Stewgreen.

Who is this @Bob you keep mentioning?

He seems to have quite a good handle on the situation, I would suggest listening to him a bit more, rather than exhibiting your overwhelming desire to win every argument.

Sorry just my honest opinion.

Stewgreen. Your argument is that because the BBC is a voice of authority it should be reformed, and I have no argument about that. My argument with you is that the Royal Society, which provides expert support to the BBC about climate change, needs to be reformed first. It is true the BBC will get advice from other purveyors of dodgy science, but if the Royal Society gave a more balanced view, the BBC deprived of its expert advice, would be forced to change. It could hardly continue with its bias, if it were to be challenged by members of the Royal Society.

I also think the Royal Society might be induced to change from within, well before you could enact changes within the behemoth that is the BBC.

Reforming organisations is not impossible but it requires extremely strong leadership with the authority to do what is needed.

As a general rule, much more likely to be successful to build a new organisation from scratch and leave the old one to wither away (or be closed down in stages).

Stewgreen

Roger. I'll leave you to it.

Radical Rodent

Stewgreen , as de facto moderator, wants this discussion to stay on topic.

I am complying. It is called courtesy.

Radical Rodent, stewgreen

Sorry, stewgreen, the old bag insists.

On polar population, nobody know. The uncertainties are too large.
On the other points, the data disagrees with his statements.

…the climate system involves countless, poorly understood complexities, such as cloud cover and water vapor.

The data disagree? Well, you are wrong, there, as almost every true scientist will say the data agrees with that.

…“man’s influence on the climate still cannot be filtered from the climate noise even today” and that today’s climate and weather changes are no different than what was observed hundreds of years ago, citing the IPCC itself:

“There is not a single bit of scientific justification to claim: Here we are seeing unusual climate developments that can be only attributed to humans.”

The data disagree? Well, a quote direct from the IPCC shows you to be wrong, there, too

…elevated concentration bring a number of advantages to the ecosystems, foremost a greener planet with better plant growth.

The data disagree? Haven’t there been quite a few reports from such organisations as NASA that agrees with that? Wrong again, EM.

…ocean acidification is another myth of the alarmists. Every chemists you talk to on ocean acidification being a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 will roll his eyes. […]

Also the supposed sensitivity of corals to CO2 in sea water is an alarmist myth.

The data disagree? Have a chat with Mr K. on that one; I have a feeling he will inform you that you are mistaken. What the old bag insists on is determination of facts; the old bag has no beliefs to defend, and, if any suppositions are proved wrong, will no doubt meekly acknowledge such. To date, there has not been sufficient evidence for any firm conclusions that suppositions on the power of humans over nature have been greatly exaggerated.

Suggest you might need yet another BBC discussion thread. "Have the tories bottled it?"

RR (May 8, 8.07pm). After several months decyphering Ayla's communications, your last sentence is crystal clear.

Why should anyone give a fig if the BBC lives or dies? At the end of the day, it is just another aging company. Information wants to be free, it has been said. The BBC has failed in making information more free. So it either stops being part of the problem or it will stop, eventually.

I'll give a fig.