BBC - value, quality, divisive or alternatives better

[Watis]

Here's the thing for me. David Attenburgh's original Planet Earth series, even if filmed in 1080p, gave a superb view of world nature.

With the advent of 4k and slomo video the nature series, including Frozen Planet were truly wonderful.

Then, gradually, the emphasis shifted to a very blunt message of global warming/climate change. When I watched these later/most recent series, David "preached" environmental change. All I craved for was very high quality, wonderful video footage of our Planet......but that isn't what I got. What I did get was David's personal agenda and frankly his own opinion. I was paying for the luxury of him putting across his personal point of view.

Not good or fair to a license paying nature lover, with some very high tech and costly viewing hardware.

You think global warming/climate change (and related issues) is nothing more than David Attenborough's "personal point of view"?

Do you doubt David Attenborough is also a genuine "nature lover"? Such that the great changes he has already seen in nature over his life (remember his age), and is seeing, causes him genuine concern. Why would any real "nature lover" not be similarly concerned?

Whatever David Attenborough's views on climate change, he would be required to push the party line, which is currently to blame it for everything.

Look what happened to David Bellamy when he pushed back:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy

And the section 'Views on global warming'.

Watis

[XFool]

Whatever David Attenborough's views on climate change, he would be required to push the party line, which is currently to blame it for everything.

Look what happened to David Bellamy when he pushed back:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy

And the section 'Views on global warming'.

So I looked...

Views on global warming
Bellamy's later statements on global warming indicate that he subsequently changed his views. A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large proportion (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was from discredited data originally published by Fred Singer, who claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science; however, Monbiot proved that this article had never existed. Bellamy subsequently accepted that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming", although Bellamy jointly authored a paper with Jack Barrett in the refereed Civil Engineering journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers, entitled "Climate stability: an inconvenient proof" in May 2007.

In 2008 Bellamy signed the Manhattan Declaration, calling for the immediate halt to any tax-funded attempts to counteract climate change. He maintained a view that man-made climate change is "poppycock", insisting that climate change is part of a natural cycle.

[Watis]

Whatever David Attenborough's views on climate change, he would be required to push the party line, which is currently to blame it for everything.

Look what happened to David Bellamy when he pushed back:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy

And the section 'Views on global warming'.

So I looked...

Views on global warming
Bellamy's later statements on global warming indicate that he subsequently changed his views. A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large proportion (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. George Monbiot of The Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was from discredited data originally published by Fred Singer, who claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science; however, Monbiot proved that this article had never existed. Bellamy subsequently accepted that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming", although Bellamy jointly authored a paper with Jack Barrett in the refereed Civil Engineering journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers, entitled "Climate stability: an inconvenient proof" in May 2007.

In 2008 Bellamy signed the Manhattan Declaration, calling for the immediate halt to any tax-funded attempts to counteract climate change. He maintained a view that man-made climate change is "poppycock", insisting that climate change is part of a natural cycle.

Thank you, XFool. I want sure whether I was allowed to quote so just gave the link.

Bellamy also said that he thought that his views had resulted in the BBC no longer commissioning his ideas - which was my point - but you didn't copy and paste that bit!

Watis

[Lanark]

Bellamy was in his 70s at that point and died of dementia 12 years later

[Watis]

Bellamy was in his 70s at that point and died of dementia 12 years later

Attenborough is 7 years older than Bellamy - and still making programmes in his nineties - all credit to him!

So I'm unsure what point you are trying to make?

Watis

[Gerry557]

Exactly. There is competition. So why does anyone on here bother to complain about the BBC. Do.Not.Buy.A.Licence. There seems to be a thousand different ways of receiving your entertainment without needing to buy a licence. So why put yourselves through the misery? Or are anti-BBC'ers happy to buy a licence just so they can be offended by it ?

There is competition but you have to pay the BBC to watch some of that competition. I think that's why people complain. I can't think of any other similar practice.

When I do stop paying for a licence along with many other millions who do the same. Then the BBC complain and whilst many think that the BBC is good value that only because you are forcing others to subsidise your enjoyment. As others have mentioned, if it went pay per view it would disappear within a few years.

If I could click the cancel button and get a refund simply then that would happen right now for me and would only restart next time we are having longer term visitors.

[XFool]

Thank you, XFool. I want sure whether I was allowed to quote so just gave the link.

Bellamy also said that he thought that his views had resulted in the BBC no longer commissioning his ideas - which was my point - but you didn't copy and paste that bit!

OK. Here it is:

His opinions changed the way some organisations viewed Bellamy. The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts stated in 2005, "We are not happy with his line on climate change", and Bellamy, who had been president of the Wildlife Trusts since 1995, was succeeded by Aubrey Manning in November 2005. Bellamy asserted that his views on global warming resulted in the rejection of programme ideas by the BBC.

If Bellamy evolved into a climate change denier - which the Wikipedia article describes - then would we expect him to be making programmes on the BBC from that position? As somebody has already mentioned above: would we expect a flat earther to be making a BBC programme on the solar system? A young earth believer to make programmes on the geology and history of our planet? An evolution denier to make their own version of Attenborough's original Life On Earth?

I wouldn't.

The issue here is that some still seem to perceive climate change as 'just' a political doctrine (obviously it has political ramifications) in which both 'sides' have equally valid arguments. Rather like "Should gay marriage be allowed?", "Is there a God?" - debates where there is and can be no 'correct' answer. Instead of debates such as: "Is the sun or the earth the centre of the 'world' ?", "Is the earth more than one million years old?". Here too there are two answers! But, one is correct and the other is false.

Why is climate change still inclined to be treated by some as a 'balanced' political value argument, rather than as a matter of material fact about the world in which we live? (Less so nowadays, I feel)

Ah well! There is more than one reason for that...

[Arborbridge]

We all know beyond doubt that the world was created around 6000 years ago. I think Bishop Usher made a program about it - or if he didn't someone from the BBC should commission one for the sake of balance.

Arb.