It seems the BBC's trust are going to force the BBC to be a little less 'On Message' from now on.
BBC Trust to review science coverage | Media | guardian.co.uk
Like I said before: follow the money.
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: £8bn BBC eco-bias
Sorry for the slight bump, wasn't sure whether this merited it's own thread or not, but since it's highlighting yet more BBC/UKGOV climate agenda, here it is:
BBC News - Climate change 'exaggerated' in government adverts
Yes, completely vindicated. Rebuff those fools for questioning the ASA on this matter... Oh, wait, what? The chairman of the ASA also chairs the Environment Agency? No way?
Way!
But surely that's a conflict of interests, right? Completely vindicated, you say?
Sounds more like a deal was cut to sacrifice a couple of posters in order to keep a tv ad in circulation...
Sounds to me like a cross between the 'shower with a friend' slogan from the drought days, but with a new liberal-minded spin to it.
Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub, a necessary course of action due to each man having his own bath is too energy expensive.
Surely the key issue here is why the climate scientists didn't forecasta 'pause' in global warming.
I understand that weather isn't climate. And that getting the forecast for this winter wrong is not itself an indication that climate forecasts are wrong.
However, climate forecasts and the models they are based on have been going for many years now.So how come it didn't predict this 'pause'?
I am sure someone somewhere will unearth some model that did forecast it, but generally all the forecasts I have seen over the last decade have just shown continual warming.
How can we rely on these models if they can't forecast something like this?
You can't. The Met Office says they use the same weather prediction hardware and software for their global warming 'work'. They just bolt on some extra fudge factors like a carbon cycle model.
So yeah, if they can't even predict the weather accurately in 3 days time, I don't have any confidence in their climate pronouncements. Especially as the historic data used for climate prediction varies in accuracy between a wet finger in the wind and cherry picked tree ring samples.
You'd get more accuracy with a drunken monkey and a dartboard. It wouldn't cost us billions of pounds either.