Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

Poll: global warming

Threads that have run on UpTheSaddlers that might or might not be worth keeping...

Climate Change:

Poll ended at Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:33 am

It's real, it's man-made and we've got to do something NOW (think of the children!)
7
23%
It's real, it's natural, why change a thing?
17
57%
Who cares - we're all gonna die!
3
10%
Stafflers
3
10%
 
Total votes : 30
User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:41 pm

canadiansaddler wrote:Also strange that if the world is in fact now cooling then why is it the large deterioration in the ice sheets has occurred since 2002. 1998 may have been a spike but the longer term trend is still upwards and that sadly is a fact.

There was a greater area of summer ice in the arctic this summer than for the previous two summers at least. I don't know why.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html

User avatar
canadiansaddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: In a hammock belizing

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:55 pm

2009 was the third worse on record - the trend for the Arctic since 2002 has still be for the ice to melt further and be considerably younger making it more likely to melt in future

NSIDC wrote:Actic sea ice follows an annual cycle of melting and refreezing, melting through the warm summer months and refreezing in the winter. Sea ice reflects sunlight, keeping the Arctic region cool and moderating global climate. While Arctic sea ice extent varies from year to year because of changeable atmospheric conditions, ice extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years. During this time, ice extent has declined at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade during September (relative to the 1979 to 2000 average), and about 3 percent per decade in the winter months.
graph with monthly trend line

NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos said, “A lot of people are going to look at that graph of ice extent and think that we've turned the corner on climate change. But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome.”


The NSIDC is partly funded by NASA so not your usual green lovein pressure group. 2009 was promising because more 1st and 2nd year ice survived, but the trend is still there - as the man said underlying conditions are still not good

User avatar
Whitti Steve
Past UTS Benefactor
 
Posts: 5703
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Here

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:05 pm

Approximately 67.9% of all statistics are made up, the other 47% are true. I blame Bonser... despite his removal of chip pans... he still has Whalley spouting hot air!

User avatar
canadiansaddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: In a hammock belizing

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Whitti Steve wrote:Approximately 67.9% of all statistics are made up, the other 47% are true. I blame Bonser... despite his removal of chip pans... he still has Whalley spouting hot air!


:) - so climate change is man made then

User avatar
Whitti Steve
Past UTS Benefactor
 
Posts: 5703
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Here

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:15 pm

canadiansaddler wrote:
Whitti Steve wrote:Approximately 67.9% of all statistics are made up, the other 47% are true. I blame Bonser... despite his removal of chip pans... he still has Whalley spouting hot air!


:) - so climate change is man made then


Damn - you caught me out :D

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:19 pm

canadiansaddler wrote:2009 was the third worse on record - the trend for the Arctic since 2002 has still be for the ice to melt further and be considerably younger making it more likely to melt in future

NSIDC wrote:Actic sea ice follows an annual cycle of melting and refreezing, melting through the warm summer months and refreezing in the winter. Sea ice reflects sunlight, keeping the Arctic region cool and moderating global climate. While Arctic sea ice extent varies from year to year because of changeable atmospheric conditions, ice extent has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past thirty years. During this time, ice extent has declined at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade during September (relative to the 1979 to 2000 average), and about 3 percent per decade in the winter months.
graph with monthly trend line

NSIDC Lead Scientist Ted Scambos said, “A lot of people are going to look at that graph of ice extent and think that we've turned the corner on climate change. But the underlying conditions are still very worrisome.”


The NSIDC is partly funded by NASA so not your usual green lovein pressure group. 2009 was promising because more 1st and 2nd year ice survived, but the trend is still there - as the man said underlying conditions are still not good

Not the trend over the last three years!! :lol:

I don't dispute the temperature data nor the ice data. What I doubt is the anthropological cause.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:48 pm

PJD wrote:I don't dispute the temperature data nor the ice data. What I doubt is the anthropological cause.


I agree. It's not the first time this happened in the Arctic either (first documented at the end of the 'little ice age' in the 1700s, well before the first power station was fired up).

User avatar
tape66
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1908
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Solid steel visor riveted across his eyes, Iron staples close his jaws so no one hears his cries.

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:55 pm

Global warming is making some people millions £££££££££££.
Carbon footprint my bum! *










*That is not an invitation

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:57 pm

I haven't got a carbon footprint. I drive everywhere. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tyldesley_saddler
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:03 am
Location: Greater Manchester (Little Hulton).

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:04 pm

Exile wrote:I haven't got a carbon footprint. I drive everywhere. :mrgreen:




Snap :lol:

User avatar
4143
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 
Posts: 7134
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:05 am

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:13 pm

Whether global warming has been induced by man or not, we mustn't let the environmental debate descend into 'us' and 'them' - I see no reason why any decent person would be against keeping our natural world clean and beautiful.

User avatar
Pedagogue
Board Pedant
 
Posts: 7293
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:21 pm
Location: Can I fix it? Can I ****!

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:34 pm

I blame Bonser.

User avatar
Neuromantic
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: Rotate!

Re: Poll: global warming

Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:41 pm

Global Warming is a load of complete rubbish. Sensationalist crud from governments and grass sweater lovers who live in eco friendly houses. Absolute nonsense. We're still in a freakin' Ice age for god sake!

User avatar
sandwellsaddler
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:27 am

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:55 am

derbysaddler wrote:
The meat ban is an interesting one. The destruction of forestry zones to produce cattle creates an awful amount of damage to eco-systems. Meat production is also very labour and resource intensive when done on an industrial scale. Christ, even cows farting produces large volumes of methane. But, would a government ban it? not in the west I think. I could see China doing it some time in the future, because they don't give a toss about what the population thinks.


simple solution start farming Vegetarians, more food for the meat lovers solving the food crisis and the population crisis in 1 stroke
:mrgreen:

User avatar
derbysaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 5282
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:02 pm
Location: Amber Valley sticks

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:52 am

4143 wrote:Whether global warming has been induced by man or not, we mustn't let the environmental debate descend into 'us' and 'them' - I see no reason why any decent person would be against keeping our natural world clean and beautiful.


Agree totally.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:11 am

Exile wrote:
canadiansaddler wrote:Also strange that if the world is in fact now cooling then why is it the large deterioration in the ice sheets has occurred since 2002. 1998 may have been a spike but the longer term trend is still upwards and that sadly is a fact.


I'd dispute the trend (how long is long term) and the ice sheet deterioration. Here's a graph showing ice extent globally since 1979 - looks like a pretty regular seasonal heartbeat to me.

Image

canadiansaddler wrote:A question for all though, what is the harm in trying to live on a better bluer planet, small changes in energy consumption are easy to do, and actually can save money.


I concur wholeheartedly, but the changes proposed by governments will cost us all dearly.


This where interpretation of the results suffers from a lack of expertise.

The graph above is correct I'm sure - accurately relaying the area of ice coverage during these years.

Ice is a funny thing though and is not a static mass of rock. Every year ice is laid down during the winter months as snow compacts under it's own weight. Every summer some of the ice melts.

Previously, large masses of very old ice (100,000s of years old in some cases) formed a reservoir of material and new ice was laid down or melted away. There is a slow progress of the ice towards the sea. Recently (last 30 years) the depth, thickness and area of this old ice has dramatically decreased, leaving the total ice block to be composed more and more of the new ice. The old ice takes ages to thaw, melt and disappear but the new ice is weak and is easily eroded.

Another process is the rate at which ice sheets and glaciers advance towards the sea, calving ice floes off to float around. This also has dramatically increased.

The upshot is that the area of ice means nothing and it may actually increase (as ancient ice speeds towards the sea and breaks up) - a nice little factoid for the followers of pseudo-science. Sadly, that's not the whole story as the quality of the ice (along with some evidence) is weak, fragile and is easily eroded under closer inspection.

