by frog
With the motto “Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation” and the stated mission “to inform, educate and entertain“, it is tragic that the world’s largest broadcasting corporation, the BBC, has cancelled plans to run a TV special on climate change.
Planet Relief was tentatively scheduled for broadcast in January 2008, and it was planned to be a climate change counterpart to programmes like Live8, which tried to raise awareness about global poverty. Apparently, senior news editors were worried that Planet Relief was too “campaigning” in nature and the Corporation could have been accused of bias; with the Head of TV news, Peter Horrocks, writing in the BBC News website’s editors’ blog: “It is not the BBC’s job to lead opinion or proselytise on this or any other subject.”
Isn’t it? What is the role of a public broadcaster in relation to a global crisis? One might have thought it would be to raise awareness. Is it biased to devote air time to the campaign against climate change? Surely it would only be biased if we accept the legitimacy of the arguments of climate change deniers. If it’s not biased to say that global poverty is a bad thing and we should do something about it, surely it’s ok to say the same about climate change?
How can the BBC live up to its motto for “Nation to Speak Peace Unto Nation” if it is not prepared to take a stand on and dedicate time to the most pressing item of ‘news’ we are likely to encounter in our lifetime.
Other BBC spokespeople reportedly denied that the cancellation was over fears of impartiality.
[Update: this subject was also well covered over at BusinessGreen blog where their comments thread was also overrun by the very vocal climate skeptics.]
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by frog on Thu, September 6th, 2007
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The BBC bangs on about climate change too much already. Perhaps they want to show a bit more balance in future.
>>only be biased if we accept the legitimacy of the arguments of climate >>change deniers
Warmists arguments are, of course, never biased.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If climate scientists were not concerned with global warming, but something else, say thunderstorms on Jupiter, I’m sure there would not be any controversy. In fact, people would probably think it was interesting, and then get on with their day to day lives.
The problem facing atmospheric scientists is that they are the bringers of bad news. The denial in face of overwhelming evidence, by the likes of PEL et al., is simply a case of shooting the messenger, or burying ones head in the sand.
The hard cold reality is that climate change is happening (nothing new actually), and this time it is very likely caused by human activity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Climate change is happening. It always happens.
The question is: is man causing it, and if so, by how much.
One guy argues about the UHI effect on the long term trend, whilst the other argues that the dew points. I don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, but both are high ranking atmospheric scientists with no visible signs of ulterior motive.
Who is correct?
I don’t know.
But there doesn’t appear to much consensus happening on AGW, and even less on the effect, if any.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
if there is one less telethon with celebrities on the air then surely that is a good thing and not a tragedy
Seriously though, the more we educate and inform the public, the more they feel they are having climate change rammed down their throats and the more likely they are to take a skeptic “global warming is a hoax” position.
Personally I reckon that events such as Live Earth do more harm than good.
I don’t think we can save the world by individual voluntary measures, so educating the public is not going to help.
Rather it requires action by politicians at local, national and international level to put in place rules that force us (or encourage us) to save the world, for example carbon taxes, building standards and vehicle emissions standards, and town planning regulations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey, don’t you think populations in democratic countries are more likely to demand that their governments put in place the kind of non-voluntary measures we need if public broadcasters dedicate time to publicising the severity of the crisis we face? Surely it goes without saying that public awareness is fundamental to government action, evidenced by the increasing demand for action that has been the result of increasing publicity (such as Al Gore’s flick). I think it’s terrible that the BBC is backing away from their public responsibility.
molly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Somehow I think you’d be objecting if BBC decided it was their public responsibility to inform the public of the AGW myth on a nightly basis…
I demand my government do nothing about AGW, as we make no difference whatsoever, and the cost will be stratospheric.
Please tell me exactly how many cows would you like to kill off?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL:
1) Who are the two high ranking atmospheric scientists you are referring to?
2) If you don’t understand what they are talking about, how do you know that one or both disagree with the assertion that the current change in the climate is caused by humans?
