? You know as well as I that it doesn't work quite like that. It's much more subtle, much more insidious.

Just as an exercise - name me one comedian on BBC you've seen calling out CAGW as bunkem. Here's a tip: it should be very easy for you find clips of BBC comedians calling climate sceptics 'nutjobs' and 'loonies'.

Which is quite interesting, when you actually stop and think about it.


Well, it's sort of interesting. What's more interesting is if we extend that search to the comedy world as a whole. See, comedians make their living from spotting bullshit and then making fun of it. They are trained to see through idiotic nonsense and then poke fun at those who can't.

Now, this is not a BBC centric thing. I can't name a single comedian who says that CAGW is hokum. You make it sound as though the rest of the comedic community is with you, but those poor brainwashed, shackled BBC comedians have to tow the party line. It isn't. Virtually the whole comedic community has seen through the circular nonsense you cling ever-more-tenuously to and they have no problems proclaiming as such.

But, of course, there's a reason why the vast majority of the scientific community, trained to evaluate scientific data, and the comedic community, trained to evaluate bullshit, agree on this issue, isn't there?

It's a liberal conspiracy!

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Cal » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:23 pm

Grumpy David wrote:Exclusive: What Was Discussed at Secret BBC Climate Seminar. Coverage “Exaggerated the Risk of Climate Change” http://order-order.com/2012/11/14/exclusive-what-was-discussed-at-secret-bbc-climate-seminar-coverage-exaggerated-the-risk-of-climate-change/


An interesting find, David. I know Guido has been on 'TwentyEightGate' for a long time - he was one of the first to break the story. As the evidence mounts up it becomes ever-more obvious - even to the most resistant - that the BBC is guilty of clear bias in its treatment of CAGW. One interesting theory doing the rounds concerns the nature of the BBC's pension fund investments...

And further down the rabbit hole we go...

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Hexx » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:28 pm

Cal wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:Exclusive: What Was Discussed at Secret BBC Climate Seminar. Coverage “Exaggerated the Risk of Climate Change” http://order-order.com/2012/11/14/exclusive-what-was-discussed-at-secret-bbc-climate-seminar-coverage-exaggerated-the-risk-of-climate-change/


An interesting find, David. I know Guido has been on 'TwentyEightGate' for a long time - he was one of the first to break the story. As the evidence mounts up it becomes ever-more obvious - even to the most resistant - that the BBC is guilty of clear bias in it's treatment of CAGW. One interesting theory doing the rounds concerns the nature of the BBC's pension fund investments...

And further down the rabbit we go...


And yet despite all this evidence (See, oh the last 5 pages, plus any other time the BBC has come up and you've ignore anyone else trying to help you climb from the ignorance you lavishly wallow in) you've been utterly incapable of showing that this bias exists? How odd.

I love the way you use words "obvious" and "evidence" without actually know they don't mean "Wot I fink is..."

Claiming victory does not mean you don't need to have evidence to back your argument.

Standard :lol:

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Moggy » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:46 pm

Cal wrote:Just as an exercise - name me one comedian on BBC you've seen calling out CAGW as bunkem. Here's a tip: it should be very easy for you find clips of BBC comedians calling climate sceptics 'nutjobs' and 'loonies'.

Which is quite interesting, when you actually stop and think about it.


How about you provide some examples of comedians that call out CAGW? The way you have worded that makes it sound like there are plenty examples of comedians that do call it out and who cannot get a gig on the BBC. Could you let me know who they are?

And Pat Condell doesn’t count. One other comedian please Cal.

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Hexx » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:50 pm

Ooo good point.

I've watch 3 comedy DVDs this weekend Dara O'Brien, Eddie Izzard and some northern bloke. No one even mentioned Climate Change. (Well Eddie did a bit about Noah, but I don't think it was related)

Just how prolific is this bias/evidence of bias...or is it one of those "obvious" things we should all know to be true?

7256930752

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by 7256930752 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:25 pm

So the conspiracy has infected every part of the BBC?

Now I think about I watched Masterchef all last week and not once did Michel Roux JR lambast wind turbines.


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests