BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots

Hasn't anyone considered the possibility that the OP is linking us to a disgruntled Prima donna?

 

Nah, the op's not a troll. He is also a popular member on the UK forums.

FYI, Peter Sissons is a household, big name news reader in the UK.

I think the whole thread was aiming that people are less likely to believe in global warming/climate change if free speech and any opportunity to discuss alternatives is styfled. The BBC believe in it (rightly or wrongly) but because of their arrogance they will not discuss any alternative views or give balance. Perhaps because they're they're left leaning in most other things, anyone with alternative political views will treat their articles with suspicion. The same view appears on here too - question whether climate change is man made and you're called a flat earther.

It might be caused by man but for as long as I'm called a fool and 'flat earther' for even questioning the fact, then I'm going to ignore the whole issue and it appears that millions of others out there feel the same.

 

I'm looking outside my window right now. There's a couple of feet of snow on the ground, and more on the way.

You see, climate change makes the oceans evaporate faster, which leads to more water in the atmosphere, which leads to much more rain, which leads to flooding and gigantic snowfalls.

Hear about gigantic snowfalls, storms, and floods in the news recently?

So yeah, anyone who doesn't realize climate change is here right now is a fool.

 

Because you say so.

How about the heavy snow fall we had in the early 1980's or in 1963 or 1946?

What about the heavy winters the world had in the early 1900's?

 

No. Because the data says so. Look at any chart of global temperatures over the last 200 years and see where it is going. Look at the charts of C02 from the last 600,000 years and see what is happening. Then look at the chart of water vapor pressure as a function of temperature and see what is happening . Read "Storms of my Grandchildren " for all the charts and data. This is not opinion anymore . It is facts backed up by reams of data.

 

What about rising ocean temps since 1900's (global warming)? I believe our planet is experiencing climate change, but I'm not sure that I believe that industrialization is totally responsible. It's possible that climate change is cyclical. Maybe the dinosauers could share their data with us.

 

Ah, so you believe the earth is flat eh?

Now you're talking. You hear all these comments like "the earth has never been as hot as this for 200,000 years...". Hmmm, does that mean our ancesters were driving too many V8's or maybe, just maybe climate change is just a natural cycle!

 

While you may be right, that there is most likely cyclical climate change(s) on is hard pressed to ignore the fact that in the last ~200 years we (humans) have tripled the concentration of Carbon in the atmosphere and humans know that CO2 is a significant element of the greenhouse effect of atmosphere. Only the completely blind would fail to see a cause and effect.

The degree of human intervention in the atmosphere is debatable, but the fact that humans have had some (and I believe significant) effect. The debate then becomes what to do about it? My answer is, the consequences of doing nothing are significant enough to be potentially catastrophic, the solutions provide multiple benefits, including but not limited to, net/net cheaper energy going forward, better energy security, better national security, better economic stability etc. IMHO those that propose to do nothing (until the consequences are clearer)
are either hopelessly naive', myopic in their lack of trust of science, or they are fundamentally selfish such that they are all too willing to pass on the environmental costs of their choices to their children and grandchildren.

 

If you're right and the end is near, didn't I try by buying a Prius? Well, no not exactly since Toyota and their suppliers use conventional petroleum products and rare elements that require conventional petroleum products to extract and manufacture their componentry. Does my low emissions offset their high emissions? What I'm saying is that us consumers always take it on the environmental chin for our consumption decisions . I believe we very limited choices and alternatives as to what's offered to us. The auto industry is a great example of that.

Governments and corporations don't seem willing to invest in viable, cheap, alternative, non-polluting energy sources. The U.S. seems to have their political heads in the sand. For example, NC turned down an opportunity to develop a wind energy industry in the Appalachia mountains.

I'm not waffling from my opinion that our global warming is cyclical, but I do believe we could be more responsibile in our choices and consumption. I'm saying that governments and private industry are not willing to find alternative, non-polluting sources because they don't see an upside for their bottom line.

