<< BRING IT ON, GAIA ~ MAIN ~ HOT MODELS >>
PLANET RELIEVED
Inasmuch as it’s been switched off, this cancelled show has achieved its aim:
The BBC has scrapped plans for Planet Relief, a TV special on climate change ...
The decision comes after some senior executives expressed concern that the programme concept might breach impartiality guidelines.
Celebrities such as Ricky Gervais were said to be interested in presenting the show, which would have involved viewers in a mass “switch-off” to save energy.
The likelihood of viewers “switching off” may have influenced the BBC:
Poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July’s Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being “lectured to” on climate change.
Via Jonathan A., who emails: “I’d certainly be participating in a switch-off. As soon as the programme came on.” A similar development is noted in Australia by Paul Wright:
There are signs of an outbreak of common sense at the ABC, or perhaps they are just sensing a change in the wind.
On the midday ABC radio news Wednesday, in an item on the damage done to Central America by recent hurricanes, the newsreader informed us that “many scientists see a link between global warming and the frequency of hurricanes, but there is as yet no consensus.”
Up is down, black is white! Look out for the rain of toads!
Not likely, Paul. Global warmening kills toads.
BBC ... impartiality guidelines
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks, “senior executives” - best laugh I’ve had all week.
Oh, wait - they were serious....?
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2007 09 05 at 01:37 PM • permalinkWhy is “consensus” so damned important as to scientific questions? There was once consensus that the world was flat and the center of the solar system, that you could tell someone’s personality from the bumps on their skull, that bleeding was a cure for almost anything, that bathing was unhealthy (still a belief in many parts of Europe). Consensus is the antithesis of science.
Global warmening kills toads.
Somebody tell the cane toad.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2007 09 05 at 07:39 PM • permalinkThe BBC has “impartiality guidelines”? Who’d've thunk.
Posted by Mambo Bananapatch on 2007 09 05 at 07:59 PM • permalinkThe more I hear the words:
global warming
climate change
planetary destruction
loss of species
going extinct
save the planet
carbon footprint
carbon trading
carbon offset
reduce green-house gases
carbon neutral
carbon bad
carbon evil
we must eliminate carbon emissions
placed in everyday conversation and at least one of these commonly-used alarmist word combinations used to define just about everything that I hear or read in the media, the harder it is for me to believe that there will ever be an admission that anthropogenic global warming is an absolute crock of shit.
There’s just too much riding on it.
People should really be speaking out about it. All the time. If anyone here mentions it to me I tell them I think it’s rubbish, that I am a skeptic.And anyway, we’re up shit creek because we need more dams for water to drink, and dams increase greenhouse gases, CO2 and particularly methane. It’s all really self-perpetuating bullshit. I’m pretty sure that there’s only so much water in the world, and with carbon we don’t make extra carbon, we just change it.
Carbon is part of life, it is actually part of the lifecycle of the earth and all the things (all right), aren’t all life forms on earth carbon based?
It. Is. Just. Bull. Shit.Anyway, this is MY kind of Carbon Offset….. or is it sequestration? I dunno. I know it works for me!
I wonder why this guy is looking so deadpan.
this]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295768,00.html]this[/url]Gore is working on a new environmental book, “The Path to Survival,
I see a triology. They will be the first three books of the Eco-Testament. Al Gore will not be martyred, however. He will disappear in a haze of verbiage.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 09 06 at 05:54 AM • permalinkI think it’s rubbish…I am a skeptic.
Me, too. Proudly skeptical, if I do say so myself…
Who was it that mentioned mental illness, not enough asylums? Large numbers of mentally unbalanced patients were turned out of asylums in the 60’s due to findings that such incarceration denied their civil rights. Now the inmates really do run the asylum - academia, entertainment, & many bureaucratic programs - but the rest of us are losers as a result. It seems THEIR civil rights outweigh mine.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
“The decision comes after some senior executives expressed concern that the programme concept might breach impartiality guidelines.”
Obviously, the “programme” was not partial enough.