PoS 1. The use of foreign farmers accounts as a basis for dismissing the report as a frivolous propaganda exercise and the claim that it is a biased report, wasting tax payers money, with no scientific credence.
Now this wouldn't be the Daily Mail without bringing race or nationality into the argument somewhere, you know the newspaper that backed the Nazi party and publishes hundreds of articles a year blaming immigrants for breaking Britain. Putting that aside for a moment, why shouldn't first hand evidence from those whose lives depend upon the climate and predictable weather be considered important information to document and convey? After-all they feel the effects of the droughts, of the increase or decrease in rainfall, or the myriad of other possible outcomes linked with climate change.
To add to this point the Daily Mail then proceeds to reference the often cited lack of temperature increase since 2000 or 1998 depending on your source. They state that the report is attempting to cover up the truth, and thereby supporting their claim that climate change has levelled off, with this quote: "Do not talk about scientific or technical abstractions. Talk about the problems they face in their daily lives... Speak in a language that makes sense to people in terms of how they experience climate change". Firstly, simply citing that temperatures have not risen in one variable does not mean that measurements recording another variable will support this claim. Basically, that surface temperatures have not risen does not mean climate change has stalled or is reversing, as there is evidence to support that it is still happening. Secondly, Why shouldn't the BBC advice people to speak to the public about the very real dangers of climate change in a language that is more accessible? This is especially important when discussing climate change as the risk effects everyone, not just those with the knowledge to decode the numbers or accurately follow language often used when discussing climate change.
PoS 2. The Tory, idiot and vested interest roll call. "The BBC is a left wing propaganda machine spreading the lies of the 'loony left', why cant we be taken seriously?"
Okay so where to start on people whose grasp of reality is so skewed they won't even realise the obvious fact that there is no campaign by the BBC against them, it is just that when you examine their viewpoint it is usually fucking ridiculous, or simply downright evil. First up I guess I will have to address that elephant in the room, you know the one, the pro right wing BBC agenda. Yes you read that... I did just state that the BBC have a pro-right agenda! It is not that hard to realise if you really just sat there and examined the evidence through, oh I don't know direct observation, as in watching the news once in a while. The most glaring example of this was the 24 hour rolling party political broadcast for UKIP at the most recent European elections. I will admit that some (a very small minority) of it was highlighting the negative aspects of the party (of which there is many), however this is a party that thrives from the 'image' of being outside the political elite of Westminster, that is why at least some of the people voted for them. Most of the election broadcasting was forever hyping up the potential of the party for change, for a monumental shift in power, for a new big political party on the landscape. The BBC was giving air time in swathes to the four right wing parties in the UK, albeit to varying degrees and levels of enthusiasm. All of this was happening whilst the BBC was ignoring the ONLY national left-wing party, a party with politicians in both Westminster and Brussels unlike those deplorable UKIP wankers. Now go on continue to argue there is a left-wing agenda within the BBC if you like, but be warned, you will need a breath mint afterwards because you will have been talking shit.
Now onto the sceptics and the idea that the BBC should at all times present an unbiased argument, having already proven the BBC is biased I am going to defend its biased position, at least in relation to scientific knowledge. This is easily done... Climate change is real, now get with the programme fuckwits! This gagging of perceived 'experts' is entirely justified, it is like teaching creationism in schools, if there is overwhelming scientific support against a position it should not be taught, broadcast or even considered to be fact. Presenting it as such only serves to deviate the discussion from the correct and justifiable viewpoint, as it is put so succinctly by Fraser Steel "a false balance should not be created between well-established fact and opinion".
Comments section time:
1. The BBC is nothing more than a Left Wing propaganda unit filed with overpaid executives, directors, producers managers and worst of all so called celebs and must be privatised !!
Err. Nope that is not entirely correct
2. Everyone, cancel your payment of the BBC tax. There's nothing the fat cats of the BBC can do. The BBC was a TV and radio programme producer, it now thinks it's a political party. It's illegal to compel people to subsidise a political party. The teams producing your favourite shows will survive easily in the real world.
Congratulations I agree with SOME of what you've expressed (to an extent), a rarity amongst your kin... Or the distinguished Daily Mail readers if you prefer... however, the party you're thinking of is probably wrong.
3. Climate change. It has been going on since the world began and no 'Green tax' will ever stop it.
You've got me there, you are of course entirely correct it has been going on since time began. However, what you have failed to recognise is that it was under very different circumstances you idiot.
4. Well, like the EU the BBC aren't bothered about the truth, they have their own views and experts now they are silencing opinion and debate. They are too big and too political. I can't watch the News on BBC as it is so biased - they don't actually lie but they do omit things if they don't agree with the BBC. This profligate organisation is a disgrace but then they can do that as it's not their own money and they don't have to provide proof that their spending is on worthwhile causes, very much like the EU really another organisation that gets so much money they feel they are entitled to spend it without audit.
Yes they are too political, they love giving airtime to the Tories (all varieties). What really intrigues me about your comment however, is this idea that the BBC is far too biased when you're reading one of the most biased sources of new I have ever encountered. Additionally, the idea that the Daily Mail would never cherry pick information or report stories that fit their own political agenda, do you simply think alarmist right wing propaganda masquerading as news is the default unbiased position?
5. What has climate change got to do with the BBC. The people who pay their TV license are expecting that money to be spent on better programming or in Eastenders case better screen writers. The thinking at the BBC is so removed by the way the public think that there should be an independent board to scrutinise the BBC.
Jesus, these people are hung up about their license fee. The BBC media action is an independent charity, beyond sharing some office space it has little to do with the programme making part of the BBC. It receives NO license fee money, do some research before believing a single word written by someone who works for the Daily Mail.
So there you are, once again, those who write for the Daily Mail, post in the comment sections and everyone who believes your bollocks. You are all (without exception) talking shit.