3) You “demand” that the “government do nothing about AGW, as we make no difference whatsoever”, which seems to imply that you have some sort of understanding about the issue, yet in your earlier post you basically admitted to your ignorance on the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey, you might have a point about public opinion on the issue (I don’t know if you’re right or not). Anyhow, if the government is doing nothing, then what should individuals do? Maybe indvidual action is like a drop in the ocean, but enough drops might make some difference … and maybe some of those individuals taking action might be able to influence the government?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I haven’t been following the details of the climate change debate too closely but I haven’t noticed any back treading.
The power of vested interests to lean on tv companies shouldn’t be written off lightly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BBC News certainly does not have a line on climate change, however the weight of our coverage reflects the fact that there is an increasingly strong (although not overwhelming) weight of scientific opinion in favour of the proposition that climate change is happening and is being largely caused by man.
I thought the concensus was “overwhelming”……
That statement is a good weakener of public opinion ie not 90% for 10 against but (say) 60% for 40 against… (but those 40 could be right.) This is like the abortion debate.
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Given that the BBC is largely publicly funded, the vested interests might be the same people who own the politicians. Peerage anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would have though that the BBC has a duty to present both sides of the argument.
Why are the people pushing the climate change con so afraid that the public may get to see or hear a dissenting voice?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No JH … it is not like the abortion debate.
If we don’t do anything but should have done something human civilization may not recover. Ever.
If we do something and we didn’t NEED to do it, we lose some opportunity cost of burning fuel sooner. Civilization goes on.
The SCIENTISTS, not the public, say it is happening.
You and BB may like the odds. I have nothing but contempt for such bets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A corrective tweak to National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s formulation shows that the hottest year on record in the US indeed was back during the Dust Bowl days.
“The data adjustment changes ‘the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,’ he said. But ‘global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.’ ”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
I was just demonstrating how the public might perceive the statement “there is an increasingly strong (although not overwhelming) weight of scientific opinion in favour of the proposition that climate change is happening and is being largely caused by man.”.
The issue isn’t just what scientists think, it is public perception and how that feeds into political will. People pick up on statements deliberately left lying around and they think “didn’t I hear somewhere that….[sunspots etc]
I noticed an attempt at revisionism and I have been looking for its source and what knowledgeable people say about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
S,
1) *** nasty ad hominem removed ***
2) Because one is outspoken against AGW. The other believes it to be a reality.
3) I do know that if AGW did turn out to be fact that NZ’s output is insignificant.
Again, how many cows should we kill? How big, exactly, should the herd be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AGW wont help sales at Pegasus Town:
Set at the heart of a remarkable coastal eco-system,
http://www.pegasustown.com/
or SUV drivers and manufacturers
http://www.suvsuck.org/
http://www.idontcareaboutair.com/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does anyone else spot the irony of PEL going on about “how many cows will you [greenies] kill”, when those cows are going to be killed and eaten anyway?
Is that the best you can do PEL?
um, OK, how about … None, we will kill no cows to save the planet, but we do intend to tweak the regulations/tax structure so that the marketplace changes and industrial farmers choose to bring less cows into the world?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it is time an accurate quote was put in here. Here is what the Summary for Policy Makers of Working Group 1 of the 4th IPCC assessment report says:
“The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m -2″
The IPCC summary report even defines very high confidence as: “at least 9 out of 10″, ie at least 90%
Now, we have to accept the experts definition of what very high confidence means (90+%) … but here is a thought: it is my opinion that scientists are usually quite conservative. If there are scientists reading this blog, ask yourself this question: Do you expect to be wrong one out of ten times when you say something has very high confidence?
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice one stuey
Regarding your earliest comment “Rather it requires action by politicians at local, national and international level to put in place rules that force us (or encourage us) to save the world, for example carbon taxes, building standards and vehicle emissions standards, and town planning regulations.”
First it is equally important that politicians identify and remove rules that prevent or discourage us from saving the world. Regulations that protect the monopoly suppliers of electricity in many countries are a major impediment to initiatives such as farmers installing biogas cogeneration to dispose of their animal effluent.
