A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

bbc inacuracies



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 17th 17, 09:35 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Clive Page[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default bbc inacuracies

On 17/09/2017 09:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
I just wonder why they do not actually get an expert in for news reports
when they are writing them. They did correct it afterwards, but really
shoddy work indeed. Does not bode well for other stories really. Brian


My impression is that the BBC is entirely staffed by arts graduates, so they don't have a clue. Why don't they get experts in? I guess they don't even realise that they don't have a clue so they don't think they need them.


--
Clive Page
  #12  
Old September 18th 17, 09:37 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default bbc inacuracies

On 18/09/2017 08:49, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:17:00 +0100, Java
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:26:24 +0100, Chris wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:38:13 +0100, Java
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 17:44:00 +0100, Chris wrote:
It is one of the several weaknesses in the AGW
hypothesis.

There is no weakness of any significance.

In which case, why have the models been predicting global temperatures
significantly higher than those observed in almost the last couple of
decades?


Because they're talking about long-term trends over many decades, and
these are shorter-term decadal variations and cycles which mask those
long-term trends over the shorter-term.


So why are so many climatologists doing their level best to explain
'the pause', as it's called? They seem to believe it's real.

If what you say is the case, and one has to ignore such short-term
variations, then one has to ignore the rise in temperature over a
similar time period, from say 1975 to 2000, which was what triggered
the whole AGW hypothesis of recent times, and ignore all the various
ups and downs over similar time periods before that back to the start
of when reasonably reliable records began, 1850. One is then left with
the conclusion that the only data that can reliably be considered is
the whole set from 1850 to present, which in essence is what you've
just said is what climatologists are doing, and which shows a steady
rising trend of 0.5C/century, and is AIUI just the continuing
recovery from the last ice age. Is 0.5C/century something to be
alarmed about? I don't get that impression.

Or are climatologists allowed to cherry-pick the length of the data
set they can consider, but their critics aren't?

Either the values of some of the parameters used in the
modelling are wrong, because they are difficult to measure precisely,
or there are other parameters that have not been considered or
included, or both.

Climatologists can't even predict the next El Nio


Can you? Don't tell me that it's not your job, because, AIUI, it's
not necessarily theirs, probably too short a timescale to interest
most of them, and certainly so for anything more than passing
relevance to AGW.

let alone explain
why it happens, so it's not too surprising they can't get the global
temperatures right.


They have been getting the temperatures reasonably accurately over the
longer-term.

Why don't you just admit it?! You're just another climate denialist,
peddling the usual pseudo-science that denialists use ...
Obfuscation by the introduction of straw-men such as water-vapour.
Obfuscation by deliberate confusion of timescales.
Sowing of FUD by introduction of weather-related irrelevancies.

Climate models aren't perfect, nobody's pretending they are and those
who create them are always trying to improve them, but they're the
best tool we've got for predicting far into the future, and deliberate
attempts to sabotage their public credibility by sowing politicised
FUD is irresponsible, and if you are really an ex-scientist, which on
your showing here I'm beginning to doubt, you should know better.


It's clear that you've swallowed the AGW story hook, line and sinker.
I take a more sceptical view, and I see no point in continuing this
exchange. Time will tell which of us is correct.

This is an interesting perspective on the politics.
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthsc...Global-Warming

And this is what the scientific observations show when not muted by
politicians
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#e51a5ca4dcf5

Jim

  #13  
Old September 18th 17, 10:00 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,807
Default bbc inacuracies

Well, I saw the press kit from Nasa some days ago and it was basically
obviou it had nothing to do with the plutonium thermal generator which was
still well able to deliver the 600 watts the spacecraft used, indeed the
main reason for not letting it just run out was due to the fact they did not
want to dump radioactive plutonium onto a moon by accident. the Saturn
atmosphere was so dense that it would all burn up or be crushed well before
it got near the centre and it has been known for some time that the inside
of Saturn is already radioactive.
Yes they did fix it later obliterating the bad version but not before it
had been read on air on radio 2 several times.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:46:40 +0100, "Brian Gaff"

wrote:

When the Casini probe was due to crash into Saturn the news said it was
running out of power in its nuclear generator. This was not only untrue,
but
other bbc programs like BBC Inside Science had got it right, saying it
was
low on fuel for the jets that pointed it when gyros were not suitable.
I just wonder why they do not actually get an expert in for news reports
when they are writing them. They did correct it afterwards, but really
shoddy work indeed. Does not bode well for other stories really. Brian


They said it had less than one percent gas left for the thrusters in the
BBC
report I heard. BBC gets a press hand out and somebody interprets it.
If you have ever been involved in anything the media reports you know that
the
report will be inaccurate
--

Martin in Zuid Holland





  #14  
Old September 18th 17, 10:03 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,807
Default bbc inacuracies

That is a bit dismissive. I of course do not know about the bbc currently,
but its been my experience that inappropriate people write copy generally.
I well recall in my brief time working for Pop Com weekly that their sub
editors were about as technical as a lump of rock. changing program listing
even keywords in a language as they were not spelled correctly.
It was indeed an exercise in frustration.
And that Mirror Group publication still owes me 200 quid from the 1990s.