 

I think that a large percentage of those that we often label as "denier" are untrained in the sciences and have not taken to the time to understand the actual mechanism whereby CO2 molecules are essentially invisible to short wave radiation but interact with long wave radiation so to create a warming effect. There was a good site that explained the interaction of different wavelengths of radiation on triatomic molecules (CO2, H2O) vs. diatomic molecules (O2, N2) and how that relates to energy absorption. Do you know where it is Icarus? I'm high on norco and would have trouble explaining the science clearly.

 

Wanna bet?
You buy anything that is advertised on rupertvision and you pay for the TV shows they are advertised on even if you never watch the shows.

No one on TV works for free and why shouldn't there be a counter-view to cooperate propaganda?
Maybe things really do go better with coke and real men smoke Marlboro cigarettes.

 

F8L, the AIP explainer website does not force the reader to go too deeply into the physics of light absorption:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Gonna have to jump on Icarus though - anthropogenic CO2 increase is 280 to (now) 390 parts per million and that ain't triple. Even starting from the glacial-stage 180 ppm isn't.

The stuff does absorb infrared quite efficiently though. My favorite gadget the Licor IRGA (mentioned here before) could not do its magic otherwise. Then I'd have spent $3500 on a useless little shoebox...

F8L from all I've heard, hydrocodone is a fun trip. But kinda tail it off when the pain goes away, don't stop suddenly. Speaking of Rubert Murdoch, wasn't there a Simpsons episode about painkillers? Or do I just imagine it.

 

Thank you, my friend. I knew I could count on you.

As for the norco, I try to use as little as possible and always end up with a lot of pills left over. I don't really like the feeling it produces but if it'll allow me to be able to get in and out of bed for the next few weeks then I don't mind so much.

 

I confess I erred,, I meant by ~1/3 not triple. (As many know,, my math skill suck!)

Sorry,
Icarus

 

That's a lot for a shoebox

I've had plenty of pain, and for many of us hydrocodone is not fun at all. Unfortunately I've had my share of trips to the ER. Murdock has made fun of himself on the simpsons, and I think I remember him at moes watching leno, and he laughed about the bp spill. They also had a rush limbaugh like character (not him) from fox news that bought expired pain killers from marge. I think they made fun of fox and limbaugh with the character on a different episode. So fox cartoon makes fun of fox news. BBC I believe censored out the drug use of the simpsons.

 

OK in a roundabout way everyone pays for commercial tv. What I meant is that you are not forced to subscribe to Sky/Murdoch/Fox as you are with the BBC.

I'm sure it's a dream of Murdoch (and a nightmare of everyone else) if one day the Government (Aussie or US) suddenly announced that everyone MUST pay $20 a month for a minimum Fox/Sky subscription oto watch tv or go to jail. Well that's what we get here except it's the BBC not Sky/Fox.

I wouldn't mind the BBC if it were optional. I enjoy my Top Gear as much as most - such as the latest episodes where they met their Aussie counterparts, picking them up from the airport in a prison van to make them feel at home! Got into a bit of bother with the Mexican Government too when they pushed some outdated stereotypes a little too far. BBC News - Top Gear sparks Mexico complaints

Sure, that wouldn't happen on commercial tv - or would it? The Simpsons seem to push things a little and can almost get away with what they like because of the ratings etc.

 

First, it is absolutely untrue that prices are higher because of advertising. Some things are some are actually lower because advertising raises sales volume. So it is a false generalization that because comercial television exists we all pay for it. You don't need to buy any product that is more expensive because it is advertised. In GB you do need to pay for BBC or go to jail. Grumpy Cabbie is absolutely right.

The top gear burb was just unabashed racism. There was no political speech unless your politics are lets hate Mexicans. I doubt that if you are not a racist yourself you would find any humor in it, and I do find much more racism on the bbc than comerical american television. The simpsons have been political but in an equal opportunity way, and have strived to at least have humor in it. If it get too political for sponsors it would find a home on comedy central or cartoon network adult swim. South Park is extremely racist and political, but it is not against any particular race like that top gear seems to be. It makes fun of all races. It would not survive on a major network, but it is the simpson's creators favorite cartoon. Some simpsons episodes are censored on the BBC.

 

Latest BBC outrage: they repeatedly assert that the Earth is not flat.

 

Just for fun I have to ask where does all the money used to pay TV advertising firms come from? It's hard to believe that the consumer does not contribute anything to this bucket.