Here’s one view (Harrabin’s) of the BBC’s climate reporting….
“We should confidently take these debates forward, with a modern, accurate sense of impartiality in mind. This will help us to follow the BBC Trust’s goal of engaging people as citizens as well as audiences, and it will maximise the BBC’s unique contribution to an informed democracy.” LOL
Here’s another view of the BBC’s climate coverage...from an insider…
‘Following their lead [Harrabin and Smith’s] has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’
So much for an informed democracy.
The climate change wheeler-dealing in Paris is getting ever nearer and the useful idiots are pumping out the propaganda as if it were CO2 from a steel mill…not a British steel mill obviously as they have mostly been closed down by crippling green taxes.
Harrabin’s ‘Extreme weather’ troopers, storm troopers, are at it again, no doubt guided by the wisdom of their master gathered by him as he campaigned for over twenty years, as he told us, to warn us about global warming….“I have spent much of the last two decades of my journalistic life warning about the potential dangers of climate change.”
Impartial, my backside.
Harrabin (and Richard Black, remember him?) told us once….
If we do not have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of the climate debate we risk presenting our audiences with a set of opinions which is out-dated, driven by spin or simply wrong.
Seems they have failed in grasping that science, even the fundamentals of the science…or are they just outright lying?…you decide….here’s the BBC’s latest dubious explanation of the science….
What is climate change?
But wait…first let’s have a quick look at a BBC alarmist headline….
Warming set to breach 1C threshold
This report tells us that the El Nino is partially responsible for the heat…but er, not much really…
Scientists say that the one degree mark will be broken in 2015 because of a combination of carbon emissions and the impact of the El Nino weather phenomenon.
“We have seen a strong El Nino develop in the Tropical Pacific this year and that will have had some impact on this year’s global temperature,” said Stephen Belcher, director of the Met Office Hadley Centre.
“We’ve had similar natural events in the past, yet this is the first time we’re set to reach the 1C marker and it’s clear that it is human influence driving our modern climate into uncharted territory.”
What the BBC avoids mentioning is just how strong the El Nino is…..from the Telegraph…
Britain can expect a winter to rival that of 2013 with the biggest ‘Super El Nino’ in 144 years expected to hit the UK
The El Nino in 1998 was responsible for the heatwaves back then……since when we have had the flatlining of global warming…..Breaching 1ºC due to the El Nino and associating it so closely with ‘global warming’ is somewhat fraudulent and misleading…conflating natural and alleged human causes.
The Met Office states the obvious…
A Met Office spokesperson said: “This year’s El Niño started to grow in April and it has now become a strong, mature event similar to the landmark 1997-8 event.
Anyway, back to ‘What is clmate change?’, a report which makes many dubious ‘scientific’ claims to support the BBC’s mantra about climate change and CO2 in particular……
Here’s what we know and don’t know about the Earth’s changing climate.
The planet’s climate has constantly been changing over geological time……However, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events.
Really? Temperatures have always risen and fallen dramatically…
In fact looking at a more recent period you can see that temperatures now are looking as within a ‘normal’ range, especially as we are coming out of an ‘ice age’……
Of course the BBC is basing its ‘science’ on the discredited ‘Hockey stick’ delusion which, as WUWT pointed out, relied upon a lie…..
“We have to abolish the medieval warm period.”
By 2001, the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report had obliged; and, notwithstanding my Expert Review of the draft Fifth Report, in which I had listed some 400 papers from the medieval warm period database at www.co2science.org establishing by measurement that the medieval warm period was real, was global and was almost everywhere warmer than the present, the IPCC defied the evidence and preferred the models that had been shown to be defective (McIntyre & McKitrick, 2005).
Harrabin always tried to fudge the evidence for the MWP and claim that, well, it may have been warm but you know what…only in parts of the globe. Of course Harrabin’s quite ready to use high temperatures in the UK as evidence of warming whilst ignoring a frozen America and Russia.
What of CO2 emissions? Apparently man-made emissions are the main source of CO2…’natural’ sources only emit 3%……or is that just a deliberate attempt to confuse as the BBC doesn’t state if all these emissions are man-made or not….
Natural sources produce more CO2…
Human sources of carbon dioxide are much smaller than natural emissions but they upset the balance in the carbon cycle that existed before the Industrial Revolution.
Is the BBC reluctant to mention that as it might undermine their natrrative? Nature produces 95% of all CO2……
Water vapour…important? Yes but no, let’s just ignore it…
‘The most important of these greenhouse gases in terms of its contribution to warming is water vapour, but concentrations show little change and it persists in the atmosphere for only a few days.’
