So we see that EM is merely a pathetic long winded execrable strumpet thinking he is superior, but is really just a banal example of miasma.

For EM, a paradigm is simply an excuse for him to stop thinking and to go into echo chamber mode, which is facilitated by his confusion of the terms "open mind" and "empty mind".

Golf Charlie

I don't see the Minoan and Mediaeval Warm periods, or the LIA as separate periods with gaps between them. I see them as stages in an ongoing orbitally induced cooling process which began about 5000 years ago. This was then reversed by the Industrial Revolution.
I know you haven't a clue what caused them, which is why there is no point in putting you and yours on television.

Martin A

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

paradigm - "the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline at a given time"

In science a paradigm is a group of linked theories which describe how a system operates. For example, sea floor spreading, subduction, earthquakes, vulcanism, mountain building, weathering, erosion, sedimentation and the geological carbon cycle are all theories which together make up the geological paradigm of plate tectonics.

In physics there are theories describing the behaviour of a wide variety of electrical components from capacitors to Josephson junctions. Scientifically they would be part of the paradigm of QED. The engineering application of this paradigm would be called electronics.

The climate paradigm includes plate tectonics theories relating to the distribution of continents, vulcanism and mountain building. Include the geological and biological carbon cycles, the water cycle, direct variation in insolation due to solar cycles and indirect effects due to orbital cycles, OLR, greenhouse gases, thermohaline circulation, ocean currents ice shett and glacier dynamics and any other physical theories which impinge on climate.

EM, you take arrogance and a lack of honesty to new levels. You continue to consider yourself an expert in lecturing others on climate science, but can't admit you don't know the cause and end of the MWP and LIA, as they do not fit with your irrational belief system.

I am happy to be honest and admit I do not know the cause of the MWP, whereas you remain in denial.

" A low budget reality TV or studio news programme costs about £3000/ minute. Climate sceptics have nothing that is worth a TV news programme spending that amount of money on them.

Remember that there is no Free Lunch here. Television lives by ratings and advertising revenue. Any guests have to be informative, relevant and entertaining. Climate sceptics usually score 1 out of 3. They are not informative or relevant, but it can be entertaining to watch them wriggle." Entropic man

Since about roughly 50% of the public poll as being partially or wholly sceptical of CAGW, I think the numbers alone suggest that it is relevant. Given that your side have wild ideas about what scepticism is, it would also be informative. However, since a great deal of television is not informative, relative or entertaining, I don't think they should be a barrier.

The only reason to not allow sceptics on tv is because the other side are already losing badly, even with the communication stitched up.

TinyCO2, do remember that Global Warmists have defined what sceptics think. With their typical arrogance, and dwindling logic, they never asked any sceptics, just made up the answers, and declared themselves experts, with a 97% confidence limit.

Too true Golf Charlie, that's where the 'it's all a hoax' meme comes from. Ironically, a great number of the disinterested beleive it because it's repeated so often by the other side.

It is lucky that Climate Science runs courses on how to communicate Climate Science, just think what a mess they might have got into otherwise.

Nobody has ever thought to run courses on questioning the logic of climate science, there has never been any difficulty.

The climate paradigm includes plate tectonics theories relating to the distribution of continents, vulcanism and mountain building. Include the geological and biological carbon cycles, the water cycle, direct variation in insolation due to solar cycles and indirect effects due to orbital cycles, OLR, greenhouse gases, thermohaline circulation, ocean currents ice shett and glacier dynamics and any other physical theories which impinge on climate.

May 17, 2016 at 12:37 AM | Entropic man

But none of that lot (apart from CO2 produced by man) was ever mentioned by climate scientists before, when they determined that the science was settled, without telling anyone else.

The consensus conclusions of climate scientists seem to depend more on cash flow, and political whim, than science.

"You accuse the BBC of leftist bias. At the same time it is accused of bias against the Labour Party.

If both right and left are accusing the BBC of bias against them, then the balance is correct."

Even by your low standards of analysis this is a doozy. It is biassed against the Labour Party because the Labour Party has been taken over by the oiks and is no longer run by the Notting/Islington luvvy left that pervades he BBC.

As for bias on climate change I don't understand what we expect from them. I think we can all agree that the staff of news and current affairs and Trust consist almost entirely of bien pensant interconnected Oxbridge types with Arts and PPE degrees. What they see is an entire scientific community, not just in the UK, but worldwide, telling them that the world is warming, this will change our climate and here will be catastrophic consequences. From their point of view, and that of Sky and ITV, why would they want to challenge this, and where would they muster the information to challenge it? The blogs?

Even worse, when they do come across scepticism it is the very people for which the organisation finds most revulsion who are challenging the paradigm (mostly), elderly right wing curmudgeons, who they regard as a very small minority.

Finally, if they ever do let anyone have any say, on any topic, that might suggest the theory, or solutions proposed, might not be 100% correct they are inundated with complaints from an army of greens on the lookout for the slightest deviation from the party line.

In their position would anyone here go out on a limb?

They are biassed towards a leftish wing worldview, big government, EU, UN etc. but that's the new establishment position in the UK even on the left wing of the Tory Pary.

In regards to the BBC's view that because both political sides complain it must be getting things right - I listened to one of Radio 4 comedians talking about the audiences at private gigs. He said that right wing audiences (judged by where he was performing eg a bankers evening) were good at laughing at themselves, where left wing audiences couldn't abide the performer poking fun at them in th slightest. The producers of Question Time have admitted that they can't attract right wing audience members. What they don't understand from these examples is that right wing audiences are so used to being kicked by the BBC that they either shrug it off or just avoid them. So if they're getting equal abuse from left and right, It's because they've pushed way beyond just normal levels of anti right bias, but could only be mildly criticising the left.

They are conflicted over Corbyn. On the one side he's spouting everything they've ever wished from a Labour leader but on the other they can see he's unelectable. I also wonder if they are coming to realise that if hard left policies to impact the wealthy elites were in place, they themselves would be in the cross hairs.

geronimo, I agree with you summary of how the BBC see the climate debate but with a few exceptions. 1) 50% ish of the public are sceptical and it's their job to reflect their audience. Even being politically biased, it doesn't excuse ignoring sceptics altogether. And 2) they love presenting anti establishment views. They give more time to homeopathy and terrorists than climate sceptics. They excuse talking to terrorists and their friends on the grounds that discussion leads to understanding which leads to solution - why don't they apply that the CAGW? The reason is the BBC does whatever it wants irrespective of the scientific evidence or a desire to solve the problem. Like the dirtiest tabloid it enjoys muck raking.

stewgreen, after the BBC's official decision to be biased about climate science, as established by 28Gate, has any politician raised proven BBC bias in the current media debate?

It is the sort of story the BBC would prefer the public not to be reminded about, especially as D.Trump represents everything that scares the BBC witless, and the BBC may use climate science to portray him as 'unbalanced'.

This explains why every predicted catastrophe has been not as bad as predicted, since the Black Death anyway

May 18, 2016 at 10:17 AM | M Courtney

Even the BBC's leaked predictions of doom about the BBC, turned out to be over exaggerated.

Meanwhile the BBC continues to broadcast predictions of doom about leaving the EU and Global Warming. There may be a pattern, but I would be branded a conspiracy theorist, by the EU, BBC and Global Warmists if I made the connection.

TinyCO2 "geronimo, I agree with you summary of how the BBC see the climate debate but with a few exceptions. 1) 50% ish of the public are sceptical and it's their job to reflect their audience. Even being politically biased, it doesn't excuse ignoring sceptics altogether. And 2) they love presenting anti establishment views."

I can only guess what they know about the percentage of the public are sceptical, so I won't go into that, however I suspect that they are empathetic with the climate change story, anyway, Don't forget ITV, and Sky who I pay near the yearly licence fee to every month don't cover it either. Yes they are the mouthpiece for the right on virtue signalling part of the establishment, but I doubt there's much support for fracking in that group.

They are merely the broadcasting arm of the Guardian, staying in business because outside of politics they make some good documentary and entertainment programmes.

Martin A, he makes a convincing case for more taxpayer funding, for big pharmaceutical companies, in order to save the world.

Gordon Brown thought he saved the world, a complex ought to be named after him as a tribute.

Watched BBC TV News after lunch today, there was an item about a record temperature in an Indian City beating a record several decades old. So checked the wbsite and found this:

A city in India's Rajasthan state has broken the country's temperature records after registering 51C, the highest since records began, the weather office says.

The new record in Phalodi in the desert state comes amid a heatwave across India.

The previous record for the hottest temperature stood at 50.6C in 1956.

Which would have been fine had it been balanced by any of following about equally unheard of places:

UPDATE: Grand Forks airport breaks 71-year-old low temp record

“This is the first year since the early 1960s that we lost our peach crop,” said Lawrence of the Lawrence Farms Orchards. “We had such a mild winter that the trees weren’t ready for the cold.”

Full vinter i Bodø

But it wasn't, so we're under the impression that the World is catching fire. (Unless we're living in Limousin at the moment).

SandyS, was any reason given as to why it was so hot in Phalodi in 1956? Did it make the BBC news? Or even India's news?

Do we know what was done to make sure it did not happen again? If they did nothing, perhaps we should do nothing again but twice as hard, and no doubt hundreds of times more expensively.

Is there any mention of the cooler temperatures in the early 70s during the ice age scare, that climate scientists are adamant never happened?

Climate scientists don't like to pick their frozen cherries.