MEXICAN WAVE – PART 2

I posted a couple of days ago about the ludicrous and slavish BBC reporting of a paper which suggested that the US would be swamped by Mexican immigrants forced out by global warming. The internet has done the job (that the BBC does not do) of providing balance. This article shows that, according to GISS, Mexico is not warming; and second, the statistical basis of the claimed correlation between crop yields and movement of people is utter nonsense. What are BBC journalists being paid for?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to MEXICAN WAVE – PART 2

  1. Roland Deschain says:

    What are BBC journalists being paid for?  To propagate the lies about man-made global warming of course.

    But you knew that.

       0 likes

  2. Martin says:

    The question is when will the printed media pick up on the BBC’s lies?

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Would any UK mainstream publication dare to take on the BBC?  I mean with more than the occasional article criticizing salaries or personal foibles.  I doubt any of the big papers or ITV or even Sky would have the guts to do a hard-hitting series of reports exposing BBC dishonesty or reporting falsehoods on certain issues.

         0 likes

  3. John Anderson says:

    In the earlier thread on the Mexico nonsense I had posted a link to the instant rebuttal medntioned at Bishop Hill, as well as referring to the WattsUpWithThat article :

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/28/theyre-all-a-comin.html

    The BBC comes out with these scare stories every few days – but seldom if ever reports the rebuttals.  It is time that senior management at the BBC got a grip on the Warmist propaganda merchants at the BBC and required them to delay for at least a week or two before publishing any alarmist PR tosh – and to check for and report properly on any rebuttals.  Which is a simple task – these 2 rebuttals of the Mexico scam have appeared at well-known sites within days.

    The problem at the moment is that such sites are verboten to the
    closed minds at the BBC.Maybe they are scared that if they ever drew the public’s attention to these solid websites the Warmist fraud would be defeated even more quickly.  Reputations at the BBC are riding on this,  depend on supporting the nonsense and shielding the licence-fee payers from the truth.

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      and here again is the link to the list of 768 (so far) disasters being caused by AGW :

      http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

         0 likes

    • Natsman says:

      Oh, I think that a large portion of the public are aware of Bishop Hill and Watts Up With That, Joe Bastardi’s blog and video site and other very useful (and sensible) sites.  That’s one reason why the public are less gullible and highly suspicious of the AGW tosh.  The other glaringly obvious reason is that all the doomsday scenarios predicted by the alarmists just ain’t happening.  And of course, as the spin relentlessly continues, so the cash registers ching away for the suppliers of energy and fuel, as do those of the treasury coffers and the public can’t fail to notice that.

      At every opportunity we point the way to the truth of the myths.

      But the Beeb (and a large part of the mainstream media) are locked into a propaganda time warp, which will take some shifting (if it can be shifted at all) – after all, they are still kidding themselves (and trying to kid everyone else) that a labour government is still in power, and that the state of Israel doesn’t really exist.

      The odds seem to be stacked against us at every turn, as if it has been ordained that the world must live under some global Marxist regime, and heaven help the dissenters.  Meanwhile we plummet toward certain economic destruction.

         0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Since when did any deeply religious person spend every day listening to explanations why their religion is a crock?

         0 likes

  4. George R says:

    An American, non-BBC view on Arizona’s attempt to enforce law on illegal immigration

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/federal_judge_issues_injunctio.html

       0 likes

    • John Anderson says:

      That link is to the blogsite American Thinker.  Which is one of the Top 10 political blogs in the US.  But the BBC will never refer to it – or to the other right-wing sites that make up most of the Top 10 list.  Never to HotAir, for example, the Number 1 site.

      Instead – the BBC refers only to No 5,  Huffington Post.

      Clear proof of the BBC’s political bias and failure to report properly on US political debate.

      http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/politics/

         0 likes

      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        Ah, the JournoList-infested HuffPo.

        Other conservative blogs have been talking about the states’ rights angle of that judge’s decision as well.  It’s going to make a lot of noise for now, but is eventually going to be overturned because the right of the state to do these things is entrenched in the Constitution.  The BBC isn’t going to tell you any of that, of course.  Hell, they won’t even tell you that Arizona’s law just says that the state can enforce the Federal law already on the books.  They present the false story of the law’s opponents instead.

           0 likes

  5. Martin says:

    Classic BBC bias on News 24.

    1. Laura Kuntsberg tearing into Cameron about ‘upsetting people’

    2. Toenails Robsinson being interviewed by ugly female in studio about his crappy programme coming up where he assasinates the Tories and Lib Dems over the coalition.

    Toenails defends the mong stating “seeing Gordon leave Downing Street with dignity will stay in the minds of people, it will be what Gordon will be remembered for”

    No Toenails, what the one eyed mong will be remembered for is this.

