The news channels fills assorted gaps - I think not just where the international version has advert.s - with little clips from old reports,
I think to draw your attention to other specialist reports on the channel.
I find them irritating, though, as they play them without any warning,
so the unwary might think they're a new report. (There was a
particularly alarming one a few weeks ago about a car running into a
crowd; I _hope_ they stopped running that one because of complaints,
though I suspect not.)
The selection is random - and what triggered me to post this (albeit
I've only got round to it, and the occurrence was at 4:44 two or three
days ago) was it showing the same clip twice in succession (obviously
nobody monitors the outgoing). And then within a few hours one bunch of
such clips had the same one with only one other in between.
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.
It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.
In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.
It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.
On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.
In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
-a-a Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.
It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.
The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you
get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.
If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few suppliers.
Every news station has its own bias,
On 18/05/2026 12:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.
In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.
It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.
The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or
Sky News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop,
and you get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether
you watch it or not.
If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few
suppliers.
Every news station has its own bias,
News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon
I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,
but they will push other items such as the Trump war, down the running
order.
Currently the Starmer-a-thon caused the media to largely ignore the
Trump-Xi summit, and when was the last time you heard anything about Gaza ?
On 18/05/2026 12:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.
In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
-a-a Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.
It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.
The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you
get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.
If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few
suppliers.
Every news station has its own bias,
News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon
I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,
Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2026 12:53, John Williamson wrote:
On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.
In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
-a-a Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much so my
boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.
It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes. But
now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's so
obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4, Itv,
they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is galling.
The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you >>> get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.
If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few
suppliers.
Every news station has its own bias,
News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon
I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,
My wife would disagree with this last statement.
Everybody is different, and serving all those differences is impossible. Seems that a lot of people want a service tailored to their wishes and viewpoint.
Every news station has its own bias, and I have noticed that with the
BBC, those who are right wing in their thinking believe it has a left
wing bias and left wing thinkers believe it is biased to the right. No matter which way the Government of the day leans, they believe that the
BBC is not on their side...
Like every other news service except the Muslim ones, it is scared stiff
of annoying Israel's current Government.
It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.
News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon
I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,
but they will push other items such as the Trump war, down the running order.
Currently the Starmer-a-thon caused the media to largely ignore the
Trump-Xi summit, and when was the last time you heard anything about Gaza ?
The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you
get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.
It's not necessarily bias, but it's the choice of stories.
News is only what the editor or producer has decided to report upon
I don't regard sports results, or the winner of Eurovision to be news,
but they will push other items such as the Trump war, down the running order.
On 18/05/2026 12:53, John Williamson wrote:
The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or Sky
News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you shop, and you
get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay whether you watch
it or not.
And you probably pay more for the commercial stations than the TV
Licence via the Advertising Tax!
On 18/05/2026 11:15, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10ua2iq$1283n$2@dont-email.me>,
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> wrote:
Well congratulations for being probably the only intelligent person
left watching the BBC News Channel.
I gave up on it a long time ago.
Agreed 100%. Up to around 15 years ago I loved the BBC, so much
so my boss at the time, got me a BBC mug to take the proverbial.
It was a certain Bill Wright of this parish that opened my eyes.
But now I can see the absurd level of bias and propaganda (it's
so obvious) I'm not sure it's really much worse than Sky, C4,
Itv, they're all awful but being forced to pay for it directly is
galling.
but = That is decision by Parliament - not of the BBC's.
The only difference between paying for the BBC and, say, GB News or
Sky News is that you pay for the commercial stations while you
shop, and you get billed directly for the BBC. Either way, you pay
whether you watch it or not.
If you want free news on your TV, then Al Jazeera is one of the few suppliers.
Every news station has its own bias, and I have noticed that with
the BBC, those who are right wing in their thinking believe it has
a left wing bias and left wing thinkers believe it is biased to
the right. No matter which way the Government of the day leans,
they believe that the BBC is not on their side...
Like every other news service except the Muslim ones, it is scared
stiff of annoying Israel's current Government.