Carbon taxes have not succeeded in dampening demand for travel by car. The OECD’s International Road Traffic and Accident Database reveals that in the last 40 year New Zealand, USA and Australia have had the smallest percentage increases in traffic growth and motor spirits consumption despite having the lowest fuel taxes and vehicle sales taxes. It may be that these carbon taxes are too small relative to incomes. Whatever the reason it does suggest that carbon taxes on carbon-fueled electricity may not have any effect if the growth in consumption is for computer games and plasma TVs which seem to engender worryingly similar attitudes to car ownership aspirations.
Building standards are probably even more critical than car fuel efficiency standards. The potential to easily and cheaply improve building energy efficiency is many times greater than for cars. Mainly because the oil embargoes of the 1970s triggered a quantum leap in fuel efficiency for cars but only a modest improvement for the average dwelling.
The crucial things about that improvement following the oil shocks are that the price of petrol more than doubled overnight and cars could not be easily switched to alternative fuels. Buildings could switch from oil to natural gas which was an alternative to the efficiency strategy forced on the car industry.
The dramatic improvements in road safety over recent decades were the result of government’s mandating safety standards for cars and, in some countries, roads. It was not the result of changing attitudes to encourage people to drive more safely. The focus was almost entirely on allowing people to crash more safely. Google Haddon Matrix to see the science that underpinned this approach. The Haddon Matrix is pretty simple and could help develop a balanced approach to reducing carbon emmissions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This looks at a (one/two? step removed) swipe from Kiwiblog. The chicken little criticism is used in relation to AGW and Peak Oil
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/the_falling_sky_acorn_prevention_bill.html
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>*** nasty ad hominem removed ***
Eh?
That was a valid point.
frogmaster: no it wasn’t – you called a fellow poster stupid and you avoided answering the question
My point is that some people claim that AGW is obviously true, and would liken me to an ostrich for saying otherwise. I don’t find the science obvious at all – it’s cryptic, and extremely difficult for the lay person to follow. Is there something wrong with me challenging the scientific reasoning that leads to the warmist position? Are you that afraid the science may be contentious under close examination?
frogmaster: no we are completely willing to argue the science – it was you who refused to reveal the identity of the scientists in question, (and you did it in a demeaning way) ,so it is you who are afraid to argue the science.
Very telling.
>>Is that the best you can do PEL
OK. How many head of cattle will we run in order to reduce emissions to your required level by 2050? The estimates I’ve read would require an 80% fewer cows than we have today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Your right PEL. Richard Hienberg expresses the problem well in The Parties Over
http://tinyurl.com/2pwey4
Essentially the size of the human economy (and population) has grown on the back of an abundant but polluting and non renewable energy supply and we have painted ourselves into a corner .
jh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>frogmaster: no it wasn’t – you called a fellow poster stupid
I did nothing of the sort. I have not called anyone stupid.
>>it was you who refused to reveal the identity of the scientists in question
The point is that anyone who is familiar with the science should know who I’m talking about. But the personalities shouldn’t matter – either what they say is testable scientific fact, or it isn’t.
Without knowing the names of the scientists and the conclusions drawn, then the believers don’t really know who to side with, because the reality is that *they don’t understand the science either*.
And I am one of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL: I am very familiar with the basic science of climate change (I am not a climate scientist, so defer to the experts on the details). I do not know who you are referring to.
Anyhow, you are right, the personalities shouldn’t matter. The fact is that there is now a very large amount of evidence which points to the current climate change being mainly caused by human activity. You should read the IPCC summary report I quoted from above. You can download it from several Internet sites; it should be quite understandable to someone with a high school
science education.
If you find the science of climate chamge cryptic, you can find many books on the subject in your local public library. Sites like Wikipedia might also help you.
I strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the basic science before you start criticising the views of the majority of experts. Good luck with your research.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL: “80% fewer cows than we have today”
so what if it is? what is the problem with that? cows fuck up the environment (in lots of ways) and we would be better off without them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
perhaps a “make this cow your last” type arrangement? how long does a cow live for anyhow (if left to its own devices but provided with pastures to frolic in)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>we would be better off without them
So once we get rid of the nasty cows, and nasty tourism, how are we going to pay for, say, health?
