Read this: Fairhead: BBC board needs fresh thinking
Summary: Rona Fairlead has said it will be an “enormous privilege” to chair the BBC’s new unitary board and argued that she wants “fresh thinking” to protect the interests of audiences.The BBC Trust chairman, who will see out her term on the new board after the governing body is abolished next year, said it will ensure that the corporation is focused on its duty to licence fee payers.In her first speech since being confirmed in the role, Fairlead said: “Because the new board’s role will be to ensure the management is held to account in terms of quality of output, the ways risk is managed, and in how the licence fee is spent.“Crucially, the new BBC board, like any company board, must remain focused on its primary duty. And that duty is to its shareholders. And for the BBC the shareholders are the people who – like you - pay the licence fee.”The former Financial Times Group chief executive said “fresh thinking” will be critical to this as she helps assemble the unitary board. “I want us to think differently about how we connect with everyone around the UK. Take their temperature. Act on their concerns,” she told the National Federation of Women’s Institutes.Fairhead added that there must be “clear water” between the government and the new unitary board to preserve the BBC’s independence.“We must have editorial and creative independence, with no scope for interference. And that means financial independence too,” she said.Fairhead will head up the new board until at least 2018 www.broadcastnow.co.ukRead full article: Fairhead: BBC board needs fresh thinking…
Lots more recommendations to read at Trends - ukfree.tv.
Summaries are done by Clipped-Your articles and documents summarized.
BBC ought to have totally 'equal billing' for opposing views on various current subjects.
Sea level rise etc.
The current impression given is of bias, blaming Humans for causing it all.
A huge section of listeners is frustrated and angry that this is the case.
It needs correcting -NOW!
|link to this|
W.May: Perhaps they could also have 'equal billing' for flat earthers (actually, Good Morning Britain did do this the other week), people who believe that crystals heal, to balance the head of the BMA, someone who is an astrologer when they next talk to an astronaut about what its like in space, and perhaps someone who does spirit readings about the future when they ask the head of the Bank of England about a possible rise in interest rates.
Or they could stop with the false balance they often still employ (and have been warned about in three seperate reports over the past decade) about climate change (if the Royal Society thinks its real, can be explained by well understood physics and is observable, then its highly likely - which they do, judging from their website).
Physics is real, so is climate change. The ice is melting, sea levels are rising, temperatures are increasing, and the effects are observable now. Denial makes no difference to those, but it makes dealing with it just that bit harder.
|link to this|
As you know I fundementally disagree with you about 'climate Change'. The Earth's climate has always been changing, just look at the fossil record. It is no more changing now than a million years ago. Sea level is not rising in most areas, but tectonic plate activity changes the height of dry land in some places so it appears as if the sea has risen or fallen. There is mow Arctic ice now that 30 years ago, but it has moved a bit due to currents changing.
Science is never 'fixed', think of Newtons Laws of Physics that were considered fundemental to all things but are now know to only directly apply at a certain scale and not apply to the very small or the very fast - you need to use quantum physics to undestand many of those factors. One of the basic tenets of science is that you always have room and respect for open and free discussion - even when some consider theories as being 'fixed'.
|link to this|
MikeP: I know you do, but since this list of the worlds scientific organisations http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html says otherwise, and this nice page from NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ explains why, so I am going with the professionals. I am a huge fan of Martin Gardeners 'Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science' (published in 1957, and still horribly relevant), and he quotes the dictum, 'keep and open mid, but not so open that your brains fall out'. Peer review helps keep your brain in your head, which is what all these guys use. The people on the internet dont.
Actually, the BBC constantly does its best to avoid even talking about climate change much on its news coverage, or if it does, tends towards false balance, and the use of weasel words like 'many scientists say'. The India corespondent did at least mention that Indian government scientists had stated categorically that the impact of the Kerala floods had been due to climate change, but they were pretty silent about all the wildfires and drought in the rest of the world.