    1. The deaths of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because he starved them of money for kit

    2. Wrecking our economy and turning us into a third world dump hole

    3. Being an unelected leader who had serious mental issues whilst in power

    4. Being a coward

    5. Making himself look stupid by chasing after Barry Obama’s bottom.

       0 likes

    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I saw Mr. Brown’s departure grimace.  Robinson thinks that was a dignified exit?  The one where he dug in for weeks and even tried to stay in power until October?  Robnson is so compromised with his relentless sympathy for politicians.  He should be dismissed immediately, but who would replace him?

         0 likes

  6. Backwoodsman says:

    Toady in full rebuttle mode this morning. Firstly humphries blathering about 9 out of 10 scientists prefer global warming to other brands, then gloating about how those heroic Supreme Court judges had stopped Arizona being nasty to illegal immigrants.

       0 likes

    • Martin says:

      Actually the prediction is the US Supreme Court will over turn the ruling and it will be interesting to see how the BBC covers that.

         0 likes

    • Umbongo says:

      Did he actually say “supreme court judges”.  If so he’s wrong (and not for the first time).  This was a judgement in a federal district court so, as Martin implies, this one will run all the way to the Supreme Court.  Oh and guess what, Ms Bolton was an appointee of Pres. Clinton, a well-known Democrat.

         0 likes

  7. Martin says:

    No thread for this but the BBC are going OTT on the Liebour leadership crap. Radio 5 and BBC News 24 have all the mongs lined up right now.

    first question from skinny ‘politics’ student (of course) and the leftie audience gave a big round of applause for the one eyed mong getting a mention.

    Interesting to note that BEHIND the Liebour mongs the BBC have all the ethnics in the audience.

       0 likes

    • NotaSheep says:

      A hideous programme, what a bunch of ****s. Even the vile VD sounded fed up with their inability to answer a staright question and acknowledge their culpability in the record of the last Labour government (Dianne Abbot excepted).

         0 likes

  8. Umbongo says:

    It’s not just the BBC.  Louise Gray (“Queen of the Press Release”) drops this load of unchallenged, uncriticised, unanalysed excreta issued by the Met Office “and its US equivalents” onto the front page of the Telegraph this morning

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7914611/Met-Office-report-global-warming-evidence-is-unmistakable.html

    Gosh, “100 scientists” have signed up to this one so it must be true.

       0 likes

    • Umbongo says:

      As a matter of interest, why do close quotes followed by a closing parenthesis always result in a smiley on this website?

         0 likes

  9. Martin says:

    Radio 5 and News 24 is a real hoot today.

       0 likes

  10. Martin says:

    The BBC are a real laugh, slagging off Cameron for his comments (funny as the love those who big up Turkey for EU membership or stand up against those evil Jews) the BBC just can’t help but attack Cameron.

       0 likes

  11. Martin says:

    So the Telegraph is reporting that by 2050 we will have the largest European population of nearly 80 million. Want to bet what the biggest ethnic group and religion will be? Bet it won’t be white and Christian.

    The Islamic Republic of Englandistan will be here.

    I think I might piss off to India, they seem to enjoy traditional British values!!

       0 likes

  12. John Horne Tooke says:

    “I don’t know what it is with economists these days. Nick Stern used to be a smart guy. Michael Greenstone is really clever. Alan Krueger may win a Nobel Prize. Paul Krugman deserves three. Yet, confront them with climate change, and they start talking utter rubbish.

    The silly PNAS paper makes three mistakes. First, it confuses decadal weather variability with climate change. Second, it fails to control for other determinants of migration that may well be correlated with weather during the sample. Third, they extrapolate beyond belief.

    To belabor the third point, their largest yield change is -48% between now and 2080. If technological progress would bring about a 1% yield increase per year, then the two effects cancel each other out. 1% may be too low, -48% is probably too high. Based on their logic, we’ll all be moving to Mexico so.”

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/silly-science.html?showComment=1280263737357#c4413488061252374030

       0 likes

  13. John Horne Tooke says:

    “The hypothesis that the desire for a cooler weather plays an important role in the Mexican immigration can be easily falsified by anyone who actually wants to know whether it’s true or not. The simplest way to see that it is bogus is to notice that the Mexicans are satisfied as soon as they cross the borders and many of them stay in the Southern states of the U.S. Even though the climate can’t change too much a few miles away, the new place is good enough for them.”  
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/agw-makes-mexicans-dreaming-about.html  
     
    The BBC however , don’t want to know and don’t bother to ask. Even though the story has been rubbished from all quarters and not just the baby eating “sceptics”:  
     
    (“Liverman said that while she believes climate change could cause widespread migration, she has seen no study documenting it. Having studied the problems of Mexican farmers for two decades, she said she has found that a bad economy, the government’s withdrawal of agricultural subsidies and the North American Free Trade Agreement have caused problems far greater than climate change”  
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/silly-science.html)  
     
    it willl not be revised by the BBC but left there for all to see. A testament to Blacks biased “reporting”.

       0 likes