BBC Bias

The BBC just cannot stop themselves from going flat out against their charter commitment and adding their own ideologicall bias, whenever they feel like it. Humble Kate on the programme plotting the Earth's year did her usual sterling job and there was some genuinely interesting points put across extremely well. Educationally, in many areas I would rated it as some of the finest I have seen.

But Lordy, when they get a chance to introduce Man Made Climate Change the quality falls off a cliff. And it is not just that they believe it so they say so, oh no, they are clearly aware that it doesn't stack up, because of the planning that goes into how this element is introduced and presented.

Melting Arctic sea ice was the subject. First the winter was mentioned and then Kate went straight on to talk about the fact that the sea ice has melted to a far greater extent over the last few years. But clearly the ice doesn't melt during winter, so she was talking about a summer melt. Why should she wish to confuse these two things in your mind? Because she would then have had to say that in winter the sea ice covers a greater area than it did.

The other nice little touch was to address the natural instinct that this may be wrong as we have just had a  few cold winters in Britain. This she said, couldn't be taken as important as it was only two or three winters. So her two or three 'massive melts' are statistically important and proof of something Man is responsible for, but a couple of cold winters are insignificant. Which one is it?

Items such as the formation of clouds and the way massive storms develop near lakes etc were excellent and because there was no political point to make, presumably based on the best knowledge. The bits where they were happy to repeat made up stuff was when an ideology the BBC supports was touched upon.

I just loved the fact that, overall the assumption was that people watching the programme would be so thick that they would blindly accept that repeated ice ages (which naturally required intervening warming) had occurred, but 'Global Warming' was caused by man's output of CO2. The fact that this is unproven as we cannot see the mechanism by which this is true and also don't understand the full complexities of climate change, seems to concern them not a jot.

Nor does the fact that the planet isn't warming, but CO2 output continues. In fact the only place that Man Made Global Warming occurs is in the computer models of people who want MMGW to be true.

The other thing that stunned me was the explanation of how ice ages occur. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I have never heard this 'combination of circumstance' cause before. Seemed highly plausible, but why hadn't such an important and fundamental fact found its way into my head before?