At some point, the reality will be overwhelming, but by then it will be far too late, if its not already.
|link to this|
All I can say is that you must be watching a different BBC to most people.
Since studying science and physics for several years, I totally understand peer review methoids and requirements, which is one reason I have serious doubts about some modern 'research' methods and conclusions. That many orgaisations agree with the AGW concept, just as many do not. Further, there are issues of bad matemeatics and 'fiddling' with data to make it fit with the concept. (BTW, I am being awarded a Masters Degree in Physics next month!)
|link to this|
MikeP: Put together a list in your head of credible scientific organisations that dont agree with the reality of AGW? Ones that actually use peer review? It might not be perfect, but its our best defence against nonsense.
And since you are getting an MSc in Physics (congrats btw), you can crunch the numbers yourself - start with the BEST data (if you dont trust anyone else, because that set out to disprove AGM, or so its backers thought) , or use any of the algorithms and datasets available on the net - just googling 'climate data sets' will bring up NOAA, the met office, etc.
And you will find RealClimate interesting (its written by real climate scientists), and Taminio https://tamino.wordpress.com/ is also good, written by an anonymous scientist (possibly a mathematician), with an excellent set of dataset links. There are lots of others. Richard Alley is great, especially when he dances to demonstrate Milankovitch cycles!
I dont understand enough of the physics to argue (although I do understand some of the evidence used to generate some of the proxy data), so I look for credible sources. Thats all I can do.
I just wish the BBC News would ask actual scientists their views, rather than some 'think tank' hack. And I wish climate scientists here in the UK would communicate better. Anyway, thats enough off the topic of TV reception!
|link to this|
I have done the research and the actual original data used by most climate groups. Ignoring the 'adjustments' shows that the trend is not upwards but largely flat for the last 20 years and before that it went up and then down again, but by very small amounts. Some of the data used is misleading, such as that reported at Heathrow as the gauge is alongside an area used for turning aircraft so the jet outwash plays onto the gauge! No wonder it gets hot!
Think back to when the 'theory' of the Earth being the centre of the universe, most agreed until it was eventually shown that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Just because 'most' agree does not make it true. That's why scientists should keep questioning everything. That's why we now have Quantum Mechanics as Newton's Laws only apply at the 'human' scale but not at the very fast.
Also think back to the late sixties and early seventies when we were being told that we were approaching a new ice age! Never happened and that was the spur to the Professor who started the 'AGW' scare to get funding for research nobody wanted to pay for.
|link to this|
MikeP: This is a bit off topic, so I will be brief.
AGW has been an established theory since the 19th century - Tyndall described the idea that CO2 etc created a 'blanket' in 1861, and that built on the work of a French scientist in 1824. The actual theory that burning fossil fuel would lead to a warming of the earths atmosphere was published by Arrhenius in 1896, and Angstrom published his paper on the infrared absorption of CO2 in 1900. Callender had established by 1938 that the earths temperture had risen, and that Co2 was possibly to blame https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15874560, and so on..
There was no 'AGW scare', physicists get paid to research the atmosphere, no matter what, and the number of actual papers in the seventies that suggested a cooling was tiny (climate myth 11 according to Skeptical Science).
The idea that jet wash etc screws up that data is myth 7 on the Skeptical Science website https://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm, and the grph from NOAA https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature (although I could have found loads more) says that the trend is upwards, and there has been no pause, especially since the ten hottest years on record are all in the last 20 years http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record.
Again, I am not a physist, so I have to look at the consensus. But you are, so you can use whatever datasets you like and do the work. The BEST data set https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-surface-temperatures-best-berkeley-earth-surface-temperatures is perfect for you - they set out to do an independent fresh dataset, because they did think that jetwash etc was causing problems and giving false data. The fact that they found pretty much the same thing as everyone else is another matter - you get to check it out for yourself.
And thats it, because all I can do is point at the data.
|link to this|