Curious that water vapour concentrations show little change when the BBC et al tell us that the world is getting very warm and the oceans are absorbing all that heat….surely that would result in more water vapour…but no, apparently not…concentrations ‘show little change’. A puzzler no?
Methane, important? Again, as with water vapour, no…
‘Other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are also released through human activities, but their overall abundance is small compared with carbon dioxide.’
What do others say?…
Methane (CH4) is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities. In 2013, CH4 accounted for about 10% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Methane is emitted by natural sources such as wetlands, as well as human activities such as leakage from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock. Natural processes in soil and chemical reactions in the atmosphere help remove CH4 from the atmosphere. Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.
Globally, over 60% of total CH4 emissions come from human activities. Methane is emitted from industry, agriculture, and waste management activities, described below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or even from the BBC itself when it isn’t peddling a particular narrative about CO2….
Methane
The importance of methane in the greenhouse effect is its warming effect. Even though it occurs in lower concentrations than carbon dioxide, it produces 21 times as much warming as CO2. Methane accounts for 20% of the ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’.
Sea levels? ‘Alarming’ stats and predictions again…
‘Satellite data shows an average increase in global sea levels of some 3mm per year in recent decades…..As seawater warms up, the molecules become less densely packed, causing an increase in the volume of the ocean.
But the melting of mountain glaciers and the retreat of polar ice sheets are also important contributors.
The Greenland Ice Sheet has experienced record melting in recent years; if the entire 2.8 million cu km sheet were to melt, it would raise sea levels by 6m.’
Jo Nova (actual scientist and not English graduate turned eco journalist campaigner) and WUWT have their say on alarmism and false predictions……..
Jo Nova first…
Preschooler outdoes climate models
Back in 2001, little Alby Brushtail was just 4 when he predicted global sea levels for a decade by drawing a straight line through a graph. Today, Will Steffen, Director of the Climate Institute admits that global climate models are woeful at predicting sea levels in a story titled: “Sea levels rising at top end of estimates”.
The failure of the sophisticated models is all the more baffling because by 2001, global sea levels had been rising at the not-so-tricky, fairly steady rate of 3mm a year for the previous nine years. Despite this simple linear trend, even with the worlds best equipment and budgets of millions, the top experts only barely managed to predict future sea levels within their broad error margins.
In the end, they couldn’t outdo the four year old who drew the line in with an orange crayon in his preschool class and who simply said that the 3mm a year trend would “just keep going”.
For his remarkable success in 2001, Alby credited Mr Squiggle, but says he’s moved on now, and uses a ruler.*
Satellites have been measuring sea levels, on a global basis, with unprecedented accuracy, since 1992. They show that the seas have been rising roughly 3mm a year over the last 18 years. The most recent figures hint that, if anything, the trend has slightly slowed in the last four years.**
WUWT….
‘From the beginning of the climate alarmism in the 1980s, the long-predicted acceleration in the rate of sea level rise has been … well … the kindest description might be “late to the party”, because the predicted acceleration still hasn’t arrived. James Hansen famously predicted back in 1988 that in forty years the West Side Highway in New York City would be underwater. From the 1988 levels, to swamp the West Side Highway would require about a 3 metre (10 foot) sea level rise.
We’re now 27 years into his prediction, two-thirds of the way there, and instead of two-thirds of three metres of sea level rise, the sea level rise in NYC since his prediction has been … wait for it …
Three inches. 7.5 cm.
And from this point to make his prediction come true, we’d need ~ 9.9 feet of sea level rise in 13 years … that’s three quarters of a foot (225 mm) each and every year for the next thirteen years. Never happen. His prediction, like the overwhelming majority of climate alarmist predictions, is total nonsense.’
And what of this from the BBC’s climate change primer?…
‘Satellite data shows the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also losing mass, and a recent study indicated that East Antarctica, which had displayed no clear warming or cooling trend, may also have started to lose mass in the last few years. But scientists are not expecting dramatic changes. In some places, mass may actually increase as warming temperatures drive the production of more snows.’
That’s a pure, outright lie from the BBC…..East Antarctica and the interior of Western Antarctica are gaining ice…..
‘All the findings, based on satellite imagery of the eastern Antarctic ice fields, determine that ice is being formed faster than it’s being melted.’
Like that little disclaimer about global warming causing the snow though.
And…
What about the pause?
‘What pause?’ says the BBC….
