This is what happens when you have only one hand clapping…applauding its own genius.
The BBC banished the climate sceptics to no man’s land where their voices went unheard whilst climate lobbyists could get reports altered to suit themselves.
Those supposedly with the best interests of the environment in mind, those with vested interests, those with an eye for an opportunity, the green lobbyists, the charities, the politicians, the scientists, the journalists….joined up in one big conspiracy…
…and they went practically unchallenged as the sceptics and the critics were silenced. Climate scientists could make their claims unopposed, the green lobbyists could take that science and package it into persuasive presentations and politicians could nod wisely and grandstand as they ‘saved the world’….and pocketed a few bob as well.
They knew what they wanted and were determined to get it whatever the cost in integrity and ethical behaviour…. shameless fixing of the science and the politics…..and able to do so because mainstream media giants like the BBC either stayed quiet or actively participated in conning the Public…not doing their job of challenging received wisdom and holding those in power to account.
Journalists like Richard Black (and here a grudging, very grudging, admittance that he had failed to report the truth…forced by reader pressure) and Roger Harrabin were never standing on the side lines looking in observing and reporting the news…they were on the inside creating it, fixing the stories, working with the scientists and the green campaigners to silence critics and pressurise governments.
Had the sceptics been allowed a place in the debate perhaps things could be very different….not all opposed the idea of man made climate change…many accepted it, to a degree. What they did disagree upon were the measures that could be taken….suggesting it maybe better to adapt to the changes rather than try to prevent them….especially as the causes were not certain.
Now we’ve had a stand still in global temperature rises…everyone’s got an explanation…but the truth is no one can explain it.
Which kind of makes you think they can’t explain the temperature rise either….there’s absolutely no proof that CO2 is the cause….it’s pure conjecture.
Now everyone’s running for cover….it’s lower than expected sensitivity, it’s an unexpected negative feedback with clouds blocking the sun or it’s the oceans suddenly absorbing a lot more heat.
Could all be making fools of themselves once again…if the temperatures start to go up again…but that just confirms…no one knows nothing.
However the consequences…as always, those unintended consequences of their good intentions, are beginning to bite.
We all know that electricity prices are being hiked to pay for a parallel system of green electricity generation…whilst still maintaining the full capacity of conventional generation.
That’s just one massive cost….and how do you price the lives lost as fuel poverty forces people to turn off their heating in the ever colder winters?
Food prices are ramped up as land is hijacked for biomass growth for conversion to fuel….and it’s the third world that suffers the most….curious for an ethical policy that was always based upon punishing the West’s guilty and selfish industrial development which was destroying the third world’s environment, we are told.
But the pricing of food out of reach of the poorest is not the only problem with biomass.
Roger Harrabin reports without a glimmer of remorse, a pang of conscience….Forests in the US are being destroyed to feed power stations in the UK to meet our renewable energy commitments…
And it’s not just the trees that are being ravaged by the Greens….a policy ironically opposed by the …er…Greens:
Perhaps if Harrabin and his CMEP (CMEP seminar 2006)hadn’t worked so hard to exclude the sceptic voices we could have had a more balanced and planned approach with the consequences of various solutions worked through and tested…instead we have a ‘gold rush’, a green gold rush…tearing up the planet to save the planet.
If the BBC is to actively campaign to achieve a particular objective then the BBC should be held responsible, accountable, answerable for its actions when those actions have serious and damaging consequences.
The BBC is supposed to report, inform and educate…not manipulate, deceive and manufacture the news.
The BBC views the world through a sort of prism. In the manner that a real prism filters white light into the 7 colours of the rainbow, the BBC filters the news into 7 categories that support its world view and agenda: Global warming; Immigration; Globalisation; Race and Gender; Islamification; European Union; Anti-Britain. Some of these ‘colours’ seamlessly merge into each other. Some have the equivalent of Fraunhofer lines, for example we see the themes of anti-family within Race and Gender and anti-Israel within Islamification. Also note that their sense of colour can be different, for instance global warming frequently looks more red than green.
Comment of the month I think!
I think the BBC prism may have an eighth colour – pink, for homophobia.
If the BBC is to actively campaign to achieve a particular objective then the BBC should be held responsible, accountable, answerable for its actions when those actions have serious and damaging consequences
If the ‘consensus’ reaches a ‘tipping point’ and the ‘science is settled’ in a different state I think you will find that it was the ‘media’ that were to blame.
