The BBC's Charter and its Producers Guidelines state:
...'Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. All programs and services should be open minded, fair and show a respect for truth? [BBC reports should] contain comprehensive, authoritative and impartial coverage of news and current affairs in the United Kingdom and throughout the world??
Just found this very remarkable petition thanks to the Jawa Report: "During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition."
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. "
I'm limited in my knowledge. I'll just say I'm very sceptical over the growing GW fears and what is motivating the movement. I have read a few phenonema directly contradicting assumptions.
Here's a link to the National Geographic aricle. They have been on the GW bandwagon for quite some time now and appear to use Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov's assertion to disprove or cast too much doubt on it. They counter with the claim that all planets "whobble" on their axis and this supposedly is enough for Mars to experience significant temperature changes. This theory has never to 'my knowledge' been used to explain the Earth's temp changes with comparable significance of that taking place on Mars.
And here is an excerpt from a scientist linked to the online petition: Timothy Ball, one of Canada's first Ph.Ds in Climatology:
"I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
"Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling."
One of the reasons I feel the petition is largely legitimate is its already known here the overwhelming percentage of Meteorologists don't agree with GW assumptions.
Sorry about getting involved in this. Its almost like you can't take one step without needing to jump right in. It is a facinating discussion. Yet there is so much hype and propaganda: Gore's movie is a very, very pointed example.
Did you know Iceland is melting at a slower rate than any time in its recorded history? Just thought I'd throw that in
Very Interesting and impressive Steevo thanks. I've long since suspected that the global warming agenda was more being corruptly used by politicians as another means to fill their coffers, regardless if there was any justification for it, now it's looking doubtful that we might be responsible for as much as being claimed.
At present, the BBC is only answerable to itself in deciding its standards and coverage. How does it measure up to what you consider good quality, and impartial and unbiased reporting as required by its charter? All TV viewers in the UK are forced by law to pay for this 'service'. Do you believe that what is received truly 'serves' the society, - or merely increases the problems within it?
Your perceptions of BBC output are important and welcome. Register and activate your account to be able to post