"decided to" = "has been asked or told to"
That is where the bias creeps in. If the editor wants to keep their
job, they conform to their boss's biases.
For many of the audience, they are far more important than what an
Orange dementia sufferer is doing thousands of miles away.
Everybody is different, and serving all those differences is
impossible. Seems that a lot of people want a service tailored to
their wishes and viewpoint.
In article <10uf1jb$2g9ao$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Everybody is different, and serving all those differences is
impossible. Seems that a lot of people want a service tailored to
their wishes and viewpoint.
I would settle for the truth.
Not guided by a narrative which must be pushed.
Nothing left out to protect the narrative.
Nothing emphasised to support the narrative.
Yes I would settle for that, I don't need lies to make me feel good
about my politics.
Bob.
In article <n70ct1F1tv4U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
Never the less, being forced by law and possible prison to fund the
social engineering and woke ideologies the captured BBC spew out
every day is terrible.
On 2026/5/18 12:53:4, John Williamson wrote:
Indeed; as you say, each side thinks it's biased the other way, so
I think it's roughly got the balance right.
Plus, on the whole, I think they criticise whatever government's in
power more than they do the opposition(s); this is _probably_ as it
should be, as the one that's in has more power, so should be
criticised more.
Like every other news service except the Muslim ones, it is
scared stiff of annoying Israel's current Government.
(Yes, I'm still waiting for a _British_ Jewish group to criticize -
or, at least, be _reported_ as criticizing - Israel's behaviour.)
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10uf1jb$2g9ao$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Everybody is different, and serving all those differences is
impossible. Seems that a lot of people want a service tailored to
their wishes and viewpoint.
I would settle for the truth.
Not guided by a narrative which must be pushed.
Nothing left out to protect the narrative.
Nothing emphasised to support the narrative.
Yes I would settle for that, I don't need lies to make me feel good
about my politics.
Bob.
Everybody has a different view on what they regard as the truth.
On 19/05/2026 10:16, Bob Latham wrote:
I just look at it as a tax like any other. I can ignore the BBC,
and if I see or hear anything I disagree with, the research is
easy enough to do.
In article <10uftck$2p062$1@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/5/18 12:53:4, John Williamson wrote:
Indeed; as you say, each side thinks it's biased the other way, so I
think it's roughly got the balance right.
The only way that may end up true is if a large proportion of the
population believe absolute nonsense as fact. Thinking....
Greens, Climate, man becomes woman, Borders, Starmer, lost phone.. yes
that probably works.
Plus, on the whole, I think they criticise whatever government's in
power more than they do the opposition(s); this is _probably_ as it
should be, as the one that's in has more power, so should be criticised
more.
I can see some merit in it, if it were true.
Like every other news service except the Muslim ones, it is scared
stiff of annoying Israel's current Government.
(Yes, I'm still waiting for a _British_ Jewish group to criticize -
or, at least, be _reported_ as criticizing - Israel's behaviour.)
What behaviour are you referring to?
I'm not Jewish I'm CoE. I don't know of any fact about Israel that
worries me. They did not commit genocide. However, week after week in
the UK we have hate marches proclaiming they wish to exterminate the
Jews from the river to the sea. Apparently this is fine and not
incitement or hate speech at all.
For me, Israel was forced into a position where they had no choice after
yet again, they were subject to an appalling and horrific attack from terrorists.
I watched the corrupt media following 7th October, most seemed to think
they should do nothing, in effect just take it. It's not allowed for
Jews to defend themselves, they're only good for target practise. They
also banged on about a two state solution but there is no solution if
your neighbour is so hate filled and single minded that they proclaim
from the river to the sea and you know they will never stop.
The billions given to Palestine in aid could have been used to build a
super country, good for themselves and their neighbours but no, they
built a country for war, they decided that.
And as its the Jews, well there is only only one side that's going to
get the blame isn't there? They even got the blame for the attack itself because large numbers of people since biblical times love to hate Jews.
Very large numbers of Christians are being murdered by Muslims in
Africa, no marches, no accusations of genocide. Muslims in China get slaughtered, again no outcry. It only matters if Jews are involved.
