I can confirm that there has been a ‘Pause’…a pause in BBC journalism for at least 15 years….investigative reporting, intelligent analysis and comment, rigorous questioning of claimed ‘facts’ have been set aside and in place of which, the new ‘Priesthood’ that is the BBC, has promoted the new ‘Faith’ of Man Made Climate Change…..blasphemers will be ex-communicated or at least shown the door at BBC studios.
On Friday we had the IPCC’s Summary For Policy Makers which was the trigger for an avalanch of pro-AGW propaganda from the BBC…a BBC which doesn’t report or investigate but merely acts as a channel for pro-AGW politicians and green activists to spread their Green Gospel.
On Friday the BBC announced it would broadcast on Tuesday on R4 at 15:30 a ‘Costing The Earth’ programme trailed as a look at climate scepticism….clearly the BBC had this ready to go long before the IPCC released its report…part of a carefully orchestrated campaign and not just thrown together.
This is what Nicky Campbell said about the IPCC’s latest effort….‘This is a hugely, hugely important subject for the planet…this is key… they say it is extremely certain that climate change is due to man.’
I’m guessing Campbell is safely on board the AGW bandwagon.
Roger Harrabin (08:35) on the Today programme (What are his scientific qualifications?) told us:
‘I don’t think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world, for instance we’ve been trying in the UK to find a climate sceptic who is a working scientist in this field and we can’t find even one.’
The IPCC says that the ocean is the major heat store…the pause is caused by heat being absorbed by the oceans.
And this rather odd final interpretation of things where he told us that we are looking at warming even if the graphs don’t show any…that’s the IPCC’s message.
Harrabin it seems would like to airbrush from history all the sceptics and their probing, inconvenient questions about the ‘science’.
Harrabin is clearly on the attack against the climate sceptics…trying to dismiss them as ignorant, unscientific ‘bloggers’ …but as I said…what are his scientific qualifications…isn’t he just a well paid blogger…isn’t that all journalists are after all?
Curious how anyone at all, regardless of qualification, scientist or not, can claim to accept man made climate change whilst if you question the IPCC’s claims you have to have an expert qualifcation…as a ‘climate scientist’…what ever that is.
As for not finding a single sceptical, working scientist in this field in the UK…well that pretty much narrows the field conveniently…why are US or Canadian or Australian or Russian sceptical scientists irrelevant?
And what of ‘in this field’? What does that mean? Just how many IPCC scientists are actually specifically ‘climate change’ scientists?
The head of the IPCC is a railway engineer, the famous Lord Stern an economist.
Harrbain is blatantly telling a lie.
Nic Lewis, a mathematician and physicist specialising now in climate has been quoted endlessly recently…on well known blogs and in the press…and yet Harrabin couldn’t find him?
And look…Nic Lewis was an accredited IPCC expert reviewer…..who better to ask about scepticism and climate?
There is a massive amount of scientific doubt about climate change and Harrabin knows that…but seeks to hide it.
In Canada a study indicated that 68% thought the science was not ‘settled’
Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.
The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.
A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”
Of course many scientists who have doubts may not feel free to disclose them…it could well be professional suicide and the fact that they are certain to recieve enormous amounts of abuse and threatening messages must also be considered.
Even Harrabin’s old mate at the CRU is scared….and he’s one of the bullies:
Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
and here he is doing that very thing himself, trying to block publication of sceptical science:
‘Phil Jones, director of the CRU, writing to Michael Mann, creator (le mot juste) of the now discredited “hockey stick” graph, about two academics who disagree with him:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views:
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Professor Jones’s reply:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
And you’ll be glad to hear they did!’
Shame Harrabin doesn’t find time to investigate the sceptics claims in the first place and secondly rather than trying to discover why the BBC’s carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign has failed to make the public pro-AGW maybe he should be asking some questions about the tactics and ethics of the Alarmist camp when attacking Sceptics…often demanding they face ‘war crime’ trials or even execution..
Here are a few websites and comments that illustrate the virulent and violent reactions to anyone who expresses scepticism:
This one from a recent article by David Rose in the Daily Mail:
‘Children of MoS reporter should murder him’: vile abuse on Guardian site’
And how about this little troll comment reacting to sceptic comments on a recent article by the world’s least inquiring mind, Geoffrey Lean:
ematter 5 minutes ago
Any more UKIP trolls can “F” OFF!
SITTING on the side-line is NOW tantamount to contributing in killing people!
YOU are just as guilty, if you STAND AND WATCH out planet being RAPED
And more in a similar vein:
NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”
Climate change is now scientific orthodoxy. It is accepted by (most) scientists, media, politicians and businessmen (those who no doubt are making a buck out of it). I don’t know whether it is true or not but I don’t expect anything to change regardless of claims or evidence that challenges this orthodoxy. Those that challenge it are dismissed it would seem as ignorant or as heretics.