The BBC will remain the unbiased commentator on events that it ever thinks it is. The recent support for the MMR vaccination and the ‘tut-tutting’ over the “media’s” responsibility for the south Wales measles epidemic is a case in point.
What is truly terrifying is the possibility that global warming over the past 10-20 years could have occurred: not due to AGW but due to the natural processes which have alternately cooled and warmed the earth since its formation. We have been lucky this time in that the predictions of the warmists and hence their “settled science” have been revealed as the crocks and quasi-criminality they are. It could have been different.
There is always the possibility that in the next 50 years the earth will indeed warm up; again due to natural process rather than AGW. Rest assured if that does happen the warmists will be hawking their “science” and green fascist response through an “impartial” BBC. Meanwhile I await the prophets of an anthropogenic global cooling to create an alternative “settled science” (but with the same lefty authoritarian policy imperatives) to be given inordinate publicity by the BBC (and, to be fair, by Geoffrey Lean in the Telegraph or Fred Pearce in New Scientist or any other MSM mock-journalist you care to mention).
From the BBC’s ‘From Seesaw To Wagon Wheel’ report.:
The strictest impartiality provisions have traditionally applied to party politics [Yeah, right]. In the broadband age of joined-up citizenship, similar vigilance will be needed over single-issue campaigns and lobby groups – which, in the view of Richard Klein, Commissioner of Documentaries, pose ‘the greatest threat to impartiality’.
Anyone think Mr Klein came to that conclusion by simply looking around him? And what’s happened since the report was written in 2007? Nothing. From Greenpeace to the Penal Reform Trust, from Occupy to the campaign to release Shaker Aamer, they all have the BBC’s ear and support.
The BBC knee-jerk reaction to every extreme weather event in the last decade or so has been to blame climate change. And it’s stuck in people’s consciousness. I was talking just yesterday with a group of very smart people, centre right in their political outlook, and they were convinced that floods, hurricanes etc were all worse than ever due to global warming. These are people who rely -almost exclusively from what I can tell- on BBC News online. They hadn’t even considered the notion that weather has always had its extremes; its weather, that’s just the way it is.
We then got talking about wind turbines and that was when my heart really sank…
Sorry where is the evidence for your claim that:
”Now we’ve had a stand still in global temperature rises…everyone’s got an explanation…but the truth is no one can explain it”.
Even if that were true (and I have seen no evidence of it) it wouldn’t change the fact that the plant has got hotter over the last century and that the proportion of Co2 in the atmosphere is the highest in millions of years.
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/10/18175058-carbon-dioxide-level-breaks-3-million-year-record?lite
Even if the theory of AGW is correct (which I don’t for a minute believe), we cannot ‘save the planet’ by cutting emissions. There are 1.2 billion people in China, who all want the same standard of living that we enjoy in the west. To reduce emissions, we would have to tell all of these people that we can have a decent standard of living, but they can’t – a morally indefensible position. Then we would have to tell 1 billion Indians the same thing. And after that, 200 million Brazilians, and so on. The rational response is to adapt to the changed conditions. This view is often expressed by climate scientists and others, not that you would hear it on the BBC.
Two things:
10million years is the blink of an eye on geologic timeframes. 400ppm CO2 concentration is actually very low when you look across the history of the earth – its been between 2000-4000ppm for major periods,
e.g. see the graph here:
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/
Addtionally, higher levels of CO2 are very good for plants, whose growth is facilitated by CO2 (and this acts as a negative feedback mechanism for CO2 as more gets stored in vegetation).
Secondly, warming is actually beneficial to life on earth; cooling is the real danger for humanity. We are currently in an interglacial, but when temperatures start to drop, it will dramatically affect agriculture, habitable zones, and energy usage (for heating etc).
if you look at the levels of CO2 in the 20th century you will see a steady increase.
When you look at temperature you will see that the temperature DECREASES until near the end of the 2nd world war, then rises, then levels off.
In other words there is very little correlation between the level of CO2 and average temperature.
All you have done is taken two points from the dataset. Scientific reliability of your conclusions – NIL.
Correlation is not causation.
Not QED
…but are you sure?… 🙂
I can’t see in the linked article where Richard Black makes ‘a grudging, very grudging, admittance that he had failed to report the truth…forced by reader pressure’.
Maybe somone could point it out to me.
What you fail to understand is that the BBC knows best.
Little people like us don’t know what is good for us. We can’t handle the truth. We have to be told lies. The truth has to be altered through the prism of responsible BBC journalism so that we all do and think the things the BBC and their leftist right-think group-think clones think we ought to.
