Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
BBC: Climate Show Unbiased Because it Doesn’t Feature Sceptics.
d2d
Member Posts: 3,109
This is the kind of reasoning that appeals to an 8th grade education.
Climate Change: The Inconvenient Facts, which is due to be broadcast on BBC this coming Tuesday, features presenter Tom Heap speaking to a panel of ‘experts’ on how to explain away anomalies in climate models, such as the growth in Antarctic sea ice and the slow down in global warming since 1998.
After climate scientist Michael Mann took to Twitter to complain that the BBC was “actively promot[ing] misinformation” about man-made climate change, one member of the panel, UCL physicist Helen Czerski, responded that the show is “v. balanced in the sense that there is no “skeptic” voice.”
Comments
Climate Change: Inconvenient Facts?
Costing the Earth
With arctic sea ice shrinking and Antarctic sea ice growing, Tom Heap asks what is happening to the climate.
Despite the consensus of scientists around the world, there are still some anomalies in the computer models of the future climate. Tom Heap is joined by a panel of experts to tackle some of the difficult questions that lead to uncertainties in our understanding of the changing climate.
The perceived wisdom in the scientific community is that the climate is warming but evidence shows that even though Arctic sea ice is melting, there has actually been a growth in Antarctic sea ice. That, along with a documented slow down in the warming of the climate since 1998, has been a 'stone in the shoe' of the climate change story. So what is happening?
Tom is joined by BBC and Met office weather presenter John Hammond to put these 'difficult' climate scenarios to a team of experts: Mark Lynas is an author and environmental campaigner, Mike Hulme is professor of Climate and Culture at Kings College London and Dr Helen Czerski is a broadcaster and 'bubble physicist' at UCL.
With the help of this panel, Costing The Earth discusses how best to communicate anomalies that don't appear in climate models and make the science sometimes hard to comprehend.
NOC what they think. Why do they give a shit that there are other opinions out there?
Please. I really am curious.
Facts.
You don't know a single one of them either... because if you did, you wouldn't be spewing such nonsense.
True science isn't a political forum, hondo.
gargle...