‘Climate scientists point out that the hiatus occurs in just one component of the climate system – the global mean surface temperature – and that other indicators, such as melting ice and changes to plant and animal life, demonstrate that the Earth has continued to warm.’
Can’t trust the temperature readings when you have to judge whether the world is warming can you!
And what’s the outcome of global warming?…
How will climate change affect us?
The scale of potential impacts is uncertain. The changes could drive freshwater shortages, bring sweeping changes in food production conditions, and increase the number of deaths from floods, storms, heat waves and droughts. This is because climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events – though linking any single event to global warming is complicated.
So it’s complicated, nobody’s really sure but you’re all going to die if you don’t stop pumping out that evil, polluting gas CO2.
So in summary, the BBC has told porkies about just about every aspect of global warming, its causes and effects in this one report. The BBC’s narrative is solely focused on CO2 and is determined to downplay the role of other sources of gas emissions….this plays into a very political narrative peddled by the IPCC, greens, leftists and anti-western, anti-capitalism and industry campaigners about CO2 and the ‘need’ to reduce its emission.
The BBC is not concerned with the science but with a political narrative. It is selling a lie…and its chief cheerleader is its very own environmental journo Roger Harabin whose reporting and shaping of the message has distorted the truth and you could justifiably lay some of the blame for the lay offs at those British steel mills at his door as he gave cover to politicians like Miliband to implement otherwise extreme and destructive policies in the name of tackling climate change…as caused by CO2….allegedly.
‘If we do not have a strong grasp of the fundamentals of the climate debate we risk presenting our audiences with a set of opinions which is out-dated, driven by spin or simply wrong.’
The morons do like to confuse
The 5 percent for Man made CO2 includes Volcanic CO2 because they are unable to differentiate by isotopic analysis. But I heard that some scientists in Japan think that they are able to do this.
The mass of the Oceans are 270 times that of the Atmosphere. This means that CO2 content in the Oceans completely dominate the system, with a thermodynamic lag of between 800 to 1,000 years in the deep Oceans. We also have Ice core records that show that CO2 content in the Atmosphere increases 800 to 1,000 years after a warming. So we also have the fact that the Medieval warm period peaked 800 to 1,000 years ago. Bingo, we should expect CO2 content to increase. This should be a simple explanation to understand why the “Carbon cycle” as is excepted by the IPCC, is fraudulent, as this is essential to the fraud. This scientific paper helps to clear up the confusion. (Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, Segalstad)
Anyway, they leave out Nitrogen as the main Greenhouse Gas. I wondered why Nitrogen was not regarded as a Greenhouse Gas? And then after failing to calibrate Carbon Dioxide warming on Venus, we noticed that after adjusting for the distance from the Sun, we had the same temperature on Venus at one bar, as on the Earth. And from that, a couple of wiz kids in America produced this paper.(Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) effectively proving that Nitrogen is that main Greenhouse Gas for the Earth. I think that the only famous scientist in Britain known to people on this site, exited as I am about this, is Piers Corbyn, brother of the leader of the Labour Party. If only Roger Helmer would listen to him.
Also, I am not a meteorologist, but I have had it confirmed that there are simple rules for Weather extremes on Earth as would be the case with other Planets.
(1) The CO2 hypothesis implies that temperatures six miles up will increase double that of the surface.
(a) This would lower the contrast in temperature and therefore would lower extreme weather events, except extreme droughts, because if you have NO weather, you would have an eternal drought
(b) There has been no change in temperature contrast, that is why this has never been mentioned on the BBC.
(2) The changes in the Earths Cloud Albedo mean that if you have more Cloud now, than in that 22 year period of Global warming that ended in 1997. Then this would cool the Tropics and warm the Arctic. The Arctic would warm because Clouds trap heat and the Arctic receives most of its heat from elsewhere, and all of its heat elsewhere in our Winter. This is why Hurricanes have been less often lately. Also there is a thermal lag that makes the Arctic the most unreliable area on Earth, to gauge current trends.
Harrabin has been plugging his ‘Changing Climate’ programme endlessly on R4, as they ramp up they ramp up the propaganda prior to the Paris-ites Junket.
Should be an interesting listen. Starts next Monday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06qspbf
Don’t forget, Harrabin cannot make head nor tail of either the science involved or the fancy graphs. He is an arts graduate climate activist masquerading as a science journalist. Unfortunately, as far as the BBC is concerned, that makes him suitably qualified to inform the public on this most important of issues.
This will help us to follow the BBC Trust’s goal of engaging people as citizens as well as audiences, and it will maximise the BBC’s unique contribution to an informed democracy.”