Bob.
And as its the Jews, well there is only only one side that's going to[]
get the blame isn't there? They even got the blame for the attack
itself because large numbers of people since biblical times love to
hate Jews.
In article <n72qfhFdjs1U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 10:16, Bob Latham wrote:
I just look at it as a tax like any other. I can ignore the BBC,
and if I see or hear anything I disagree with, the research is
easy enough to do.
All true enough or is it?
When the BBC tells the country scientists say - if we don't act now
it will be too late.
How many question it? How many would even consider that the BBC etc.
would lie about something like that?
It made people ill, so did the propaganda during covid, you still see
people wearing useless face masks even now.
There should be serious consequences for broadcasters who push untrue propaganda especially if they are the state broadcaster.
On 19/05/2026 12:20, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <n72qfhFdjs1U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 10:16, Bob Latham wrote:
All true enough or is it?
The BBC's record is better than all the rest I've seen, if you
bother going back to the original sources. (Scientific papers and authenticated footage of conflicts, for instance.)
When the BBC tells the country scientists say - if we don't act
now it will be too late.
As far as climate change goes, it was too late 30 years ago.
We should have been using the fossil fuels as a stop gap while we
developed nuclear, preferably fusion, power, and kept the oil as
raw material for chemicals.
How many question it? How many would even consider that the BBC
etc. would lie about something like that?
Assuming you are still talking about climate change it was
predicted long ago and is now beginning to bite.
Either it is a very unlikely coincidence, and something else
suddenly changed at the same time as we started burning fossil
fuels in large amounts, our actions are what is causing the climate
to get warmer on average.
It made people ill, so did the propaganda during covid, you still
see people wearing useless face masks even now.
While the ignorant assumed the face masks were to stop you catching
it, the fact is that they were to prevent you passing it on. This
technique is used with success in other countries against other
droplet borne diseases.
The science is good, as the droplets you sneeze out are large
enough to be caught by the fabric, while after they dry out a bit
as they travel, they can get through the holes, but the explanation
we got was not as good as the science.(I used to work with Japanese
and Chinese tourists, and the ones wearing the masks were the ones
who were sneezing and coughing. Nobody else caught anything off
them.)
There should be serious consequences for broadcasters who push
untrue propaganda especially if they are the state broadcaster.
True, but if you look at the actual truth rather than the
conspiracy theories, the BBC do a pretty good job.
This is why, in most places round the World, they are regarded more
highly than any other broadcaster.
The difference is that when you go shopping you can choose where to
shop and what to buy, and nobody will send you threatening letters
trying to mislead you into paying for what you haven't bought.
Yes, and to be fair, the BBC are always banging on about scrapping
the tele tax and going for subscription model.
On 19/05/2026 09:52, Bob Latham wrote:
Yes, and to be fair, the BBC are always banging on about scrapping
the tele tax and going for subscription model.
I can't remember the BBC wanting a subscription model?
On 19/05/2026 09:35, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The difference is that when you go shopping you can choose where to
shop and what to buy, and nobody will send you threatening letters
trying to mislead you into paying for what you haven't bought.
They will (or worse) if you deduct the Advertising Tax from what you pay.
In article <n7349qFf4c5U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 12:20, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <n72qfhFdjs1U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 10:16, Bob Latham wrote:
All true enough or is it?The BBC's record is better than all the rest I've seen, if you
bother going back to the original sources. (Scientific papers and
authenticated footage of conflicts, for instance.)
You mean they pushed the lie that CO2 was an issue and went as far as
to decide it was settled science and would not and still will not,
debate it.
If that is your definition of better then yes.
Unfortunately, there is NO evidence that CO2 has ever driven climate.
If there was, the media would make sure we could see it.
Don't forget, at least 96% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural and
not from man.
So if CO2 is at 0.042% which it is.
96% of which is natural only 4% is human.
Of that 4%, 1% is from the UK.
0.042% x 0.04 x 0.01
You do the maths then do the mental gymnastics to convince yourself
that the UK destroying its industry and freezing people in their
homes is sensible policy and that's if CO2 is the cause, which it
isn't.
Utter madness.
There is evidence that Climate warms the oceans that release vast
quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.
When the BBC tells the country scientists say - if we don't actAs far as climate change goes, it was too late 30 years ago.
now it will be too late.
Too late for what? Nothing is happening that hasn't happened before,
nothing. We are extremely lucky to live in a warmer period, that's
all.
How many question it? How many would even consider that the BBC
etc. would lie about something like that?
Assuming you are still talking about climate change it was
predicted long ago and is now beginning to bite.
Nonsense I'm sorry but it's nonsense.
There have been warm periods throughout history and warmer than today
it is cyclic.
In addition CO2 is *nearly* the lowest it has ever been in millions
of years. For most of history it was vastly higher than today 10 to
15 times what we have today. Guess what, the planet did not burn.
We are in a CO2 famine. It was a little lower a few thousand years
ago and we came close to plant death as a result, we were lucky. You
wouldn't be here if it had not recovered.
CO2 has been dropping steadily for millions of years due to plants
and animals sequestrating it in the ground. Fossil fuel burning is
returning the CO2 back to the atmosphere where it came from and in so
doing is protecting plant life and and therefore animal life.
Either it is a very unlikely coincidence, and something else
suddenly changed at the same time as we started burning fossil
fuels in large amounts, our actions are what is causing the climate
to get warmer on average.
You talk as though this is a one off, that warm periods never
happened before, they did. It was warmer in the Roman warm period and
the medieval warm period than it is now, do you think cars and gas
boilers caused those? Have you not looked at graphs of temperature
and CO2 going back millions of years?
I can tell what has caused the recent warming since ~1980 backed up
by ceres satellite data.
Slightly simplified.. Surface temperature on a body with an
atmosphere is dependent on:
1. TSI = How much sun reaches the surface.
2. Atmospheric pressure.
3. Cloud cover.
All else is insignificant if even measurable.
We all see the effect of pressure, That's why mountains have snow on
the peaks for ages, it's cold due to thinner air. Death valley is the
hottest place on earth because it is way, way below sea level and
therefore very high pressure, not because it's not on the equator.
It's the same on Venus and Mars both have 95% CO2 atmospheres but
Venus is scorching hot and Mars is very cold. it is not CO2. The
difference is pressure. Venus has extreme pressure that's why it's
hot. Mars, I bet you can guess, has very low pressure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcVGXA6Lr8
An old video now but Tony Heller explains this very well, much better
than I. Try from about 1 minute into the video.
Satellite data clearly shows that short wave energy reaching the
surface of the earth is increasing and has been for decades. Also
more long wave heat is leaving the planet. There is no evidence of
any atmosphere heat trapping. If there was, it would be all over the
media,. but it's not.
It's clouds, they are heavily influenced by cosmic rays from deep
space. The strength of these rays is dependent on where the earth is
in the galaxy. as it moves around in the spiral arms. The sun also is
thought to push the cosmic rays away with the solar wind.
Even the IPCC now says their two most extreme predictions are
"implausible". Their models will remain wrong until they remove CO2
from the calculations.
There are several websites from an increasing number of scientists
explaining all of this now, things are changing.
If you want serious stuff and the maths to go with it, this guy is
your man. Same story though.
https://climate-truths.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZKI40d5YHs
There is no climate crisis, CO2 has never driven climate and is
innocent. Changing cloud albedo is the real cause.
While the ignorant assumed the face masks were to stop you catching
it, the fact is that they were to prevent you passing it on. This
technique is used with success in other countries against other
droplet borne diseases.
Heard that many time but not from the media at the time.
But the point is ! People wearing them now do so because the media
told them it would protect them. I see them all the time whenever I
go into town.
True, but if you look at the actual truth rather than the
conspiracy theories, the BBC do a pretty good job.
Does that include their stitch up of the president of the usa which
they did twice in two different programs.
This is why, in most places round the World, they are regarded more
highly than any other broadcaster.
Then they are deluded.
On 19/05/2026 15:54, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <n7349qFf4c5U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 12:20, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <n72qfhFdjs1U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 10:16, Bob Latham wrote:
All true enough or is it?The BBC's record is better than all the rest I've seen, if you
bother going back to the original sources. (Scientific papers
and authenticated footage of conflicts, for instance.)
You mean they pushed the lie that CO2 was an issue and went as
far as to decide it was settled science and would not and still
will not, debate it.
Them and all the other reputable scientific outlets.
If that is your definition of better then yes.
Unfortunately, there is NO evidence that CO2 has ever driven
climate. If there was, the media would make sure we could see it.
This article shows the correlation between temperature and CO2 over
the last 500 Million years.
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
Don't forget, at least 96% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural
and not from man.
So if CO2 is at 0.042% which it is. 96% of which is natural only
4% is human. Of that 4%, 1% is from the UK.
0.042% x 0.04 x 0.01
The UK produced 2% of worldwide CO2 last time I checked. About the
same as the total produced by aviation worldwide.
You do the maths then do the mental gymnastics to convince
yourself that the UK destroying its industry and freezing people
in their homes is sensible policy and that's if CO2 is the cause,
which it isn't.
Utter madness.
There is evidence that Climate warms the oceans that release vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The oceans are by far the biggest carbon sink on the planet.
They are not releasing vast amounts of CO2
but they are absorbing less, as gases become less soluble in water
as the temperature rises.
When the BBC tells the country scientists say - if we don't actAs far as climate change goes, it was too late 30 years ago.
now it will be too late.
Too late for what? Nothing is happening that hasn't happened
before, nothing. We are extremely lucky to live in a warmer
period, that's all.
Climate change has indeed happened before, but never at anywhere
near the current rate. LOL!
How many question it? How many would even consider that the BBC
etc. would lie about something like that?
Assuming you are still talking about climate change it was
predicted long ago and is now beginning to bite.
Nonsense I'm sorry but it's nonsense.
LOL!
There have been warm periods throughout history and warmer than
today it is cyclic.
And closely correlated with CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the
last 500 million years.
In addition CO2 is *nearly* the lowest it has ever been in
millions of years. For most of history it was vastly higher than
today 10 to 15 times what we have today. Guess what, the planet
did not burn.
The predictions are not that "the planet will burn",
the predictions are that in some areas our lifestyle will become
more difficult due to the temperature rise, and in other areas, it
will become easier.
Given time, even forests can migrste to more comfortable
temperatures.
The current speed of the change is the real problem.
We are in a CO2 famine. It was a little lower a few thousand
years ago and we came close to plant death as a result, we were
lucky. You wouldn't be here if it had not recovered.
Recovery was inevitable. As plant cover reduced, CO2 inevitably
rose again, as the animals and other sources were still producing
it.
CO2 has been dropping steadily for millions of years due to
plants and animals sequestrating it in the ground. Fossil fuel
burning is returning the CO2 back to the atmosphere where it came
from and in so doing is protecting plant life and and therefore
animal life.
Other factors are now limiting plant growth.
Either it is a very unlikely coincidence, and something else
suddenly changed at the same time as we started burning fossil
fuels in large amounts, our actions are what is causing the
climate to get warmer on average.
You talk as though this is a one off, that warm periods never
happened before, they did. It was warmer in the Roman warm period
and the medieval warm period than it is now, do you think cars
and gas boilers caused those? Have you not looked at graphs of
temperature and CO2 going back millions of years?
Yes. For the last twenty thousand hears, this one is as accurate as
any. You will, of course, note the very rapid increase since we
invented the steam engine. Randall wants to make us smile, but the
science in his strips is as accurate as he can make it.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
I can tell what has caused the recent warming since ~1980 backed
up by ceres satellite data.
Slightly simplified.. Surface temperature on a body with an
atmosphere is dependent on:
1. TSI = How much sun reaches the surface.
2. Atmospheric pressure.
3. Cloud cover.
All else is insignificant if even measurable.
4. The amount that can be re-radiated.
CO2 is very good at stopping infra red radiation.
We all see the effect of pressure, That's why mountains have snow on
the peaks for ages, it's cold due to thinner air. Death valley is the hottest place on earth because it is way, way below sea level and
therefore very high pressure, not because it's not on the equator.
It's the same on Venus and Mars both have 95% CO2 atmospheres but
Venus is scorching hot and Mars is very cold. it is not CO2. The
difference is pressure. Venus has extreme pressure that's why it's
hot. Mars, I bet you can guess, has very low pressure.
Mars also only receives a small percentage of the solar radiation
that Venus receives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WcVGXA6Lr8
An old video now but Tony Heller explains this very well, much
better than I. Try from about 1 minute into the video.
On Tue, 19 May 2026 11:51:27 +0100, Bob Latham wrote:
I watched the corrupt media following 7th October, most seemed to think
they should do nothing, in effect just take it. It's not allowed for
Jews to defend themselves, they're only good for target practise. They
also banged on about a two state solution but there is no solution if
your neighbour is so hate filled and single minded that they proclaim
from the river to the sea and you know they will never stop.
The billions given to Palestine in aid could have been used to build a
super country, good for themselves and their neighbours but no, they
built a country for war, they decided that.
And as its the Jews, well there is only only one side that's going to
get the blame isn't there? They even got the blame for the attack itself
because large numbers of people since biblical times love to hate Jews.
Very large numbers of Christians are being murdered by Muslims in
Africa, no marches, no accusations of genocide. Muslims in China get
slaughtered, again no outcry. It only matters if Jews are involved.
Well, they were called the chosen people.
There is no 'Advertising tax'. A portion of the cost of anything these
days will have been spent on advertising, but it's not something you
can separate from what you pay for it. You pay the asking price or go elsewhere, and the company can spend its profits as it chooses.
And you can spend your own money as you choose. You can decide which
products you want to buy, based on any criteria you like. How
expensively advertised they are may or may not be part of that choice.
It's entirely up to you, and there are no laws dictating what your
purchasing choices have to be. If you choose to buy cheap goods, the purveyors of expensive ones won't demand that you pay them as well.
Them and all the other reputable scientific outlets.
On 19/05/2026 15:54, Bob Latham wrote:[...]
There is evidence that Climate warms the oceans that release vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.
The oceans are by far the biggest carbon sink on the planet. They are[...]
not releasing vast amounts of CO2 but they are absorbing less, as gases become less soluble in water as the temperature rises.
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument?
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell
formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument?
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to
bring an end to Western civilisation.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell
formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument?
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to
bring an end to Western civilisation.
significant damage to continental forests.
JMB99 wrote:Even the UK coal plants which had been retro-fitted with flue gas desulphurization "scrubbers" and therefore exempt from the large
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to
bring an end to Western civilisation.
Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused
significant damage to continental forests.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell
formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument?
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to
bring an end to Western civilisation.
significant damage to continental forests.
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:actually, most of the acid rain in the UK was coming across the Atlantic from Canada.
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell >>>> formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument?
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to
bring an end to Western civilisation.
significant damage to continental forests.
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused significant damage to continental forests.
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell >>> formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument?
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to
bring an end to Western civilisation.
We and everyone else also started removing the sulphur from diesel fuel
and the heavy fuel oil used in ships.
Even the UK coal plants which had been retro-fitted with flue gas desulphurization "scrubbers" and therefore exempt from the large
combustion plant directive were shutdown ... Meanwhile Germany is still burning brown coal.
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:We and everyone else also started removing the sulphur from diesel fuel
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell >>>>> formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument?
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to >>>> bring an end to Western civilisation.
significant damage to continental forests.
and the heavy fuel oil used in ships.
Where did we put it?
On 21/05/2026 09:37, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:In with the rest of the waste from the refineries.
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:We and everyone else also started removing the sulphur from diesel fuel
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell >>>>>> formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument? >>>>>
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to >>>>> bring an end to Western civilisation.
significant damage to continental forests.
and the heavy fuel oil used in ships.
Where did we put it?
In article <n758llF9uq5U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 15:54, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <n7349qFf4c5U1@mid.individual.net>,Them and all the other reputable scientific outlets.
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 12:20, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <n72qfhFdjs1U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 10:16, Bob Latham wrote:
All true enough or is it?The BBC's record is better than all the rest I've seen, if you
bother going back to the original sources. (Scientific papers
and authenticated footage of conflicts, for instance.)
You mean they pushed the lie that CO2 was an issue and went as
far as to decide it was settled science and would not and still
will not, debate it.
May I remind you that science has always been moved forward when one
person came up with better than the herd.
Science is not by consensus because they are nearly always wrong.
This article shows the correlation between temperature and CO2 over
the last 500 Million years.
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
I didn't see a good graph on there.
Very, very biased site.
The oceans are by far the biggest carbon sink on the planet.
They are when it's cold, not when it's warm.
They are not releasing vast amounts of CO2
I did not claim they were.
Climate change has indeed happened before, but never at anywhere
near the current rate. LOL!
Not true. It happened many times before at the similar rates. Warming
always results in more CO2 not the other way around.
And closely correlated with CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the
last 500 million years.
Not true. CO2 has been falling for most of history.
It does not correlate at all.
Wish I could show you a graph.
However what correlates amazingly well is sunshine and temperature
since 1980.
Give me a way to send you the graph...
They compare CERES absorbed Solar radiation ASR
Average Global mean temperature GMST.
There is another shows from 2000 to 2026. the correlation is
undeniable way better than CO2 but it's not proof.
The predictions are not that "the planet will burn",
Sigh. Of course it will not, that's the point. It was the UN (another
bunch of communists) who keep telling us "the planet is boiling and
we're doomed ".
the predictions are that in some areas our lifestyle will become
more difficult due to the temperature rise, and in other areas, it
will become easier.
The prediction of a little more warming may well be true but not
anything to do with CO2. All yes ALL previous warm periods were not
CO2 driven but you this one is different. Even the CO2 brigade tell
us that the effect is saturated.
Given time, even forests can migrste to more comfortable
temperatures.
How do you explain tree remains so far north that in todays climate
they would not survive due to cold?
CO2 has been dropping steadily for millions of years due to
plants and animals sequestrating it in the ground. Fossil fuel
burning is returning the CO2 back to the atmosphere where it came
from and in so doing is protecting plant life and and therefore
animal life.
Other factors are now limiting plant growth.
That's funny because every chart I see show the planet is greening
rapidly even in the desert regions.
CO2 is a good thing.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
You do know how badly the Hockey stick etc. is don't you, it's plain
lying.
A whole video on our terrible weather stations, it is really really
good you will not believe this. https://tomn.substack.com/p/ray-sanders-fabricated-temperature
I know you will not watch it.
Then there is the speed demon. Did you know that modern remote
thermometers take snap shots of temperature very fast. They do not
use the damped effect of expanding metals and so they are prone to
heat burst of very short duration.
There was a bunch of activists in scotland who wanted the temperature
record for their area, so they moved the thermometer to an airfield
on tarmac.
The whole thing is bent.
Land warming is far greater than warming measured at sea because of
the urban heat island effect.
Have you not seen "Climate the Movie".
It shows temperatures in the 1930 and up to 1940 were warmer than
today. That from 1940 to 1976 the temperature was dropping and so
noticeable that the BBC gave us programs about the coming ice age. I
remember that fear porn.
Watch it. Or are you afraid your myth of CO2 the demon gas is just
that..
Climate the movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Tfxiuo-oM
So that's 4 videos, I bet you'll not watch because you know CO2 is
the problem.
On 21/05/2026 09:37, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:In with the rest of the waste from the refineries.
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:We and everyone else also started removing the sulphur from diesel fuel
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused
PMFJI.-a I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting >>>>>> shell
formation in sea creatures.-a Is that consistent with this argument? >>>>>
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to >>>>> bring an end to Western civilisation.
significant damage to continental forests.
and the heavy fuel oil used in ships.
Where did we put it?
On 21/05/2026 08:17, Andy Burns wrote:
Even the UK coal plants which had been retro-fitted with flue gas
desulphurization "scrubbers" and therefore exempt from the large
combustion plant directive were shutdown ... Meanwhile Germany is
still burning brown coal.
I think I read at the time that UK power stations were quite clean
already but the EU wanted an XX % reduction everywhere which is
difficult when already clean but the EU countries with very dirty power stations were allowed to leave them running like that.-a But it is a long time ago so not sure of details.
<Wastes an hour>
TL:DR "We're right, everyone else is wrong". :-/
So that's 4 videos, I bet you'll not watch because you know CO2 is
the problem.
Human generated CO2 is the current problem.
I watched the videos until they got so obviously wrong, I gave up.
Old brexiteers never die. Hopefully their myths will slowly fade
away.
In article <10umref$n5r3$2@dont-email.me>,
MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
Old brexiteers never die. Hopefully their myths will slowly fade
away.
Old Remainers still desperate to justify surrendering the country to
a dying foreign power.
:-)
On 20/05/2026 09:07, Roderick Stewart wrote:
There is no 'Advertising tax'. A portion of the cost of anything these
days will have been spent on advertising, but it's not something you
can separate from what you pay for it. You pay the asking price or go
elsewhere, and the company can spend its profits as it chooses.
And you can spend your own money as you choose. You can decide which
products you want to buy, based on any criteria you like. How
expensively advertised they are may or may not be part of that choice.
It's entirely up to you, and there are no laws dictating what your
purchasing choices have to be. If you choose to buy cheap goods, the
purveyors of expensive ones won't demand that you pay them as well.
You cannot avoid it unless you buy cheap unbranded items and it is
difficult (or impossible) to find what proportion of what you spend is
for advertising - I remember an article many years ago that gave figures
for some items and it was quite shocking how much was being spent on advertising.
Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:actually, most of the acid rain in the UK was coming across the Atlantic
On 20/05/2026 21:24, Sn!pe wrote:Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We caused
PMFJI. I've seen reports that ocean acidification is inhibiting shell >>>>> formation in sea creatures. Is that consistent with this argument?
It does not seem long since we were told that 'acid rain' was going to >>>> bring an end to Western civilisation.
significant damage to continental forests.
from Canada.
Well yes. Everyone polluted their neighbours to the east. ItrCOs the way the winds blow.
No, what they say is that the climate will change and we have to adapt.
On 21/05/2026 12:12, John Williamson wrote:
No, what they say is that the climate will change and we have to adapt.
There is money in 'climate change' and many jobs depend on it.
I remember someone wrote years ago that if they applied for a grant to
study (for example) the breeding habits of squirrels in the South of
England then they would be unlikely to succeed in getting any grants.
But if they applied for a grant to study the effect of 'climate change'
on the breeding habits of squirrels in the South of England then they
would be able to get plenty of grants.
People soon learn how to 'play the system' when getting grants.
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We causedWe and everyone else also started removing the sulphur from diesel fuel
significant damage to continental forests.
and the heavy fuel oil used in ships.
On 21/05/2026 08:01, John Williamson wrote:
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We causedWe and everyone else also started removing the sulphur from diesel
significant damage to continental forests.
fuel and the heavy fuel oil used in ships.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
"Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to
approximately two additional years of emissions."
It's complicated.
On 21/05/2026 08:01, John Williamson wrote:
On 21/05/2026 07:47, Tweed wrote:
Cleaned up by UK turning off coal fired power stations. We causedWe and everyone else also started removing the sulphur from diesel fuel and the heavy fuel oil used in ships.
significant damage to continental forests.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
"Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the
2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase
global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions."
It's complicated.
In article <n758llF9uq5U1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 19/05/2026 15:54, Bob Latham wrote:
There have been warm periods throughout history and warmer than
today it is cyclic.
And closely correlated with CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the
last 500 million years.
Not true. CO2 has been falling for most of history.
It does not correlate at all.
Wish I could show you a graph.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:46:55 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,560 |
