BBC The Editors: No Line

I am happy to see that somebody at the BBC finally understands that to campaign about Climate Change, a thing of the possible future, is not the same as working for children already in need or ill, or poor already poor indeed.

Anyway, here some evidence for BBC bias for bad environmental news, of which Climate Change is only one item…

– American Scientist magazine publishes study doubting the bleak
descriptions of wildlife around Chernobyl -> Not worthy of reporting on the BBC news website

– Study says Chernobyl area is not a wildlife haven -> article follows (ironically citing the
previous “non-news”)

– Aug 16: BBC News publishes “Atlantic yields climate secrets” following the same pattern.

For some reason it has been decided to detail the findings of the same group that incorrectly announced a 30% reduction in the Gulf Stream flow, without any reference to the doubts any of that can really affect the climate (by well-known Professor Carl Wunsch, and by yet another article on American Scientist).


Mark in #149

“Your example shows complete ignorance of scientific theory… Attacks on computer modelling are valid but only from people who know what they are talking about…Your answer is a good example of someone who knows nothing about science trying to pick holes in a theory they do not understand”

What I will never understand is this: IF somebody is concerned about the planet’s climate, and IF they think the science of climate change is strong, THEN WHY OH WHY would they waste time cheapening the issue with a Stalinist attitude, declaring who should and who should not be qualified to speak?

Anyway…computer models are simulations, not the real world. Is that so difficult to accept?

If we could rely on computer models there would be no need to test drugs in animals and then in humans, for example. We would all be able to invest in the right companies, and scientific research could stop as we have the computing power to model almost everything.

That doesn’t happen because we all know that “there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio etc etc”. And in climate


4 Responses to “BBC The Editors: No Line”

  1. China and the BBC Warming Bias « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE Says:

    […] and the BBC Warming Bias 31 01 2008 (here and here and here some more thoughts on the all-too-apparent bias at the BBC towards global warming […]

  2. China and the BBC Warming Bias « Maurizio - Omnologos Says:

    […] […]

  3. Journalists In A Cage, or The Curse Of Climate Change Bias « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE Says:

    […] Combine now these three observations and you’ll find mainstream journalists striving to stay away from any skepticism on climate change (even when it’s skepticism coming from professional scientists), as that would twice undermine their business, and even their professionalism. Climate Chambers skepticism is anti-news. If you want a related example, see what the BBC did when some good news threatened to be coming from Chernobyl. […]

  4. China and the BBC Warming Bias | Omnologos Says:

    […] (here and here and here some more thoughts on the all-too-apparent bias at the BBC towards global warming and doom-and-gloom news in general) […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: