The language of weather and climate: BBC show

[anthropocene]

Don't know what BBC policy is now on downloading programmes but hopefully this is available to many here.
Interesting take on language of weather and climate (why I'm not putting it in the science section).
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065tqyq

Most interesting aspect is that pre 17th century the weather was treated as God 'speaking' to humanity. Therefore foretelling the weather was prejudging what he would say and therefore sacriligeous. It has been almost 200 years since weather has been understood as a physical process and forecasting started. Even now we have people stating that extreme weather events are the wrath of a supreme being. We have only been talking about humanity changing the climate for 30 years. It is not surprising that some people have not yet made this cognitive leap. Food for thought for all sides.

[OrganicSu]

I removed the BBC last week from my automatically opened webpages when I open my browser. Why? On 21st July 2015 while Artic was melting furiously fast they published an article on 2013 ice gain. The article had a semblance of balance but how many people read the last paragraph? This article, with it's disinforming title, is often in Google's 1st page search results using "artic ice". Persistent disinformation is akin to propaganda and so the BBC has lost a loyal follower.
Article: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654

[anthropocene]

Hi OrganicSu,

It is true there has been a noticeable shift in the BBC's scientific coverage recently to be more sympathetic to research which goes against the scientific mainstream. The article you reference is by no means the worst case of this. Most of the parts of the article you seem to disagree with are either direct quotes from the scientists or read as a copy paste out of the press release which usually accompany the publication of high profile papers. Hardly biased reporting by the BBC. Your biggest complaint appears to be that the article appears high in the Google results pages. That's hardly the fault of the BBC. Strangely a lot of other (non-scientific) programmes are now referencing climate change as a nailed on certainty and don't question or discuss it.  So in general the climate debate in the UK is better with the BBC than without it. Your decision to stop being a loyal follower increases the chances of it being changed into something unrecognisable from what it is today. This is likely to make the voice of the Daily Mail's, Express's and Sky TV's of this world the only one which many people will hear. Therefore I can't agree with your decision.
  Anyway, this thread is not meant for discussing the BBC. Hopefully your 'boycott' of the BBC does not stretch as far as not listening to any of their programmes - it is thought provoking stuff.

[OrganicSu]

Our preconceptions of what kind of language and bias certain groups use to report/discuss climate change is important to how our subconscious absorbs or reacts against the information conveyed. The BBC were suffocating news about the super fast melting in July 2015 by reporting on the melt season 2 years prior, but was it intentional or unintentional? What they wrote was factually correct but given its timing and how highly regarded they are, I feel they lied while telling the truth; having a much more negative effective on helping their readership understand how deep in the poo we may be than when Monckton and co. speak.

I will read/listen to a BBC article if it comes my way, like yours did, but am more careful and analytical of what they write and don't proactively visit their website.

Personally, I don't question if climate change is happening. I question speed, effects, extinction. I pray I can find the right language to help my loved ones understand and act "before it is too late". I need to believe the correct language is not "before it was too late".

[Jim Hunt]

On 21st July 2015 while Artic was melting furiously fast they published an article on 2013 ice gain.

The story was also discussed on BBC Radio 4's "Inside Science". I was singularly unimpressed. I registered an official complaint, but got the bum's rush in response:

Inside the BBC’s Arctic Sea Ice Science

Thank you very much for your email. While all emails are read – and we appreciate input from listeners – we cannot reply to each one individually. There are simply too many!

I pursued the matter with Dr. Adam Rutherford on Twitter. Scroll to the bottom and flick through the slideshow for the full story. It seemed as though he offered me a right of reply at one point, but he's been ignoring me since then