A death knell to the BBC

According to the Daily Telegraph, a Genetic professor who clearly had an axe to grind about “biased” coverage of genetics has decided has “cleared the BBC of any suggestion of bias in its programming.” … “Climate change sceptics should get less BBC coverage and be challenged ‘more vigorously’, corporation body will rule” (Daily Mail)
The idea that the BBC ever gave any coverage to the sceptical position is laughable. The sceptical position is that whilst science does suggest a link between CO2, there is no proven science that accounts for the majority of the apparent warming and furthermore natural variation is sufficiently large to account for all the change see without the need to invent implausable causality like the mythical “positive feedback”. Moreover the apparent warming may contain significant warming due to changes particularly automating instrumentation and actual warming such as Urban heating and heating due to reduction in pollution from the 1970-2000 (the period of maximum so called “global warming”).
The science is clearly on our side, because fundamentally science is scepticism. The science is clearly on our side, because the ethos of science is open honest debate. And the BBC have a legal duty to support open honest debate being impartial to all participants, and instead it has a dogmatic one-sided coverage.
How smart to pick a geneticist
It was only afterwards, that I realised that it was no coincident that the BBC picked a geneticist to do the review. Of course genetics has had a hard time “Frankenstein crops”. They think the world should just adopt GM and therefore the BBC should be a propaganda machine for the “Science”. What he fails to realise is that GM crops and global warming are very different. In GM, the science is pretty well tested. In manmade global warming the science isn’t tested. In GM, the debate really is about the power of the agri-business sector the impact of herbicides and the “owning of life”. In global warming, the debate is whether you can draw anything for 3 decades of warming followed by one decade of pause and whether it is right to allow people who literally invent causality with no proof whatsoever except opinion polls of other self-deluding experts to call themselves “scientists”.
The real fall out will be the BBC.
The simple fact, is that at the end of the day, if the BBC fails to be impartial: NOT AS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY SEES IT … I.E. “IMPARTIALLY FLOGGING THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC FAD” BUT AS THE PUBLIC SEES IT … BEING FAIR TO ALL SIDES.  When the BBC looses the respect and trust of the public it will no longer be able to justify it’s special position as a “voluntary” contribution funded organisation.
Even without global warming, I’m personally seriously wondering what we are paying for. BBC news, Radio 4/Scotland and CBBC. I seldom if ever turn on the TV and see anything on the BBC I want to watch. Radio 4 is overwhelmingly London-centric in outlook and every second guest seems to be “an old chum from my public school”. And the BBC just seem to be a PC, anti-risk, anti-competition nightmare. I still can’t square the rule that glasses of water are not allowed for reporters at the news-desk due to the high risk that they might cut themselves, with the idea of sending those same reporters to conflict zones where people want to shoot them.
In short, the BBC has lost touch with its audience, it has lost credibility with its audience and this report that effectively gives a green light to the BBC hysteria over unscientific global warming will just increase the type of inward looking PC nonsense at the BBC which has led to a growing number of the British public now have no reason to have a BBC.