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:59 am

SaigonSaddler wrote:This where interpretation of the results suffers from a lack of expertise.

The graph above is correct I'm sure - accurately relaying the area of ice coverage during these years.

Ice is a funny thing though and is not a static mass of rock. Every year ice is laid down during the winter months as snow compacts under it's own weight. Every summer some of the ice melts.

Previously, large masses of very old ice (100,000s of years old in some cases) formed a reservoir of material and new ice was laid down or melted away. There is a slow progress of the ice towards the sea. Recently (last 30 years) the depth, thickness and area of this old ice has dramatically decreased, leaving the total ice block to be composed more and more of the new ice. The old ice takes ages to thaw, melt and disappear but the new ice is weak and is easily eroded.

Another process is the rate at which ice sheets and glaciers advance towards the sea, calving ice floes off to float around. This also has dramatically increased.

The upshot is that the area of ice means nothing and it may actually increase (as ancient ice speeds towards the sea and breaks up) - a nice little factoid for the followers of pseudo-science. Sadly, that's not the whole story as the quality of the ice (along with some evidence) is weak, fragile and is easily eroded under closer inspection.

Where there is a specific measurement that can be made, like air, sea and land temperature or area or thickness or age of ice, no one can dispute the data, because it is, as Sheff might say, FACT!

What many people dispute is the cause. Why did the earth cool considerably in the 25 - 30 years following the end of the second world war? This is also a fact. Surely the vast increase in CO2 emissions in the ten years before 1945 would have had the opposite effect?

As I said above, I am absolutely in favour on reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, but for different reasons - mainly security of supply and the fact they are going to run out. Why can't politicians just argue this case instead? My guess is that it is easier for them to peddle a negative story than a positive one.

"If you don't pay more tax your children are all going to drown!" is easier to argue than "Let's pay more tax to ensure our children have an infinite supply of clean energy, that can't be turned off by OPEC at the flick of a switch".

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:34 am

PJD wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:This where interpretation of the results suffers from a lack of expertise.

The graph above is correct I'm sure - accurately relaying the area of ice coverage during these years.

Ice is a funny thing though and is not a static mass of rock. Every year ice is laid down during the winter months as snow compacts under it's own weight. Every summer some of the ice melts.

Previously, large masses of very old ice (100,000s of years old in some cases) formed a reservoir of material and new ice was laid down or melted away. There is a slow progress of the ice towards the sea. Recently (last 30 years) the depth, thickness and area of this old ice has dramatically decreased, leaving the total ice block to be composed more and more of the new ice. The old ice takes ages to thaw, melt and disappear but the new ice is weak and is easily eroded.

Another process is the rate at which ice sheets and glaciers advance towards the sea, calving ice floes off to float around. This also has dramatically increased.

The upshot is that the area of ice means nothing and it may actually increase (as ancient ice speeds towards the sea and breaks up) - a nice little factoid for the followers of pseudo-science. Sadly, that's not the whole story as the quality of the ice (along with some evidence) is weak, fragile and is easily eroded under closer inspection.

Where there is a specific measurement that can be made, like air, sea and land temperature or area or thickness or age of ice, no one can dispute the data, because it is, as Sheff might say, FACT!

What many people dispute is the cause. Why did the earth cool considerably in the 25 - 30 years following the end of the second world war? This is also a fact. Surely the vast increase in CO2 emissions in the ten years before 1945 would have had the opposite effect?

As I said above, I am absolutely in favour on reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, but for different reasons - mainly security of supply and the fact they are going to run out. Why can't politicians just argue this case instead? My guess is that it is easier for them to peddle a negative story than a positive one.

"If you don't pay more tax your children are all going to drown!" is easier to argue than "Let's pay more tax to ensure our children have an infinite supply of clean energy, that can't be turned off by OPEC at the flick of a switch".


I agree, it's a whole new ball game to blame human activity for global warming. There is evidence and counter-evidence. For me, the coincidence of massive CO2 emissions and global warming is compelling but others may come to different conclusions.

If some people seek to find obsure and illogical evidence that goes against the over-whelming trend of global warming then it's up to them, but I don't really need to convince them as the world has come to the obvious conclusion. Even the Bush government finally conceeded on this point.

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:53 am

SaigonSaddler wrote:I agree, it's a whole new ball game to blame human activity for global warming. There is evidence and counter-evidence. For me, the coincidence of massive CO2 emissions and global warming is compelling but others may come to different conclusions.

If some people seek to find obsure and illogical evidence that goes against the over-whelming trend of global warming then it's up to them, but I don't really need to convince them as the world has come to the obvious conclusion. Even the Bush government finally conceeded on this point.

Some people believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a caused by global warming, rather than the other way around. As the oceans warm and the tundra melts CO2 and other green house gasses are released.

User avatar
motty
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:27 pm
Location: Walsall ay it.

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:58 am

I welcome global warming with open arms the last two summers have been dross.As for the food shortage therefore becoming more expensive,We need to tell the chinese to stop eating again it will simply not do.

ShyTallKnight
Glitterati
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Outlaw

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:01 pm

PJD wrote:
canadiansaddler wrote:Also strange that if the world is in fact now cooling then why is it the large deterioration in the ice sheets has occurred since 2002. 1998 may have been a spike but the longer term trend is still upwards and that sadly is a fact.

There was a greater area of summer ice in the arctic this summer than for the previous two summers at least. I don't know why.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html


Because it snowed more? :lol:

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:10 pm

ShyTallKnight wrote:
PJD wrote:
canadiansaddler wrote:Also strange that if the world is in fact now cooling then why is it the large deterioration in the ice sheets has occurred since 2002. 1998 may have been a spike but the longer term trend is still upwards and that sadly is a fact.

There was a greater area of summer ice in the arctic this summer than for the previous two summers at least. I don't know why.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html


Because it snowed more? :lol:

Genius!

Why did it snow more?

ShyTallKnight
Glitterati
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Outlaw

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:43 pm

PJD wrote:
ShyTallKnight wrote:
PJD wrote:
canadiansaddler wrote:Also strange that if the world is in fact now cooling then why is it the large deterioration in the ice sheets has occurred since 2002. 1998 may have been a spike but the longer term trend is still upwards and that sadly is a fact.

There was a greater area of summer ice in the arctic this summer than for the previous two summers at least. I don't know why.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html


Because it snowed more? :lol:

Genius!

Why did it snow more?


Global cooling? :lol:

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:47 am

ShyTallKnight wrote:
PJD wrote:
ShyTallKnight wrote:
PJD wrote:
canadiansaddler wrote:Also strange that if the world is in fact now cooling then why is it the large deterioration in the ice sheets has occurred since 2002. 1998 may have been a spike but the longer term trend is still upwards and that sadly is a fact.

There was a greater area of summer ice in the arctic this summer than for the previous two summers at least. I don't know why.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html


Because it snowed more? :lol:

Genius!

Why did it snow more?


Global cooling? :lol:

And inevitably, why did it cool?

Anyhow, anyone see this in the news today?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

Can't see this happening anytime soon, the Oysters breakfast on Saturday alone will account for about 2 degrees of global warming!

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:27 pm

Lord Stern = complete loser.

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:56 pm

Interesting piece from an ex-science correspondent for BBC Radio, which is illuminating about the way the BBC reports on these sorts of issues

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Whitehouse2009.htm

"Reporting the consensus about climate change (and we all know about the debate about what is a consensus in the IPCC era) is not synonymous with good science reporting. The BBC is at an important point. It has been narrow minded about climate change for many years and they have become at the very least a cliché and at worst lampooned as being predictable and biased by a public that doesn’t believe them anymore."

