BBC Bullied by Climate Change Activists

Definitely not surprising, and yet some still have the gaul to say it's all about the science, it's not, it's all about power, control and revenue raising.
 
Stupid activists (and BBC tbh). As a firm believer in the science behind climate change, it annoys me to see the debate hijacked by side issues like this. The activists aren't doing themselves any favours.
 
Hardly surprising, yet so many people have been suckered. You jsut have to look at the there models and the 1000's of variables they aren't calculating.
 
Until the BBC responds we really don't know what happened. By his responses up until the final email it would certainly imply to me that the changes were being made due to comments by someone else rather than that specific emailer.
 
If you read the changes tbh it's nothing major, it just states the same facts as the original article but ensures the reader isn't mislead to believe global warming has stopped.
 
If thats true I will never trust the BBC for any content online. I don't trust the main news so much, but never realised they could be so skewed from their 'independent reporting'.
 
Eriedor said:
If you read the changes tbh it's nothing major, it just states the same facts as the original article but ensures the reader isn't mislead to believe global warming has stopped.
Click to expand...

It removed the majority of the references to the debate that global warming/MMCC may or may not actually be happening. There's still plenty of debate and it should be reported fairly.
 
People should do their own research for things like global warming before jumping on the bandwagon. It's annoying for me now as it's starting to effect my life by restricting what i can buy/do.

Records show previous rises and drops in global temperature well beyond what we have ever experienced. The Earth is millions of years old. Has anyone bothered to check to see if temperatures have been very slowly rising since records began?

Last ice age, that was because prehistoric man created to much fire, creating CO2 gas clouds that blocked out solar radiation and caused the planet to cool. Wrong? Well it's the same dam principle that's being applied today.
 
This isn't limited to global warming - looney fringe groups have always tried to bully the media. I remember reading not so long ago about Kirsty and Phil from Channel 4's property programmes getting a load of hate mail and death threats from the people at housepricecrash.co.uk for daring to suggest that house prices won't drop by as much as some are predicting.
 
Global warming/carbon footprints is a religion, not a science.

I'm pretty shocked that the BBC editor reversed his stance so easily :confused:
 
I've emailed Roger Harrabin asking for the reasons the changes were made and await his reply...

It's worth a try even though I don't expect a reply!
 
Tell me about it. They see a comment on the news, take it as fact and even when science proves it inconclusive, they feel liberated by fighting what they see is the good fight, without any research or scientific knowledge what-so-ever. They are unfortunately encouraged by people with their own agenda. Global warming is a multi-billion pound business, yes business. Have you seen the companies emerging trying to capture the once niche eco crowds?

Like every year, some new fad comes out, we are told it's bad for us, government look into it, people march about it and when the dust settles and is proven wrong, they go into hiding and pretend they never mentioned it.

My hair has been growing since i had it cut, i think it must be the food i eat, if i don't stop eating soon, i think it might grow past my knees and kill me!..oh..wait...
 
Wow - Roger Harrabin (the author of the article and BBC environment editor) just replied to me! I had emailed him saying this:

Dear Mr Harrabin,

I have seen reports that this article was changed in response to emails from an environmental activist. Whilst I have no major problems with the article as it stands I am concerned that the BBC's editorial integrity and reputation may be affected by this. Furthermore I believe these kind of allegations (whether true or not) actually give excuses for sceptics to ignore mainstream media on the issue.

Could you please let me know the reasons for the changes to the article (in particular the 3rd paragraph) and whether or not the emails from Joe affected this process at all? Also, if the update time was not altered could you let me know why?


This is what he said:

"I have no idea about the update time issue. I changed the article because wmo - the source of the story - felt strongly that while technically accurate it was inadvertently misleading. We do respond to feedback when appropriate. Sometimes things go wrong when people try to make capital out of our responses. Rh"
 
Last edited:
The source changed the facts it was distrubuting. Thats ******. So that means that activist broke the author AND the source.

This country is pathetically politically correct and i'll be bailing the second i get the 5 years professional experience to emmigrate (not the ability to say "hello" in english that our border control requires).
 
BBC = BAD
American right wing talkshow hosts who have old style microphones for no reason whatsoever = GOOD (and not hypocrites at all)
 
Dolph said:
Definitely not surprising, and yet some still have the gaul to say it's all about the science, it's not, it's all about power, control and revenue raising.
Click to expand...

Who's getting "power and control" from the global warming message?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom