Category Archives: agw

If there is one faith the BBC does follow, it is that of AGW. Biased BBC contributor Alan comments… ”BBC getting very excited:

‘CO2 ‘drove end to last ice age’
A new, detailed record of past climate change provides compelling evidence that the last ice age was ended by a rise in temperature driven by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The finding is based on a very broad range of data, including even the shells of ancient tiny ocean animals.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404

However the Nature article the BBC quote also trumpets the headline:

‘Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation’

but look at this in the small print:

‘The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature.’
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

But what drove the temperature change and release of CO2? Hidden way down the BBC report we find out it was the change in Earth orbit and the increase in power of the Suns rays. So global warming was in fact driven by the sun.

CO2 may have added to it….and we know that global warming preceded CO2 release by up to 800 years as even Phil Jones from the CRU admits….but the initiator was solar power.

Looks like BBC and Nature still pulling wool over our eyes.

Guido had the goods here yesterday and now the Mail today. B-BBC contributor Alan makes some very valid points here..

“The recent ‘BEST’ report, not peer reviewed, on world temperature changes, was cited as evidence by Richard Black that the sceptics are wrong…..and that Phil Jones of the CRU has been proven to be a truthful and honest reporter of facts (despite absolute evidence from the emails and indeed the science itself to the contrary). Now it seems the BEST report and the conclusions drawn by one of its authors were best taken with a pinch of salt. The temperature hasn’t risen for over a decade, there is no proof that warming is the result of man’s activities to any large extent…..North America and Northern Europe have been cooling.

I wonder how Black will get out of this one…..having reported so enthusiastically and uncritically something that he believes rather than taking a professional, objective view? Black aside the BBC are adopting more slippery tactics in persuading us that global warming is having seriously detrimental effects on the world…and it never mentions any benefits.”READ MORE HERE

Via Bishop Hill

“Remember Paul Hudson,the rogue weather man at the BBC who doesn’t do ‘consensus’ and who upset the’gang’ when he noted that there had been no warming since 1998…

from hacked CRU email:

‘Michael Mann wrote in answer:

“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. itsparticularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).from What I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.

We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might beappropriate for
the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s uphere?” ‘

He’s been at it again and thrown some cold water over the overheating believers(and I note from a BBC news report this morning that with sea levelsinexoriably rising due to AGW our sea shore is eroding terribly fast)…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml

‘For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solaractivity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.

Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated bysupercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man onglobal climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solarvariation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until veryrecently.

This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As oneleading climate scientist told me last month, it’s a subject that is now nolonger taboo. And about time, too.’

Excellent letter here from the Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christensen to the BBC detailing just how subtle but pernicious it propagandises on behalf of the AGW lobby has become.

And just when it seemed like the BBC might be having second thoughts on the validity of the AGW agenda is has pursued with such vigour!

“Three UK groups studying climate change have issued an unprecedented statement about the dangers of failing to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council say the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever. They say the 2007 UK floods, 2003 heatwave in Europe and recent droughts were consistent with emerging patterns. Their comments came ahead of crunch UN climate talks in Copenhagen next month.”

The tone and content of the debate this morning could not be clearer – the world is going to suffer unprecedented global warming unless our leaders at Copenhagen gain agreement on how to tax the hell out of us and cripple our economies. Talk about hot air…

For some odd reason, I figure this is a story the BBC won’t be running anytime soon! You see, it appears that a new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims.

The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research. Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity. Oh no! But I thought “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”?

Expect the BBC to remain mute on this – doesn’t gain the same ratings as “End of world due any day now”, does it? Nor does it fit the narrative! No, THIS is the relentless pro AGW line the BBC peddles.

Meant to ask if anyone else heard Ed Milipede being allowed to waffle on about the doomsday effects of global warming and why it is vital that the UK coughs up loadsamoney to compensate the less developed world to its bit to save the planet. I just LOVED the unspoken assumption from the BBC that “the debate is over” when it comes to AGW and now the only question is how much shall we pay?