Samiuela – thanks for those useful tips.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eh what, tourism? where did that come from? are you saying that all our international visitors come here to look at our herds of cows?
Seriously though, do you have any figures for the % of NZ earnings that come from cattle-related industries? Do you have any proof that NZ farmers would not be able to adapt and switch to other livestock or crops (or indeed forestry or tourism).
I previously explained that if there is a Green policy on cows it is to introduce regulations or changes to the tax structure in order to make cattle rearing less favourable and to allow farmers to make their own minds up what to do.
You seem to be implying that if farmers decided not to raise cattle any more because it was less economic to do so, that they would not switch to anything else they would just stop farming and the land would lie fallow. That seems completely unrealistic to me. I can’t really see a farmer saying “hmm raising cattle doesn’t give me as much profit as it used to, I think I will stop being a farmer”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey, I think PEL might be referring the the large amount of carbon dioxide emiited by the
aircraft bringing international tourists to New Zealand? This is indeed a real issue which
probably should be considered. If tourists had to come on low emission forms of transport
(e.g. sailing ships), I think it might discourage a lot of people.
Anyhow, since people seemed obsessed with cows, and cow emissions of methane (which incidentally, mostly
come out the mouth, not where you might expect), there may be technological solutions. I think
(someone can correct me if I’m wrong), that a lot of research is going into breeding animals
that produce less methane during digestion.
Anyhow, whatever benefits technology may bring us, we have to face up to the possibility that
if we don’t do anything, the economy may be affected much more severely than if we start addressing
the problems now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am no longer able to speak for myself, unfortunately. My words are moderated so that they lose their meaning.
Goodbye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Free speech is not the same thing as the right to insult other people in a private space.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PEL
Perhaps we would not need to spend so much on health if people did not continue to clog up their arteries with dead animal. In fact every social advance will always mean an adjustment in our economy, including some people having to accept commercial reality and retrain.
Most people for example would agree that the world overall became a better place when it was no longer fashionable or legal to burn supposed witches at the stake. But think how many people lost their livelihood as a result, and the effect on the economy. Trained inquisitors, inquisitor schools, suppliers of stakes, faggots, torture equipment, how did the economy cope with the change? There used to be a thriving industry in canes, whips, staps, tawses and other instruments of “correction” for schools, but where are they now?
The same can be said for slavery, abolition of chastity belts, the crusades, the ending of world war 2, and pretty much any other positive change you can think of. In the end what counts is not whether something contributes to the economy but whether it is right. Something will contribute most to the economy if lots of people do it, but by the same token, if lots of people do it but it is destructive, unhealthy or inhumane, then that is all the more reason for its abolition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shame on you Frogmaster.
PEL is a valuable member of this forum……….. mind you given the Green parties support of the Electoral finance bill I am not surprised you want to silence anybody who does not agree with your view.
I ask again, why are the Greens so quick to slag off anybody who is not fooled by the global warming con?…are you all hoping that if you cry wolf enough the world will believe you?
Anyway, back to PEL, you would do well to listen to him and his views, he is an intelligent man who IMHO represents the middle voter, he is not as extreme as I but his views are well represented in our communities, if you insist on silencing people like him or worse, do not listen to his message then you will be obliterated at the next election.
frogmaster: we haven’t silenced him. we haven’t done anything to him except some minor edits here and there. he chose to storm off in a huff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Time to ban alcohol again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually that “very high” confidence is just about right. Those in the Scientific Community very seldom express more confidence than that in any attribution of causation. The science in this case has been pretty damned thorough.
If anyone has any specific question I will have a go at answering it or providing a link to an answer that I regard as correct. I know the science and I once worked with some of them. I cannot imagine, knowing those things, what BB and PEL are really doubting, but the important thing is that those doubts cannot be relieved by anything but more information.
