Martin A:
That went through my mind when I was listening to the 7am Today progamme this morning. I also thought John Humphrey's remark that the leaders of the inquiries that are to be set up "cannot be BBC insiders in anyway", made an interesting contrast to the employment of Steve Jones to investigate BBC's science "impartiality" last year.

As Autonomous Mind wrote at the time:
"For example, only the BBC could commission an ‘independent’ review that is carried out by a man so thoroughly compromised by his close links with the corporation he may as well be on the payroll. "

http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/bbc-prof-steve-jones-and-the-push-for-censorship/

News on the ground is that the Beeb have consulted Tim Yeo and now have Jonathan King lined up to head the JS enquiry.

The Moral Maze on Radio 4 last night discussed the Morality of Public Service Broadcasting with some friends of the BBC, one academic in particular, I found incredibly and uthinkingly partisan, and a couple of other people not so friendly..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n6rsm

The mere fact of the discussion may suggest Dung could have a point about change afoot.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/03/thought-provoking-words-for-the-bbc-and-the-guardian-from-a-podcast-by-the-bbcs-michael-buerk/

Michael Buerk:

“I want a genuine debate about the assumptions behind the more apocalyptic forecasts.

As recently as 2005, for instance, the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

That was last year.

OK – so where are they?

And actually there has been no significant rise in global temperatures for more than a decade now.” – Michael Buerk, 16 December 2011

“What gets up my nose is being infantilized by governments, by the BBC, by the Guardian that there is no argument, that all scientists who aren’t cranks and charlatans are agreed on all this, that the consequences are uniformly negative, the issues beyond doubt and the steps to be taken beyond dispute.” – Michael Buerk, 16 December 2011

“You’re not necessarily a crank to point out that global temperatures change a great deal anyway. A thousand years ago we had a Mediterranean climate in this country; 200 years ago we were skating every winter on the Thames."

Saw a programme this week by their New Science Editor , David Shukman, from the 'High Arctic' about monitoring bahaviour of the sun, and Solar Storms and there wasnt any mention of Global Warming at all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19897221

That makes a refreshing change from the old and now departed Richard Black's narrative.

So do "skeptics" in general have their knives out for biodiversity or is a minority sport?

Unlike global warming, it is an issue you can clearly do something about. You could start with paving both your front and back gardens; dump fertilisers in any available stream or waterway; kill any wildlife that enters your garden; chop down your trees and spray insecticides over your neighbours plants, the better to wipe out bees and their kind; encourage local farmers to strip hedgerows by accident and clear-fell any forests in the area; maybe erect a windmill to shred any local bats; those is Oz could start a breeding and release program for COT starfish - you should be able wipe out the corals and their associated wildlife in a decade or so instead of a few generations...

Maybe AM could add a chapter giving hints on wiping out local wildlife in the first reprint of his much anticipated book...

You didn't like my little joke? Do all "skeptics" lack a sense of humour?

My guess is that your collective knowledge of biodiversity amounts to no more than being able to identify a few dozen bird and tress and perhaps the names of your pot plants and border shrubs. The same goes for your cheerleader, Mr Delingpole, who probably has trouble with much more than cat, dog, bird, cow etc. And yet you feel qualified to judge international efforts to protect nature.

The fact that you do feel qualified is symptomatic of the attitudes of "skeptics"; you know nothing of the issues but you read a few articles, maybe a scientific paper or two if you can bear the tedium, learn the "facts" from a few similarly science-free blogs and, hey presto, you are a (false) expert. Now you can spout your ignorance and your spurious certainties to anyone who will listen, sure in the knowledge that they are probably even more ignorant than you.

But although you might read and regurgitate, you could no more write the papers you opine on than you could do the research they are based upon. You know nothing about them beyond what the author choses to tell you. The author, in contrast, has spent years studying and learning and gives you just a glimpse into the depth of knowledge behind the work. Hell, there are even laymen here who think their opinion on the Thorium fuel cycle is worth a pool of spit. The arrogance of it all!

On biodiversity, I suggest you find som real (not false) experts who know something more than can be found in a few Google searches about the issues. Maybe there are even some lurkers here who have enough decades of experience in ecology and biological systems to have a credible opinion on the subject. My guess is that even if they are CAGW "skeptics", they would be too embarrassed to dirty themselves in your biodiversity games.

Note that I also know nothing, which is why I couch my statements on science in terms of guesses and suppositions. But I know that I know nothing, unlike you true followers of that holy trinity, the Auditor, the Accountant and the Weatherman.

Well, according to the Guardianistas in that comments section it's all the fault of the consumerist society, tits on page 3 of the Sun and of course Mrs Thatcher.