Anyway, I digress as usual, I'll shut up now.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Clive Page" wrote in message
...
On 17/09/2017 09:46, Brian Gaff wrote:
I just wonder why they do not actually get an expert in for news
reports
when they are writing them. They did correct it afterwards, but really
shoddy work indeed. Does not bode well for other stories really. Brian


My impression is that the BBC is entirely staffed by arts graduates, so
they don't have a clue. Why don't they get experts in? I guess they
don't even realise that they don't have a clue so they don't think they
need them.


--
Clive Page



  #16  
Old September 18th 17, 05:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default bbc inacuracies

On 18/09/2017 12:28, Chris Hogg wrote:

But I do note that two fairly recent papers in the scientific
literature, by Abdussamatov on the one hand http://tinyurl.com/za47eyf
and by Zharkova on the other http://tinyurl.com/y82a3dwb both relate
separately and independently to solar cycles and sunspots, and
indicate a period of cooling during the next half-century or so. How
severe it will be, and whether I will be around to witness it, remains
to be seen, although we should start to see the early effects of these
predictions fairly soon if they're going to happen.

I confess I got lost in the maths in the two papers quoted but I did
understand the gist of the arguments and the rationality of the
predictions, which are based on analysis of past data. If I live long
enough I will get my telegram from the Queen (or succeeding King) before
the Thames freezes over, so on a personal basis these are academic
rather than practical concerns.

One thing I did notice though is that the predictions are evaluated on
the basis of the data from each complete cycle. I remember reading
something quite a few years ago of something a bit more subjective, an
observation based on weather records without any attempt to understand
why.

Somebody had been looking at the sunspot counts at the cycle minima, and
he noted that if the count at minimum was zero or very close to it, that
observation correlated with an an abnormally cold winter in Britain
exactly 20 years later. Nobody seems to have investigated this further
since then. Whether this is a true reflection of cause and effect, or
whether the observations are just coincidence remains speculative therefore.

Jim

  #17  
Old September 18th 17, 07:45 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,689
Default bbc inacuracies

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:49:45 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:17:00 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:26:24 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:38:13 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 17:44:00 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:
It is one of the several weaknesses in the AGW
hypothesis.

There is no weakness of any significance.

In which case, why have the models been predicting global temperatures
significantly higher than those observed in almost the last couple of
decades?


Because they're talking about long-term trends over many decades, and
these are shorter-term decadal variations and cycles which mask those
long-term trends over the shorter-term.


So why are so many climatologists doing their level best to explain
'the pause', as it's called? They seem to believe it's real.


They aren't. AFAIAA, only denialists claim there is any 'pause'. If
you look at the temperature graphs over the last century or so the
long-term trend is inexorably up, but there short term variations
superimposed upon that. While perhaps some climate scientists are
interested in these in their own right, they don't effect the
long-term trend.

If what you say is the case, and one has to ignore such short-term
variations, then one has to ignore the rise in temperature over a
similar time period, from say 1975 to 2000,


********, the temperature has been rising inexorably and significantly
since the industrial revolution. AGW may have come to political
prominence only recently, but it's been happening over many decades,
at least a century in fact.

which was what triggered
the whole AGW hypothesis of recent times, and ignore all the various
ups and downs over similar time periods before that back to the start
of when reasonably reliable records began, 1850.


AGW is not a recent hypothesis. I remember reading about in the late
60s - early 70s.

One is then left with
the conclusion that the only data that can reliably be considered is
the whole set from 1850 to present, which in essence is what you've
just said is what climatologists are doing, and which shows a steady
rising trend of 0.5C/century, and is AIUI just the continuing
recovery from the last ice age. Is 0.5C/century something to be
alarmed about? I don't get that impression.


Nonsense. We are coming out of an ice age, but the climate is warming
faster than can be explained by that.

Or are climatologists allowed to cherry-pick the length of the data
set they can consider, but their critics aren't?


It's people like yourselves that cherry-pick short-term data. The
long-term trend is unmistakable.

Climate models aren't perfect, nobody's pretending they are and those
who create them are always trying to improve them, but they're the
best tool we've got for predicting far into the future, and deliberate
attempts to sabotage their public credibility by sowing politicised
FUD is irresponsible, and if you are really an ex-scientist, which on
your showing here I'm beginning to doubt, you should know better.


It's clear that you've swallowed the AGW story hook, line and sinker.


It's not a 'story', whether you choose to accept it or not, it's
widely accepted scientific fact.

I take a more sceptical view, and I see no point in continuing this
exchange.


Because you know that you can't win it on any scientific basis. I
agree that there's no point in continuing, because it's obviously a
quasi-religion for you - I note that:

:-( Like all denialists with a quasi-religious view, you keep
moving the goalposts. This started of as a discussion about
water-vapour; when you lost that part of it, you introduced irrelevant
short-term non-AGW events such as El Nino; when you lost that part of
it, you introduced other irrelevant short-term changed in global
temperatures.

