We must be talking about different posts. I see no critical analysis in post #311, just (presumably) copyrighted material copied from a US magazine.

(The first line is: … “Another great topic for BBC to cover would be the new iceage scare of the seventies, where almost exactly the same rhetoric was used for global cooling as gets used for global warming.” Alluding to the lack of BBC coverage or even awareness of the great global cooling scare where the climate scientists got it wrong. The image is web linked with the full web reference acknowledged.)

Steven

BBC has been forced to back down in other cases regarding global warming.

Lord Monckton had to force BBC in court to get them to correct errors in a programme on global warming in which he featured.

I sued the BBC a couple of years ago when they did a hatchet job on me. I had been told – in writing – that I should have the chance to alter any points that were inaccurate. Fat chance.
I insisted on seeing the programme before it was broadcast. It was a disgrace. I wrote to the Director-General listing two dozen factual errors and numerous other biases in the schlocumentary. No reply.
So I lodged a High Court application for an injunction. The BBC’s first reaction was to deny that the director-general’s office had received my letter. Not having been born yesterday, I had delivered the letter myself and had insisted that the director-general’s personal assistant should sign for it.
The BBC crumbled and cut the programme from 90 minutes to an hour, taking out the overwhelming majority of the vicious nonsense.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/monckton-explains-why-taking-climate-extremists-to-court-works-and-uni-tas-agrees-to-investigate/

Steven

The poster in question has had a pop at the BBC in several of the postings they have made since they joined, with varying degrees of relevance. It seemed a perfectly reasonable comment to make.

This is the first post where I have offered an extensive critical analysis of BBC’s position on global warming.

Steven

… I have done no analysis but based on my impression of the links posted by members on any number of topics, BBC links predominate. I am agnostic, at best, about the BBC, and highly critical at worst, and given that it is financed out of the public purse we have every right to criticise it where we see fit.

Exactly.

Especially when the topic of the post is on a failure of its Charter.

Steven

You really do have a thing about the BBC, don’t you?

A Murdoch employee, by any chance?

The topic of the post is about BBC.

Steven

Another great topic for BBC to cover would be the new iceage scare of the seventies, where almost exactly the same rhetoric was used for global cooling as gets used for global warming.

For a full list of the coming iceage stories, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

Steven

I see that both the LibDem’s vote and the Conservative’s vote were down by about 14% each. It seems that UKIP took proportionally about the same vote from each of them. UKIP’S policies resonate across the political spectrum, this must be good for their next byelection prospects and for Farage.

Steven

Whilst I do truly believe there is no real threat from the recent global warming, let’s not cherry pick data Steven. That doesn’t do anyone’s argument any favors. I notice the graph conveniently cuts off the data from 1905 to present day, which some estimates predict have increased at least 2 degrees over the past century.
So realistically we’re now at -29.5 degrees, similar to that the Roman’s experienced.

The graph shows a contiguous 10,000 years worth of data. It covers up to the year 2000AD, and since the temperatures have not changed over the last 16 years, the graph end point is correct. We are in a period cooler than Medieval or Roman times.

For information, the global temperature rise over the last century is a measured 0.8°C.

Steven