Keeping up to date on climate stories in the news and blogs, it is just a fact that the world has turned skeptical. A few years ago, people were literally afraid to own up to being a skeptic. Today, it would seem as daft as not owning up to liking ABBA.
Likewise, the few catastrophist news articles that now appear amongst the mass of climate tittle tattle of which most a skeptical in some way or other just don’t seem important. They are either reruns of stories which might have been scary the first time, they might have been worth reading when the first lesser spotted goat toad was nearing extinction – but now when the same less spotted goad toad is still nearing extinction a decade later, people are just growing bored of them.
There are now very few places in public life where the climate zealots still have total control. The BBC is a notable example, Wikipedia is another and presumably the Australian ABC. Notice, I’ve not said the Guardian. Even at the Guardian I’ve noticed a skeptical edge to their reporting. So, I’m not sure if the zealots haven’t had their feathers trimmed there recently.
So, in the present majority skeptic news coverage, the BBC’s return to pure climate zealotry and the denial of impartiality is all the more remarkable.
However, the importance is not that the BBC will change any minds, but that it shows the growing irrelevance of the BBC. It is a simple fact, the BBC lost their credibility on climate reporting long ago. No one now pays any attention to the BBC on climate (nor much else if my children are typical), and the only reason most skeptics are annoyed is because they are wasting our money on their obsession.
But in a sense, the very fact the BBC now feel that they can return to zealotry is an admission by the BBC that it doesn’t have any credibility left to lose on climate.
Just as we skeptics chose to stop editing Wikipedia, because the overtly propagandist content did more to discredit their propaganda than any edits we made, so the BBC’s new policy of being overtly anti-evidence, anti-science & anti-impartiality, might once have mattered, but now in the new competitive marketplace of information, it is almost an irrelevance.
Indeed, just like Wikipedia, it will only highlight their own bias!
And more importantly, the only reason they can do it now, is because they’ve already lost their credibility. They cannot possibly regain a reputation for impartiality – so what does it matter (in their isolated universe) if they just do what they want to do and push the eco-fascist agenda?
This is why it seems to me to be the “dead cat bouncing”. The fact that they feel free to return to zealotry is a symptom of their irrelevance. When you’ve already lost public trust, why hold back?
So, what does it matter? Having lost their credibility, they cannot now sway public opinion, so all it can do is speed the inevitable part-privatisation of the BBC.
Dead Cat bounce: a name for the way a stock market after suffering huge falls can see a small rebound at the end when dealers realise the market has fallen too far. I believe the name comes from the phrase “even a dead cat will bounce.
I was very disappointed this morning that the BBC Scotland news on television reported a Friends of the Earth claim that this was heading to be the second warmest year ever in Scotland. A press release from a highly politicised fringe extremist group is publicised as if it is genuine factual news. Shockingly unbalanced agenda driven reporting.
For most of my life I’ve listened to radio 4 and watched BBC news. Then I started reading news on the internet, and that just showed how biased the BBC are particularly on climate.
Then I started hearing the BBC liken us skeptics to paedophiles and so I stopped listening habitually and will now just turn off the radio or switch TV channel.
So, I suspect the biggest reason we’re getting the “dead cat bounce” is that people like me who felt strong enough to complain are no longer watching or listening. And where we lead everyone else who didn’t feel strong enough will now follow.