This mindset won’t be changed when the global warming scare dies and explodes egg all over their faces.
Did they suddenly stop supporting Labour after Gordon Brown happened? No.
Did they suddenly stop supporting the EU because of its financial mismanagement and the 5 year depression it has manufactured for itself? No.
They believe what they believe and they want you to believe it to. If you don’t you’re an idiot.
Come to think of it the internet and the BBC have a lot in common.
“Even if that were true (and I have seen no evidence of it)”
Isn’t that the whole point of ‘biased media’ web pages. If you just sit there passively absorbing the rubbish that they feed you, you don’t get to see it. You have to look for it.
“the plant has got hotter over the last century”
Hotter than what?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/31/plants-that-got-buried-during-the-little-ice-age-come-to-life-again/
400 years ago, these plants were not covered by glaciers. Looks like the correlation between CO2 and temperature is not as high as some would like us to believe.
I live on a modern housing estate. The climate change con has not improved my life in any way, on the contrary, energy prices have rissen , and made the already fashionable log burners an economicay tempting addition , consequently, air quality deteriorates dramatically when all the neighbouring wood fires are lit. Requiring doors windows and vents to shut tight.
“…those unintended consequences of their good intentions”
Oh, come on.
It was ‘good-for-themselves intentions’, with a lot of the usual Left tactic of posing as superior while:
corrupting science to suit their pet theories,
silencing opposing evidence,
and sentencing many people to poverty, misery and death.
Sounds somehow familiar, doesn’t it?
This is no exaggeration, and is still ongoing in the current ‘Chicken Little’ LibLabCon (EU trading as) policy to ruin energy supply while making us pay more for less.
The BBC, both in colluding to corrupt science (28Gate), and in persisting to boardcast biased news coverage (propaganda) on an issue relating to the safety of the United Kingdom and our civilisation, has proven itself to be a traitor.
It seems it also has a sordid history of habitually perverting more than just science and truth (I’m sure it will continue to assert its good intentions).
As seems to be the usual pattern of behaviour for perverts, it has also acted to cover up other perverts’ crimes (apparently supporting their good intentions as members of the Religion of Peace).
Time to cut the BBC apart, surely?
So what does the BBC Trust do? It appoints more of the same as the new DG.
The BBC’s “best scientific expertise” turns out to have been three scientists qualified in measuring the temperature. No wonder that the only account of that BBC seminar confirms the evidence that it was a cess pit of ignorance, without a single causational Climate scientist present. No, not even a single Atmospheric Physicist was present at the seminar that advised the BBC on its Climate Change Policy.
But I don’t agree with Alan, that no one can explain the stand still, that I think is a reflection on the success of the BBC’s science censorship policy.
The BBC censors Piers Corbyn of Weatheraction and any mention of Henrik Svensmark or the CLOUD experiment, as well as the scientific taboo about cosmic rays and the Earth cloud albedo, including the scientific scandal of a bogus rebuttal of this theory using low energy cosmic rays.
There are rare exceptions at the BBC, such as the blog of BBC Weatherman Paul Hudson, but the simple explanation for the Earths surface temperature changes is given below.
Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years, the last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years, the strength of the Suns magnetic field more than doubled, the cosmic ray flux fell by 11 percent and there was a 8.6 percent reduction in clouds.
The speed of the centre of the Sun relative to the centre of mass or barycentre of the Solar System determines the length of the solar cycle, this in turn is caused by the orbits and masses of the Planets. Short Solar Cycles have higher Solar Magnetic activity due to the increase in the speed of plasma within the Sun, and therefore a larger number of Sun spots. Long Solar Cycles have lower Solar Magnetic activity and therefore a smaller number of Sun spots.
When Solar magnetic activity is low, Cosmic Ray levels are able to rise, this causes an increase in low clouds and the Earths cloud albedo, which in turn reflects more Solar radiation, and therefore causes a cooling, and when Solar magnetic activity increases this in turn causes Global Warming.
Scientists such as Ed Fix and Nicola Scafetta use the Planetary movements to predict the length of the Solar Cycle, and David Archibald links the different scientific disciplines. This is why there has been a stand still, and how they calculate a predicted fall in Global temperature in the 2020’s.
