BBC to reduce deniers coverage

[frigidweirdo]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

 

[MisterBeale]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

I didn't say that.

I'm saying if you parrot the BBC, if you parrot the CFR or the RIIA, IOW the Anglo-American establishment? Then yeah, chances are, you have been mentally conditioned.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no First Amendment in the UK, no opposing viewpoints are being blocked.

Refusing to air the ignorance, stupidity, and lies of those hostile to the fact of climate change is perfectly appropriate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

I didn't say that.

I'm saying if you parrot the BBC, if you parrot the CFR or the RIIA, IOW the Anglo-American establishment? Then yeah, chances are, you have been mentally conditioned.

lol

Yes, you said exactly that.

That most on the right are dishonest and liars comes as no surprise.

 

[MisterBeale]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

I didn't say that.

I'm saying if you parrot the BBC, if you parrot the CFR or the RIIA, IOW the Anglo-American establishment? Then yeah, chances are, you have been mentally conditioned.

lol

Yes, you said exactly that.

That most on the right are dishonest and liars comes as no surprise.

It has nothing to do with me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

I didn't say that.

I'm saying if you parrot the BBC, if you parrot the CFR or the RIIA, IOW the Anglo-American establishment? Then yeah, chances are, you have been mentally conditioned.

Did he parrot the BBC? Or did he post something from the BBC?

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

I didn't say that.

I'm saying if you parrot the BBC, if you parrot the CFR or the RIIA, IOW the Anglo-American establishment? Then yeah, chances are, you have been mentally conditioned.

Did he parrot the BBC? Or did he post something from the BBC?

Gosh then since it is FROM the BBC and noted warmist Professor it must be credible since he effectively dialed down the scaremongering over warming trends, which has been supported by dozens of published science papers.

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

Enjoy!

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

I didn't say that.

I'm saying if you parrot the BBC, if you parrot the CFR or the RIIA, IOW the Anglo-American establishment? Then yeah, chances are, you have been mentally conditioned.

Did he parrot the BBC? Or did he post something from the BBC?

Gosh then since it is FROM the BBC and noted warmist Professor it must be credible since he effectively dialed down the scaremongering over warming trends, which has been supported by dozens of published science papers.

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

Enjoy!

I'm not sure you get what the OP said, nor the person who replied to him. But hey, going off tangents can be fun.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is why you are brainwashed by the queen, the government and the establishment and Americans are smarter.

So, if we don't agree with you, we're brainwashed. As for a British person being brainwashed by the queen.......

I didn't say that.

I'm saying if you parrot the BBC, if you parrot the CFR or the RIIA, IOW the Anglo-American establishment? Then yeah, chances are, you have been mentally conditioned.

Did he parrot the BBC? Or did he post something from the BBC?

Gosh then since it is FROM the BBC and noted warmist Professor it must be credible since he effectively dialed down the scaremongering over warming trends, which has been supported by dozens of published science papers.

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

"A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:"

Enjoy!

I'm not sure you get what the OP said, nor the person who replied to him. But hey, going off tangents can be fun.

I am on topic since this about what the BBC deems credible or not. You must have missed this part:

"Both reports were accepted by BBC managers. Both contain much that is common sense. And then there are the editorial guidelines, which are very clear that the guiding principle is “due impartiality”, rather than equal weight."

Cheers.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

According to the fanatics on here if the BBC was reporting on Sandy Hook they would be obliged to give a platform to Alex Jones.
Its a nonsense. At some point common sense has to kick in.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hate to break it to the climate crusaders in here but nobody cares about climate change stories in 2018. Zucker at CNN said two years ago that they dont even do stories on climate change anymore due to "lack of interest". So really coverage for deniers is a moot point.....nobody is watching either way!

 

[SSDD]

Once again how much is humans causing it and how much is natural varience ?

The best knowledge available is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. If that's not good enough for you, you may have to invent or deny something.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere?

There is no actual observed measured data which supports the claim that human activity is even a real factor in climate change, much less the primary driver...but if you believe otherwise, by all means, lets see some actual observed, measured data which supports your belief.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Invincible ignorance is invincible.

Yep! And you alarmists prove it every day... Any evidence yet to prove your assertions?? didn't think so.. Your ignorance is showing...

 

[mamooth]

Can you provide a single piece

The fact that cockroaches don't like light doesn't mean turning on the light is bad. Deniers, flat-earther, antivaxxers, 9/11 truthers, deepstaters, grassyknollers and homeopaths are all types of intellectual cockroaches.

It's difficult to unshit the bed. That's your problem, not ours. You in particular shit your own bed really excessively, so you get to lay in it now. The creepy thing is how much you enjoy it.

 

[SSDD]

Can you provide a single piece

The fact that cockroaches don't like light doesn't mean turning on the light is bad. Deniers, flat-earther, antivaxxers, 9/11 truthers, deepstaters, grassyknollers and homeopaths are all types of intellectual cockroaches.

It's difficult to unshit the bed. That's your problem, not ours. You in particular shit your own bed really excessively, so you get to lay in it now. The creepy thing is how much you enjoy it.

So that would be an emphatic NO... You can't provide any actual observed, measured evidence that either supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, or establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

The best you can do is point out that cockroaches like you don't like being asked for actual evidence to support your claims and that it is unfortunate that you have shit your bed so bad that you can't back down now and must ride the AGW crazy train to the bitter end.

And of course I enjoy exposing liars like you...why wouldn't I?

 

[Crick]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

 

[SSDD]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

So you keep saying...but when asked...like now, to bring forward a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, or a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere, you just can't do it..because no such evidence exists anywhere.

And at this point, I doubt that you will even bring anything forward because everything you have brought thus far has been laughable and the only thing it was evidence for was how easily you are duped....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

 

[SSDD]

Lying fool. Good for the BBC. Show some balls against irresponsible, ignorant lunacy like yours.

PS, evidence in heaping armfuls may be found at www.ipcc.ch

Too funny;

The IPCC has no evidence yet you site it like it does... Speaking of lying fools, how is the king of fools?

When you ask crick about any actual observed, measured evidence that the IPCC has that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, he ignores the supporting AGW over natural variability part of the question and points out that they have plenty of observed measured data...like daily temperature readings...wind gage measurements, rainfall measurements, population figures, etc...but he just can't bring himself to admit that there is no actual data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. They are the most dishonest lot I have ever encountered in all my long years.

And don't you like the goobs who go about posting funny to posts that they are unable to rebut in any fashion? Walking about laughing like a monkey in a tree gibbering mindlessly because they know that they dare not attempt to make a rational comment because there is no rational comment to be made.

 

[Old Rocks]

Orwell tried to warn people that the crazy left wingers will censor opposing views.
Liberals are a threat to freedom and democracy.

Hey, lying bitch, it is not the left wing that is trying to shut down the press. It is the treasonous fat senile old orange clown. Shutting down the press is the first desire of a Fascist. And it is not the left wing that has a leader whose speeches are measured in lies per minute. It is not the left wing that is kissing Putin's ass. You 'Conservatives' are condoning treason, indeed, reveling in it.