Slashdot Mirror
Wayback Machine Trumps FOI Tribunal
New submitter calder123 writes "Last week, the BBC won an FOIA tribunal ruling that they didn't have to reveal the names of attendees at a seminar in 2006, designed to shape the BBC's coverage of climate change issues. The document, uncovered by Maurizio Morabito, puts comments by the BBC that the meeting was held under Chatham House rules, and that the seminar drew on top scientific advice in an interesting light. In a bizarre coincidence, four of the BBC's attendees at the seminar have resigned in the last few days."
So the BBC is happy to take public money, but doesn't think there should be ANY strings or responsibilities attached? Must be nice. I wonder if they would accept other public agencies refusing THEIR Freedom of Information requests. I suspect not. And yet that is the precedent they could set.
Personally, I think it's a bad precedent to be set by a institution that has a journalistic wing itself. But, then again, I'm a little creeped out by the whole idea of a state-run media in the first place, even one that stringently attempts to remain objective. It's bound to produce conflicts of interest, no matter how much you try to avoid them.
And, even putting the precedent aside, it just looks bad. If you're going to ask others to be open, it's really embarrassing when it looks like you're trying to hide something yourself, especially when openness is one of your stated goals, oft-repeated.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
That's why BBC had to do this:
- This is incredible. In Jan 2006 the BBC held a meeting of “the best scientific experts” to decide BBC policy on climate change reporting (t)
- The BBC has been in court blocking FOI attempts to get the list of the 28 attendees, but it’s just been discovered on the wayback machine (t)
- It turns out that only 3 were current scientists (all alarmists). The rest were activists or journalists (t)
- The BBC sent four low level representatives: Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden, George Enwistle. All have since risen to power. (t)
- Amazingly, those are also the exact four who have thus far resigned this week over the false paedophilia accusations against Lord McAlpine. (t)
It isn't a religious faith. Its science. Its writing on the wall, and serious people are finally starting to read it. The people polluting the Earth are already having an impact on our weather patterns - one that has claimed lives.
WRONG
It's NOT science.
Science WELCOMES attempts at falsification. It does NOT label doubters "denialists" or "heretics".
Read this.. You might learn something. Though I doubt it.
If AGW is a correct theory, it can withstand the light of day.
It has withstood the light of day. Repeatedly. For approximately 20 years. To the point where the vast majority of scientists who study this stuff agree that it's the best available explanation of numerous observed changes in the climate.
The only place there's a serious debate is in the public imagination, and that's largely due to a very well-funded PR campaign funded by the oil and coal industries.
I am officially gone from
Stealing cable is a criminal offence too. Not sure how this is any different.
And it's interesting. Apparently, the Beeb decided that the overwheling evidence of climate change and global warming rendered dissenting views not only null, but dangerous, in that these dissents would only impede what is necessary action, and are either specious, disingenuous, false, or all of the preceding. So the BBC essentially wanted to suspend even the pretense of impartial reporting and just go all in for acknowledging man-caused climate change as fact.
Now, it may well be, but this decision had the effect of marginalizing opposing points of vew, on the BBC, to the point that there would be NO dissent.
I wonder if there are any other issues that the Beeb (affectionately referred to as 'Auntie' in the Register article referenced, and also by some of those Brits old enough to suspect the Beeb is less than honorable in some areas) would similarly suspend impartiaility (sometimes considered a foundation of journalism, so therefore suspending the practice of 'journalism' in reference to these issues) and thereby become essentially the mouthpiece of one side or the other in a dispute? Other than the Israel/Palestine conflict, Islamic terrorism, and perhaps global crony capitalism, I can't thing of a thing.
Ssadly, the BBC is become just another media outlet, adding to the spew of whatever meme is advantageous to the powers that be. Those powers, for those of you at home scoring in pen, do not include us.
And of course, the BBC would prefer to not even be asked these questions, much less have to answer them honestly or at least be compelled to admit they even discuss such things. Here in the U.S. we don't have such a problem. Our media outlets are essentially divided into three camps; Leftist, Rightist, and irrelevant. And these outlets are hardly called to account for anything, except by an opposing camp, though the Irrelevants tend to question everything, even themselves, perpetuating their irrelevancy. You know which outlets belong to which camps, right? Ok, score this one in pencil until you get time to review the action and come to a better decision...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Science is not impartial.
What?!! It had damned well better be.
And its not done yet. Climate models need to continually be revised to account for as yet unexplained phenomena. Like why Antarctic ice is growing. Until these models are refined to the point of making reliable predictions, they are of little use to support critical economic decisions. And preliminary decisions already in effect may have to be refined or even reversed should revised theories dictate their change.
On the other hand, if the science is 'done' as many claim, then we could save a bundle of money by defunding a lot of climate research. If only 3 out of 28 'experts' advising government agencies are scientists, it would seem that this is in fact the case.
Have gnu, will travel.
The only place there's a serious debate is in the public imagination, and that's largely due to a very well-funded PR campaign funded by the oil and coal industries.
Show me the money. If there's a "well funded" PR campaign then someone has to be spending that money. In contrast there are vast sums being spent on pro-AGW PR. For example, whole government programs are devoted to this, such as UK's Met Office and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (a department in US's NASA).
It isn't a religious faith. Its science. Its writing on the wall, and serious people are finally starting to read it. The people polluting the Earth are already having an impact on our weather patterns - one that has claimed lives.
WRONG
It's NOT science.
Science WELCOMES attempts at falsification. It does NOT label doubters "denialists" or "heretics".
So, what do you call people who reject the heliocentric solar system?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Not really. A paper that contributes no evidence or analysis is not going to be rated very highly or cited much. It may not be published at all.
It's the opposing pole to the adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".