BBC science correspondent David Gregory has told us a number of times that he and the BBC give no credence to Corbyn because of his theories about the Sun causing earthquakes. No need to address him on the relevant topic, apparently. I’ve asked if the BBC would similarly ban Linus Pauling from talking about chemical bonds because of his wacky theories about Vitamin C, but never got an answer.
If the BBC where to look into his predictions of earthquakes, and found that they where as good as his long range weather forecasts, then there may be something in it.
But I think commercial businesses such as Asda have learnt from experience to use Corbyns long range weather forecasts rather than rely on the incompetent, fictional and random Met Office long range forecasts.
Like the BBC, the Met Office is not reliant on being commercially viable because the public is forced to pay, whether or not they are competent in providing a service.
Both are socialist organisations, where the public is compelled to pay for state employed parasites.
I dont know if this story about the Hon Tim Yeo MP backtracking somewhat on GW has been linked to?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10086694/Tim-Yeo-humans-may-not-be-to-blame-for-global-warming.html
He’s not really backtracking, he was speaking to a group of Russian gas executives and lobbyists – he told them what they’d want to hear. Typical spineless politican – all things to all people. Yeo is still pushing for a decarbonisation target in the energy bill next week so believe me, he still buys the climate change line. His real crime is how much money he makes personally from renewable companies he’s involved with. Guido Fawkes has been on his case about it for a while.
There’s an interesting series about the last ice age on BBC at present (Ice Age Giants)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018c9fm
The Ice Age only ended 10000 years ago which is a blink of the eye. The Pyramids were only built 4500 years ago. For all anyone knows we may being a brief lull befoe the next ice age!
We are – it’s called the Holocene, and is already past it’s sell-by date.
We are getting cooler.
This past Thursday, I watched some of QT – £**7 me, I’m convinced and firmly believe that, the whole thing is now stage managed.
Even the UKIP candidate, was bamboozled by St Dimblebore, a consumate expert in closing down the debate – it’s what the BEEB does and has done for 40 years.
The coordinators in the Brussels commission knew well that, the senior media organization in Britain had to be wrested and used as its main propaganda organ.
It [the bbc] was full of left leaning gits in 1972, they didn’t need much arm twisting.
On, man made global warming, the sphincter loosening, gut wrenching irony – is that Thatcher kicked it all off.
I know as far as the Left is concerned she is to blame for everything, but I didn’t realise she caused Global Warming as well!
Time to read some history, look up – closing down the mines, while quietly binning the British nuclear re-development of Magnox and fast breeder and the stupidity of ‘dash for gas’ – economic lunacy of the first order = the Tories under Thatcher and Major.
Copied “as is” from the NUM website:
“Between the years 1957 and 1963, no less than 264 collieries were closed, while the number of miners fell by nearly 30 per cent. During this six-year period, Scotland lost 39 per cent of its pits, while 30 per cent of those in South Wales, Northumberland and Durham were wiped out.
Throughout the 1060s, with a Labour Government in office from 1964, the pit closure programme accelerated; it decimated the industry. During this period, nearly 300 more pits were closed, and the total workforce slumped from over 750,000 in the late 1950s down to 320,000 by 1968. In many parts of Britain, miners now became known as �industrial gypsies� as pit closures forced them to move from coalfield to coalfield in search of secure jobs.”
‘Thatcher kicked it all off’. True, but as a scientist herself she demanded that anything she was presented with had to be evidence-based. Consequently, given the lack of evidence of a CO2/warming link and no evidence of ‘positive feedback’ on which the hysterical temperature predictions were based, she concluded in her later memoirs, ‘Statecraft’ that the AGW hypothesis was dead in the water.
‘Thatcher devotes ten pages to the subject of “Hot Air and Global Warming.” Thatcher is quite clear that she feels things have gone in the wrong direction since former British ambassador to the United Nations-turned-global-warming- campaigner Sir Crispin Tickell convinced her to tell the Royal Society, “it is possible . . . we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.” She notes that the doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change, which “provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism”
and
‘she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare,
from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2,
rather than natural factors such as solar activity,
to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels.
She mocked Al Gore and
the futility of “costly and economically damaging” schemes to reduce CO2 emissions.
She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects.
She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer.
She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask
an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which
posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind
In other words, she was bloody spot on.
Somewhat off-topic, so file this as a point of order. The sad fact is that Edward is correct. Margaret Thatcher was the first politician to take AGW seriously and make it an issue. She later recanted and in characteristic style admitted it.
Even Homer nods.
She was only closing the mines to save Gaia. Complainers should be thanking her!