:-( Like all denialists with a quasi-religious view, you state
your own opinions as though they were facts, and fail to produce even
one scientifically credible fact to support your entrenched opinions.

:-( Like all denialists with a quasi-religious view, by
attempting to create confusion, doubt, and uncertainty where there
isn't any, you use the obfuscation tactics learnt by the tobacco
industry when faced with overwhelming medical evidence that their
products damaged their customers' health, tactics which were then
adopted by the oil industry and so became part of climate denialism.

Time will tell which of us is correct.


We already know, and it's not you.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #18  
Old September 18th 17, 08:23 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,689
Default bbc inacuracies

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:37:03 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

This is an interesting perspective on the politics.
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthsc...Global-Warming


Well not really.

For one thing politics is politics and is usually suspect, and the
politics of climate change is unlikely to be any different - the
problem is more politics in general, not climate change or its
politics in particular.

Secondly, the premise of the story, that global warming had stopped,
was always going to turn out to be false, and since then the rise
recommenced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
(enlargement of graph)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G...re_Anomaly.svg

Thirdly, "The last time the sun was this quiet, North America and
Europe suffered through a weather event from the 1600s to the 1800s
known as "Little Ice Age," when the Thames River in London regularly
froze solid, and North America saw terrible winters. Crops failed and
people starved." But this hasn't happened, and recent years have been
the warmest on record.

And this is what the scientific observations show when not muted by
politicians
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#e51a5ca4dcf5


Not exactly a scientifically unbiased robust independent report, on
the contrary, the writer is a well-known denialist, whose every
statement should be double or even triple checked ...

Written by Peter Ferrara, Full Bio: "... I am Director of
Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute .."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington
Heights, Illinois, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. The Institute
conducts work on issues including education reform, government
spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global
warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market
environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company
Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke
and to lobby against smoking bans.[2][3]:23334[4] In the decade after
2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate
change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global
warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to
the economy.[8]"

If you need more, I suggest you Google it yourself, because AFAICR
when I investigated them some years ago there's was a great pile of
sh*t out there debunking them.

And so the clown show goes on ...
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #19  
Old September 18th 17, 08:41 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default bbc inacuracies

Recently, on the BBC website, they reported an article from the one of
the power companies or the National Grid. I cant remember which or the
actual figures supplied, sorry.

The article was trying to sensationalise facts by stating if there
were a large increase in electric cars than currenly exist, then they
would have to incease the total power generated by the grid (probably
true) and that every household would also need an upgrade to a 100amp
main fuse to charge their cars or people would not be able to boil a
kettle and charge the car quickly. Therefore stating that electric
cars would not be as green as imagined. The reasoning was that
currently the electric cars only charge at 15 or 20amps and thus can
take 20 hours to charge fully, but that would be unacceptable to most
people and so everybody would need a 100amp main fuse to be able to
have 48amp to charge the battery in only 2 hours and still have power
for other things, otherwise you cant boil a kettle and charge the car.

However the bit that they did not understand from this statement was
that if the battery only charges at 20Amp rate, having 40 or 60
available wont make it charge quicker (unless you were currenly
restricting it in some way to less that what it can take) as batteries
have a finite charge rate current. Doubling that current would
probably make the battery explode as you would have to increase the
terminal voltage to make it charge higher than its normal charge rate.

Not entirely the BBC's fault as they were reporting "facts " they
were give, but they should have people that can verify they are
correct.

Also, being a very old person, I remember years ago in the early 60's
when Silicone breast implants were starting to make the news. Many of
the BBC newsreaders kept calling them "Silicon" breast implants, they
knew of Silicon from their School Chemistry lessons. It took a few
years but they got it and they then started to call them Silicone
implants. However along came the Integrated circuits (TTL chips) and
they started to refer to them as Silicone Chips. That took a few
years before they got used to calling those Silicon again. Then there
was another issue around Silicone breast implants and they called them
Silicon breast implants before they got that right again. I think
that also happened again when the Integrated curicuit processors came
out in portable computers, then morre Breast implant issues.

Basically they get used to saying one thing (Silicon or Silicone) and
struggle to grasp they are 2 different things for year or two.

Basically BBC inacuracies are nothing new.

Steve
  #20  
Old September 18th 17, 08:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,689
Default bbc inacuracies

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 21:41:10 +0100, wrote:

Also, being a very old person, I remember years ago in the early 60's
when Silicone breast implants were starting to make the news. Many of
the BBC newsreaders kept calling them "Silicon" breast implants, they
knew of Silicon from their School Chemistry lessons. It took a few
years but they got it and they then started to call them Silicone
implants. However along came the Integrated circuits (TTL chips) and
they started to refer to them as Silicone Chips. That took a few
years before they got used to calling those Silicon again. Then there
was another issue around Silicone breast implants and they called them
Silicon breast implants before they got that right again. I think
that also happened again when the Integrated curicuit processors came
out in portable computers, then morre Breast implant issues.


Ah ... Visions of all those tech-geeks living in a Dolly Parton sized
cleavage called Silicone Valley ... Sorry, I'll get me coat.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.