Now I do not know all that has gone on here, but the rules about ad-hominem argument have not been in place long enough for me to really have a feel for them. I can be pretty damned insulting myself and I regard it more as an art-form than a means of winning arguments.
You only WIN an argument when agreement is reached.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro:
Global warming is not a con. The scientific evidence pointing towards the current global warming being caused by human activity is very strong. It doesn’t matter what your personal politics are, you simply can’t ignore what the meteorological observations are telling us is happening (and has already happened).
Here is the link to the Working Group 1 report of the Fourth Assessment Report:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
The summary for policy makers (second link on the page) is quite readable, and won’t take long to get through. Why don’t you read it (if you haven’t already)?
I’m not making any suggestions as to what policy needs to be implemented to deal with climate change … I would just ask that people like you read through the scientific summary with an open mind. The scientists who worked on this report are not part of some politically motivated conspiracy, they are just normal people, from all political backgrounds, who have an enormous amount of experience in climate science.
If you read the report, or the summary, you’ll see that there are still quite a few areas where there is controversy and uncertainty. However, the basic assertion that there has been a human caused global warming is now backed up by a very large amount of evidence, and is very likely correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey asked “do you have any figures for the % of NZ earnings that come from cattle-related industries?” and “Do you have any proof that NZ farmers would not be able to adapt and switch to other livestock or crops (or indeed forestry or tourism).”
These figures answer the first question and answer the economic aspect of the second question.
2006, billion dollars,
Tourism 8.3
Dairy produce 6.0
Meat 4.6
Wood & pulp 2.6
Fruit 1.2
Fish 1.2
Casein 0.7
Animal fibres 0.7
Raw hides 0.5
Vegetables 0.4
http://treasury.govt.nz/nzefo/2007/07.asp
http://www.tianz.org.nz/industry-facts/key-facts–figures.asp
ps, total of merchandise exports + tourism = 42 billion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BBC World’s advertisers seem to be mainly Arab countries who build golf courses in the desert or airlines. Nuff said. . .
Also, I do wish these climate change deniers would go and hang out on some other blog. They are so last century . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh
Communism is for those who lack imagination to envision alternative solutions to political, social, and economic problems. They obviously don’t realize that the world has changed markedly since the time of Karl Marx, although much of what he wrote is still as true today as it was back then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Communism was/is made up in the most part of our privatisation rightie types, who happened to live in less-industrial advanced countries that were going totalitarian, so they end up hard core state agents. New Zealand’s full of them, except they identify as free market libertarians types due to circumstance a great deal, which our debt based democracy encourages since it goes in the absolute opposite direction to the individual freedom obtained by having a share in an economic democracy as a citizen right.
Whatever the circumstance and cloth, it is only through keeping them out of the management of the commonwealth that is built into debt free capitalism independently, that demand and supply un-interfered with will deliver true democracy.
http://www.democrats.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The BBC’s problem (since most of you never watch all its channels or pay for them, I do) is that it did not present alternative views on how to address global warming or the reasons for climate change. For a broadcaster that claims scrupulous impartiality (never calling anyone a terrorist for example), it must present different sides. It has bleeted on about food miles for well over a year, presenting the same rubbish that distance is the definitive measure of the carbon footprint of food production and distribution – it bleets on that recycling is always good for the environment, when sometimes it clearly is not.
It is quite correct that the BBC is not to lead opinion on any subject, it has been that way for decades. I don’t expect the BBC to lead the fight against Islamism (and it really doesn’t) so you shouldn’t expect it to lead the fight against climate change – especially since you don’t pay a penny towards its upkeep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Balance in the media is biased!
It is balanced journalism (giving both sides a voice) that has resulted in the situation we have today where the general public has the impression that there is not a consensus among scientists.
http://www.celsias.com/2007/01/26/media-bias-checks-and-balances/
and I don’t know where you get the impression that the BBC is not fully behind the war of terror – they certainly toe the govt line on Iraq/terrorism at home.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Colbert does Bjorn Lomborg
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/colbert_does_bj.php
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)