That would be the one-world type of democracy as characterised by an eco-socialist, totalitarian global UN government which will abolish the free market, re-distribute wealth from the West (for as long as it lasts), have the power to grant you a child licence (as long as you can prove your right-on eco-socialist credentials), establish ‘wilding’ zones from which humans will not be allowed to enter (about 50% of the US), decide how many ‘carbon credits’ you will be allowed each year, abolish education for the masses as the well-educated tend to be the largest ‘polluters’ etc etc. – all dressed up as ‘mitigating actions against climate change’.
Christopher Monckton has them bang to rights:
Posted before, but worth a reprise for Mr Horribin.
A shameless cut & paste from WUWT:-
A Parable for our Times
And I went unto the Warmists and said Fear Not! For the CO2 is logarithmic and the T varies with the 4th root of P and that is the Physics.
And They mocked me and said Have you not seen the Tree Rings?
What hath Tree Rings to do with the Physics I asked of them. And they said if I did not know I was a fool.
And so I came to look upon the Tree Rings and they were false. For they did not foretell the instrumental record for near half its course, and this the Warmists tried to Hide. And when it came to pass that only a Single Tree spoke of what they said, I said again, Fear Not, for CO2 is logarithmic and T varies with the 4th root of P and that is the Physics.
And they mocked me and said that the seas would rise up with increasing fury.
What hath Sea Level Rise to do with the Physics I asked of them. And they said if I did not know I was a fool.
And so I came to look upon the Sea Level Rise and lo it was steady over the course of the data. Why has one among you purchased at much cost a monstrous house next to the Sea you say will rise up I asked. Have you, like me, understood that CO2 is logarithmic and T varies with the 4th root of P and that is the Physics?
And they mocked me and said that the ice was melting and this was a harbinger of doom.
What hath ice melting at one tiny part of the world to do with the Physics I asked of them. And they said if I did not know I was a fool.
And so I came to look upon the Sea Ice and lo, while that of the North was Melting, that of the South was Growing. And as I said this unto Them, lo, the North began to grow also. You, who have proclaimed the far reaches of the earth the only safe haven from the coming Heat, have not emigrated to those lands, nor procured property there, do you, as I, Fear Not for CO2 is logarithmic and T varies with the 4th root of P and that is the Physics?
Thunderbolts and Lightning! Very Very Frightening! The droughts and the hurricanes shall smite us!
What hath droughts and hurricanes to do with the Physics as asked of them, hopeless now because I already knew it was I who was the fool.
And so I came to look upon the droughts and found them unchanged. And I looked upon the hurricanes and found them to be in decline. And I said again Fear Not for the CO2 is logarithmic and they interrupted me and mocked me.
You are a fool they said, for you are not a climate scientist, and so you do not understand.
And I said unto them, Other than the collecting of the Data from Trees and Satellites and other such complex tasks, what skills beyond first year physics and statistics are required to analyse Them? And they Refused to Answer and the Anthony did Ban them until such time as they should Answer and then they became Abusive and the Anthony banned them forever.
But still others took up the Cause and said Lo, the Heat is hiding in places where we cannot see it, and it shall someday spring forth upon us and smite us.
And I could not look upon those places where none could see and so I asked how this springing forth could happen, by what mechanism of Physics could this occur?
And for this They have no Answer.
Fear Not I said, for Co2 is logarithmic and T varies with the 4th root of P and that is the Physics.
And they spoke among themselves and said we must find a new means by which to prophecy doom. We shall search and search for such a means, but under no circumstance will we discuss the Physics.
Parliamentarian Lord Lawson is barred by the BBC because he is not a scientist. Graham Stringer and Peter Lilly are scientists, but are barred by the BBC because parliamentarians with scientific qualifications are a minority of two. The BBC does not talk to minorities, unless they have racial or sexual differences. Peter Lilly slipped past the BBC censors because he was invited on by Quintin Letts, who was the one invited by the BBC. Quintin Letts will never be invited onto the BBC again because he has not got any scientific qualifications. The good news is that the leader of the Labour party could be barred from the BBC because of the lack of any scientific qualifications, if he mentioned Piers Corbyn, who does have scientific qualifications.
And all smirked over by Roger Harrabin whose ‘scientific qualifications’ are, um – a degree in English!
Go on then, please tell me it was from East Anglia?
The BBC much prefers comment on important matters like global warming to come from such luminaries as Emma Thompson or Vivienne Westwood. They know global warming is bullshit which is why informed public debate must be avoided at all cost.