Andrew Turnbull: Even Darwin And Galileo Would Fail The BBC’s Latest Science Test

The Biased Broadcasting Company really have shot themselves in the foot with the Jones debacle and I’m in no mood to make excuses for that worthless bunch of hypocritical morons.

The simple fact is David Kelly died because the system was so one sided that a professional scientist who felt they had to go against the “consensus” and questioned the “unequivocal facts” of WMD felt their life was not worth living.

When the BBC fought to publicise the anti-consensus view that the weapons scientists and experts might be wrong, they were entirely right to do so. But now the foot is on the other shoe, and they find they wish to endorse that same expert/scientific consensus, suddenly its OK to squash evidence counter to that “overwhelming” consensus.

So when Andrew Turnbull illustrates the mess the BBC has got itself into by suggesting that even Darwin And Galileo Would Fail The BBC’s Latest Science Test, the real irony is not that the Biased Broadcasting Company are ignoring the fact most mainstay science started as “fringe views” rejected by the mainstay “experts”but that they are rejecting their own hard fought ethos because fundamentally there is no difference between a rules to limit reporting only the official “climate scientists” and those that will limit them to report only the official “weapons scientists”.

How could they be so stupid? How could they fight so hard to publish the views of someone like Dr Kelly’s and then fight so bitterly to be able to squash the views of someone like Dr Spencer whose work shows there is “no weather of mass destruction” (actually it’s much less heat trapping but … )

They may win a short term victory and be able to shut up the sceptics until the science supporting our view is overwhelming, but in the long run, this “gagging policy” will force the BBC to gag anyone who disagrees with any official “expert” just because they are official. If only the ghost of Dr Kelly’s would come back to haunt them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Andrew Turnbull: Even Darwin And Galileo Would Fail The BBC’s Latest Science Test

  1. TinyCO2 says:

    Very few people outside climate science, their keenest supporters and sceptics know anything much about AGW. That includes all but a few at the BBC. Have you ever seen a documentary from the BBC that does anything other than skate over the facts? So if all you know is the Al Gore message, why would you think sceptics were anything other than crackpots?

    Steve Jones only interviewed scientists and BBC people. He was defending his own science as much as he was defending climate science. He likens us to flat earthers because he doesn’t understand the climate questions. His impressions of sceptics are formed from his own experiences of those opposed to genetics and those of people antagonistic to sceptics. Do we think he’s read the IPCC reports? Do we think he recognised the scope for scepticism even within the official line?

    Sceptics have the added disadvantage in that we are getting between AGW supporters and saving the planet. They want to be heroes. Because they don’t know much about climate they don’t know much about the solutions and annoying little details about the uselessness of renewables is just the buzzing of insects to them. In their minds -sceptics dismiss renewables because they dismiss climate science, therefore renewables must be ok.

    Ironically the BBC has given more time to homeopathy than climate sceptics but then that’s touchy feely and Prince Charles supports it so it must be ok. They support or dismiss science as they feel like. Eg They didn’t bring down Andrew Wakefield the MMR doctor. The consensus didn’t bring him down either. The main work was done by a rogue Times reporter called Brian Deer. He had to fight for years, pushing the GMC and the Lancet. Where was the BBCs fight for scientific justice? Brian Deer only got the data he needed to fight Wakefield because the stupid doctor tried to sue the reporter which meant he had to reveal his research.

    The BBC likes to support whatever cause suits them. Dr Kelly satisfied the BBCs anti war, anti government stance. Similarly it allowed Robert Peston to drop panic bombs into the banking sector because it was exciting and anti establishment. They repeatedly showed panicking Northern Rock savers even when all of the queuing customers had been dealt with. More recently they’ve revelled in the iniquities of NOTW activities despite the fact they’ve never had to compete because they mug the public on a regular basis, whether we watch them or not.

    The BBC will never change. It’s almost like a country in its own right with alien cultures and rules. Despite its prehistoric, left wing, unionised, pc, elf and safety agenda, it dominates both government opinion and public deception, oopse, I mean perception. Global warming suits it very well because it’s a newsworthy catastrophe and the British public HAS TO PAY! Why would they ever want to see an end to it?

  2. Could not agree more. Personally I’d prefer the BBC broadcast any real science whether or not it supports the alarmists view rather than their present vomit of alarmist propaganda.