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:17 pm

PJD wrote:Interesting piece from an ex-science correspondent for BBC Radio, which is illuminating about the way the BBC reports on these sorts of issues

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Whitehouse2009.htm

"Reporting the consensus about climate change (and we all know about the debate about what is a consensus in the IPCC era) is not synonymous with good science reporting. The BBC is at an important point. It has been narrow minded about climate change for many years and they have become at the very least a cliché and at worst lampooned as being predictable and biased by a public that doesn’t believe them anymore."


Opinionated babble.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:58 pm

SaigonSaddler wrote:
PJD wrote:Interesting piece from an ex-science correspondent for BBC Radio, which is illuminating about the way the BBC reports on these sorts of issues

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Whitehouse2009.htm

"Reporting the consensus about climate change (and we all know about the debate about what is a consensus in the IPCC era) is not synonymous with good science reporting. The BBC is at an important point. It has been narrow minded about climate change for many years and they have become at the very least a cliché and at worst lampooned as being predictable and biased by a public that doesn’t believe them anymore."


Opinionated babble.

In your opinion. He's quite right with his comments though.

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:28 am

SaigonSaddler wrote:
PJD wrote:Interesting piece from an ex-science correspondent for BBC Radio, which is illuminating about the way the BBC reports on these sorts of issues

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Whitehouse2009.htm

"Reporting the consensus about climate change (and we all know about the debate about what is a consensus in the IPCC era) is not synonymous with good science reporting. The BBC is at an important point. It has been narrow minded about climate change for many years and they have become at the very least a cliché and at worst lampooned as being predictable and biased by a public that doesn’t believe them anymore."


Opinionated babble.

I think it is interesting that when the BBC were publishing lines like "Scientists believe as many as half a million people could die from vCJD", there were people within the organisation that were being warned off publishing their own view, that this was not actually what the science showed, especially given the very small numbers that have subsequently died of the disease.

Given the recent hysterical coverage by the BBC on a range of issues such as vCJD, MMR vaccine, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Global Warming etc, etc (in fact is there any issue they don't report hysterically?) all of which have been found to be irresponsible scaremongering, I think it is the BBC's mainstream view which has been shown to be "opinionated babble".

Now for commercial news organisations I can understand, they live or die by their ratings, but the BBC is different, they are a public service broadcaster. What I want from my public service broadcaster (funded by all of us, regardless of ratings) is a balanced view of the facts, not scaremongering headlines, which on closer inspection have little to do with the science or the truth.

User avatar
Whitti Steve
Past UTS Benefactor
 
Posts: 5703
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Here

Re: Poll: global warming

Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:35 am

PJD wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:
PJD wrote:Interesting piece from an ex-science correspondent for BBC Radio, which is illuminating about the way the BBC reports on these sorts of issues

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Whitehouse2009.htm

"Reporting the consensus about climate change (and we all know about the debate about what is a consensus in the IPCC era) is not synonymous with good science reporting. The BBC is at an important point. It has been narrow minded about climate change for many years and they have become at the very least a cliché and at worst lampooned as being predictable and biased by a public that doesn’t believe them anymore."


Opinionated babble.

I think it is interesting that when the BBC were publishing lines like "Scientists believe as many as half a million people could die from vCJD", there were people within the organisation that were being warned off publishing their own view, that this was not actually what the science showed, especially given the very small numbers that have subsequently died of the disease.

Given the recent hysterical coverage by the BBC on a range of issues such as vCJD, MMR vaccine, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Global Warming etc, etc (in fact is there any issue they don't report hysterically?) all of which have been found to be irresponsible scaremongering, I think it is the BBC's mainstream view which has been shown to be "opinionated babble".

Now for commercial news organisations I can understand, they live or die by their ratings, but the BBC is different, they are a public service broadcaster. What I want from my public service broadcaster (funded by all of us, regardless of ratings) is a balanced view of the facts, not scaremongering headlines, which on closer inspection have little to do with the science or the truth.


Totally agree... I lost any respect I had for BBC news years ago.

PreviousNext
Return to UTS Classics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests