Over at the biased BBC, we hope Andrew Neil does not get difficulties from the powers that be for having intelligence enough and audacity enough to research the facts for himself and arrive at independent conclusions.
On January 6th on his Daily Politics show, the following exchange took place between Andrew and the man from the Met:
Neil: So why didn't your very expensive models that we have paid for, why didn't they predict and tell us that, in the past decade, average temperatures wouldn't rise at all?
Hirst: They did.
Asked repeatedly, Hirst repeatedly insisted to Mr. Neil that the Met Office had predicted what is known to be fact - that there has been no rise in temperature for a decade.
Returning to the subject today (with relevant BBC video clip as proof), Mr. Neil writes on his blog:
"I asked the head of the Met if his long-range computers were so reliable at predicting climate over decades (eg to 2050) why had they not forecast that temperatures would not rise in the decade after 1999. He said they had predicted that. I cannot find the prediction. So my question is: Can you make public the forecasts in 1998, 1999 or 2000 from the Met super-computers, which predict global warming, forecasting that the decade after 1999 would not see temperatures rising? Were they made and were they ever made public?"
The BBC Trust is currently instigating a review to ensure that the output of it's science reporting is unbiased.
BBC News has been one of the biggest culprits of peddling and promoting the 'man made global warming' nonsense.
But we must not slate the BBC too harshly.
Andrew Neil is one of just a tiny handful of writers, commentators, broadcasters or journalists with independent thought and genuine intelligence enough to research and speak truthfully as he finds.
For as long as he is employed by the BBC, there is at least some balance through which we, the people might learn some key truths if we listen.
--
As well as the Daily Politics, Andrew Neil hosts BBC1's Thursday night mix of politics and humour, This Week (which - in this blogger's opinion - has become the far more interesting show than it's preceding show, the supposed 'flagship' Question Time... thanks mainly to the fact that This Week is balanced whereas Question Time's audience selection and it's guests carry an air of bias towards those on the side of left-wing politics. In our opinion.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment
This blog seeks to uphold the right to free speech. However, comment moderation is used to prevent the posting of comments which could be considered libelous/offensive etc. We do not, however, guarantee to publish all comments and we reserve the right to refuse to approve any comment submitted at our discretion. Views expressed are those of the comment author and do not neccesarily reflect those of this blog.