It is worth remembering – “Scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”. – Max Planck
Everyone thinks the Climate changes, the important thing is that you need to remove the brainwashing by realising that an assumption can be proved wrong by the scientific method.
(1) Calibration of carbon dioxide warming is proven to be irrelevant.
(2) Calibration of Solar Irradiance is proven to be irrelevant.
So the BIG TABOO in climate science is:
(3) Calibrating changes to the Earths cloud Albedo is proven to be the cause of Climate Change.
The Earths cloud Albedo can change radically between 0.27 and 0.4 within ten years, the fraudulent computer models assume that the albedo is at an eternally unchanging 0.36.
Richard, thanks for all your explanations here.
May I run some ideas past you to check that I have understood correctly? I will follow your numbering for ease of reference.
(1) Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere ARE higher now than in pre-industrial times; BUT this does not cause much/any warming, as CO2 blocks out as much sunlight (by raising the Earth’s Albedo) as it locks in (by the so-called “Greenhouse” effect).
(2) The Sun’s activity varies over short periods (e.g. the 11.2 year cycle) and longer ones (e.g. the Maunder Minimum years 1645-1715 or the current “hundred year low” levels of activity) BUT this does not directly cause Climate Change (though see 3.iv below).
(3) Cloud Albedo varies and causes any Climate Change. Are these variations themselves due to any or all of (i) volcanic activity; (ii) large forest fires and man-made fires from bombing, torching of oil wells, etc; (iii) variability of background cosmic rays and thus of ionization (cloud seeding?) in the upper atmosphere; (iv) variations in the flux of charged particles from the Sun affecting the Earth’s atmosphere’s ability to block cosmic rays and thus reduce the ionization noted at (iii) above.
Apologies if any of this is badly wrong!
(1) The Clouds reflect the sunlight. So that means that the missing heat was reflected not hidden in the Oceans as the IPCC says.
(2) Yes, but this regulates galactic cosmic ray levels which produce the clouds, but you would have to look on the Weatheraction website for how this effects the Weather.
(3) Variability of background galactic cosmic rays and thus of ionization (cloud seeding?) in the low cloud base, but there is evidence of volcanic activity in the past putting dust into the stratosphere, but then everyone would notice that, especially at sunset.
i watched that report from harabin last night on bbc news in that indian valley,it was laughable if not sinister,that iceberg he clamed to be melting did not even look like a iceberg.i think he was making things up as he went along.the trouble is,there are peoople so stupid and thick in this country who will believe every word harabin said.
who THIS R Harribin … 12 mins 50
Richard 111
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York;
And all the heat that lour’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
I am 95% sure that Richard was The first climate scientist: also 97% of my friends are almost certain or are reasonably sure of the same. Of course I cannot tell you who they are as they are only allowed out at weekends..
2X+excellent
The BBC doesn’t do religion, unless it is the religion of climate change. Those who don’t subscribe to the orthodoxy are heretics and must be at best ridiculed, at worst cast out. But wont get any chance to express their views, of course, they are beyond the the pale! . Not unlike the only other religion the BBC gives a lot of space to. You know, the one you are born into and if you try to escape you put your life in danger. The BBCs two favourite “religions” have a lot in common.
So true
Yeah. Islam and the BBC are two peas in a pod.
The BBC is the high church of the left. Preaching their ethical goodness to all.
http://theoppressedrightwing.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-right-evil.html
There are two types of Climate scientists that are relevant.
(1) Atmospheric Physicists trying to calibrate carbon dioxide warming.
(2) Solar scientists trying to study direct solar irradiance and the Earths changing Albedo.
Of these, I cannot think of any British Atmospheric Physicist who has published a scientific paper on the subject or would be prepared to appear on television, it would be a very unpleasant experience to be interviewed by an ignorant nutter like Harrabin.
But the head of the CLOUD experiment at CERN was British scientist, Jasper Kirkby, he has said “I’m an experimental particle physicist, okay? That somehow nature may have decided to connect the high-energy physics of the cosmos with the earth’s atmosphere—that’s what nature may have done, not what I’ve done”.
I do not know what Kirkby is doing now, but he has to be very careful because of the politics at CERN.
Because most of the scientific fraud originates from Britain, most of the science using the old fashioned scientific method, originates from Australia and the US, and even Germany and Russia.
And Israel.
Some very nasty people can be found among the greenshirt facists, as can be found among the converts to Islam. People looking for an outlet for their inner hatreds find a cause which offers permission to vent it against “legitimate” targets. No different from National Socialism and the “Jewish problem”. How at home would our Green keyboard warriors be in that company .