    In the end, the reason I’m against climate “science” is because it isn’t good science, not because I fundamentally disagree with the anti-consumerist message and I know if the BBC broadcast the real science a lot more people would be become sceptical like me (which is why they will not tell me the real science).

    And I am saying this as a person who e.g. refuses to buy a new umbrella … so the one I have must be getting on for tens years old and is now repaired in several places, and I don’t see why I should have to replace it just because it says something stupid like: “stop climate change” (from my days as a green MSP candidate!!!)

    • TinyCO2 says:

      Sceptics are hypocritically careful with thier energy use ;-) Steven Goddard with his bicycle, Anthony Watts putting up solar panels and having an electric car and me with my small CO2 footprint (haven’t flown in 3 years and car share in a diesal that gets up to 67mpg). We’re a disgrace to the oil companies.

  3. It’s like allowing Al Qaeida equal time to defend 9/11 . . . about time the BBC took a stand.

    • TinyCO2 says:

      No, it’s not, Islamic fundamentalists and even bin Laden got on the BBC many more times than major sceptics. They consider murderous opinions at least news worthy.

      As a sceptic I’d be happy if the BBC just told the full story, that even climate scientists have to admit to. The IPCC reports are full of qualifiers and uncertainties. All I asks is that they show some of the science that detracts from the message that CO2 is obviously causing current warming.

      How many people know that much of the last interglacial was warmer than it is now? How many know that the LIA was unusually cold and that to show graphs starting in 1850 is deceptive because it pretends all that warming could be man made? How many people know that the AGW story only starts in about 1950? How many know that a fifth of anthropogenic CO2 has been emitted in the last 10 years and temperature has not gone up? How many people know that for the first 25+ years of AGW it cooled? That the whole miserable global warming edifice is built on less than 30 years of warming? How many know that there are two other periods of warming that are identical in rate and of similar duration in the instrument record alone? How many know that early predictions of global warming are wildly wrong and now they’ve stopped issuing short term predictions (I wonder why?) How many know that many of the catastrophes used as warnings of global warming are either 1) false or 2) largely down to other factors than warming? A good example is Mt Kilimanjaro, which is suffering, largely because of deforestation at the base which used to supply moisture for replenishing the snow cap, however it is not melting anywhere near as fast as predicted. How many know that the oceans have warming and cooling cycles and that we have just come out of the double whammy of both the Pacific and the Atlantic in their positive phases? How many know that since accurate ocean temperature measurements began, they have cooled slightly, which was deemed almost impossible by scientists? How many know that accurate measurements of any kind are very recent and are essential to untangle a CO2 signal from natural variation? How many know that the CO2 signal has been extracted from a temperature scale measured in mere points of a degree? How many know that some of the strongest warming signals are from Africa which 1) shouldn’t be warming significantly under AGW theory and 2) are not the most accurate instruments on the planet? How many people know that many temperature stations are at airports, places that show some of the most fierce UHI effects? How many know that UHI is an issue at all?

      I could go on. There is plenty of genuine, uncontested science that the BBC could show but doesn’t. The only explanation is inexcusable bias.

  4. gemini4 says:

    Despite claims of being a modern civilisatiion, human behaviour hasn’t really evolved. The ABC mirrors the BBC in this regard. Based on their current actions, both networks would have disregarded Galileo and Darwin had the technology existed then.

  5. The Kelly thjing was not quite so heroic. The BBC did a little token questioning of the WMD claims and then called a truce. Then Blair’s press officer Alastair Campbell broke the truce by denouncing the BBC who in turn went back to reporting the story.

    Even so, long after the event, the continuously insisted Bliar had been “sincere” about believing in WMDs – a statement for which there is, at thje very least, no evidence.

    So it wasn’t brave hournalism it was the BBC defending its turf.

    Brave journalism would have been giving as much coverage, per death, to the ethnic cleansing, massacres, genocide, sexual enslvement of girls and dissection of living people carried out by our “police” in Kosovo, under the direct authority of Blair and co, as to anything Gadafi has doone. That would be many times more coverage of our than anything by Gaddafi. Obviously the BBC have, instead, deliberatly censored genocide and thus every BBC journalist is thereby personally an accessory after the fact in these obscenities. By definition there is not anybody at the BBC who is not personally an obscene lying Nazi with less human decency than the guards at Auschwitz.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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