The science says no warming in 17 years. Which models predicted a “pause”? Who is a “science denier” now? The gravy train of those who spread alarm trundles on.
I am embarrassed by anyone who says (with all we now know through the internet) that they are “not sure” who is right. FFS, read man.
Alan, you are probably closer to the mark with your mention of “Stalinist Philosophy”. Just like the methods used by the apparatchiks to make Stalin’s Ten Year Plans appear to be feasible and on track the IPCC and their Global Overheat Acolytes use exactly the same methods.
If the facts do not fit with the plan simply manipulate the facts and claim they are part of the plan. Whatever happens the people must be made to believe the plan perfect and must be slavishly followed.
Prada and Izvestia would have been proud of the BBC’s record with it’s Man Made Climate Change propaganda output, It makes the fantasy Stalinist Tractor Factory output figures look accurate to the last nut and bold by comparison.
You appear to have reached the same conclusion as I have regarding the theocracy of the left. Leftism is a religious zealot movement. I have summarized my thoughts in the following blog post, as it would not all fit on this comment – http://theoppressedrightwing.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/are-right-evil.html
The irony is that if we cannot afford to run fridges, freezers, air conditioning etc, we cannot afford to run a TV or pay the BBC Poll Tax; the BBC pushing the greenie agenda is like turkey voting for Christmas.
There’s truth to that.
In the hierarchy of need, a flickering screen comes low after a few priorities.
As you say, they appear content to be engineering their own redundancy.
Sadly, not true.
For years, radios which run on the stored electricity created by cranking the machine (not unlike an old gramophone) have been sold as a product to be used in places such as, say, the African bush– or as a “doomsday” sort of preparedness item for people who expect natural disasters, in places such as the Caribbean (hurricanes) or even a “first-world” location such as Japan (earthquakes).
At any rate, the radio side of the BBC would not be affected all that much, you would figure, if a stricter adherence to the Tyranny of the Green would continue.
A glance at a website that purported to have a foot-pedal charger (the effort involved approximating that of an old human-powered sewing machine of sweatshop days) for the sort of batteries televisions run on showed that a particular line of those had been discontinued, and I have no idea where such a thing could be obtained now, if indeed it is still in production.
(Of course, it all depends on the trade-off– how much exertion, to watch how much television? “I’ll do X-amount of exertion to watch EastEnders, but not nearly so much to watch the news”?)
Trust me, if people are THAT addicted to telly and absolutely need to watch, such devices would rapidly come back if enough demand existed– the technology is there.
Fair point.
Trevor Bayliss has much to answer for.
Nicky Campbell said “they say it is extremely certain that climate change is due to man”. Note his reluctance to say “persons” as that would implicate wimmin, who presumably don’t use electricity, drive cars or fart.
“We know what causes it, we just don’t know why it’s not happening!”
Those calling for physical violence against the AGW “deniers” need to be careful what they wish for. Aside from the fact they may be guilty of incitement to violence, their own logic could one day be turned against them. If/when the Great Global Warming Swindle is exposed, I would not want to be Mr Harrabin or Ms Lucas.
For example, if there are deaths during the Northern Hemisphere winter among older people who can’t afford to turn up the heating, which has become expensive in part thanks to “Green” policies, will it be ok for aggrieved relatives to start lynching “Greens”? Will workers in UK firms rendered uncompetitive by expensive energy, who lose their jobs because of this, be justified in suing the BBC, Lucas and co for damages? Who are the real criminals here?
Roger Harrabin? “Roger the economy”, more like!
A few years ago these moonbats were saying democracy should be put on hold to deal with climate change. What type of person thinks like that? a communist?
Agenda 21 at work.
There IS no AGW to speak of.
They know it, we know it.
Whatever the “science”, minds have already been made up, and wheels put in motion to crush right-thinking folk (in all senses of the phrase), and force the ideology upon us. It is of no importance whether or not the globe is warming or cooling, they have made up their minds, and we are stuck with it.
It’s as plain as a pikestaff that the IPCC (and every other connected organisation), the BBC, various “charities” and societies will force through their “beliefs” upon us whether they are right or wrong, and whether we agree with them or not.
They don’t care. They brush aside our scepticism because it is irrelevant in their grand scheme.
It’s SO obvious. Communism writ large.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074hf7/broadcasts/2013/09
BBC Radio Scotland, 67 minutes into the programme for a taste of Friends of the Earth vitriol given free rein by the interviewer.
Sorry, should have said Good Morning Scotland, Saturday 28 September, 67 minutes into the programme.