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…

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to SYNCHRONICITY…

  1. NotaSheep says:

    ance necessary (update) The Today piece was moved to 08:50 and there it all was: the floods in Cumbria were possibly caused by Global Warming but it is entirely consistent with basis physics and our models. John Humphrys brought up the CRU email story but gently and Professor Slingo was allowed to dismiss it as only a small part of the story, the emails were “stolen” and were “taken out of context”. So there we are 60 world leaders in Copenhagen is unprecedented, we must act urgently and the BBC are back on course with the Man Made Climate Change scare story.
    Don’t mistake the odd questionning piece on the BBC for balance, there will be a few less than 100% on message pieces for a week or so but the majority of MMCC coverage will be unquestionningly pro-the agreed narrative and once the CRU story has faded away …
    I have spoken with a couple of intelligent news aware people over the last day or so and neither had read or heard anything about the CRU email story. We know because we are following the story and want to find the BBC coverage. Most people will miss the scant BBC coverage and never know anything about the story. 


  2. fred bloggs says:

    Contrasting Channel 4 news and Newsnight is interesting.  When 4 interviewed a EA (East Anglia) rep he tried to concentrate on the word ‘trick’, the interviewer said what about ‘hide the decline’.   4 would not let go of ‘hide the decline’ but did not press home the point.

    Newsnight had the same man plus a sceptic, both comments were mentioned but only the ‘trick’ was discussed.  Subject dropped, the someting happened towards the end of the program, I have NEVER seen before.  The subject was brought up again, but just a small snippet of the EA chap’s interview with him talking and explaining away the ‘trick’.

    When you see, time after time, that everybody has to be on message and you are labelled a heretic if you dissent, no wonder there are so many sceptics.


  3. cassandra king says:

    What if?

    I am trying to place myself in the position of John Humphys, here is a person who reports the news as handed to him by reseachers and editors via the BBC science and enviroment department, now John has no reason to suspect that his colleagues would supply him with dodgy/falsified/rigged/fraudulant stories, he would report them in the knowledge that the information was valid and correct.

    Now what if Mr Humphrys suddenly found out that he has been disseminating fraudulant made up trash and the people responsible for handing him this trash were in cahoots with the people churning out this trash? Its possible that he would feel used and abused, John might well feel that he has been conned and betrayed into ruining his journalistic integrity and career by the very people he trusted.
    How would any of us feel if we had been used and manipulated into becoming an unwitting pawn in the disemination of lies and fraud? I suspect that John is starting to feel he has been so used and I got the feeling that he may be quite angry about it all, who in his shoes wouldnt be? If he gets dragged into this scandal then his reputation would be damaged hugely, if I were him then I would be asking some very direct and hard questions of the people in the chain who supplied him with so many global warming scare stories over the years. I could be way off the mark here but I feel its at worth considering that some people at the BBC have been betrayed by their supposed co workers.


    • Umbongo says:

      You’re very charitable this morning.  Humphrys is – or is supposed to be – a journalist.  His business is to ask questions and get at the truth.  However, as we have seen over the years on Today, there is truth and “BBC truth”.  If he relies completely on BBC researchers then he deserves all he gets.  No journalist worth the name, least of all Humphrys, should be above getting his hands dirty with a little research of his own.


      • cassandra king says:

        I see your point, I was just trying to see the world through the eyes of Humphries.


  4. John Anderson says:


    I had the sense that John Humphries was pretty tetchy this morning. – he quickly raised the ClimateGate business,  I rather doubt that it was fed to him by researchers.

    I regard Him as a zealot on a lot of issues – often he is wrong IMHO,  but if he started acting as an attack dog on AGW that would be fun to listen to


    • cassandra king says:

      Yeah I got that undercurrent, a noticable hard edge when Slingo tried the usual snow job wool pulling excerise, a common trick BTW of bulls*** artists the world over.


  5. Ben says:

    The BBC report is not a surprise. They are all in cahoots about this.  The Royal Society lost credibility on the issue a while ago; the Met Office is implicated in the CRU emails, and NERC provided half of Jones’s £13million funding.

    Last throes of a discredited cabal.


  6. David Preiser (USA) says:

    “the science underpinning climate change is more alarming than ever..”

    I’ll say it is.

    If it was a done deal, there wouldn’t be such an effort to suppress data or other voices.  As in the rest of the scientific world, f the science was beyond dispute, these other voices and data would easily be shown to be false.

    For example, there’s an endless supply of cranks claiming to have invented perpetual motion machines or super-efficient energy creation, all of whom constantly cry that the powers that be in science shut them out for the usual reasons of power, control, and money.  Yet, all of these cranks are easily shown to be just that, because it’s easy to demonstrate that their inventions are bogus.

    If this climate science was all that, these Warmists would have the ability to show how the other side is wrong, and why.  Instead, we have them hiding data, destroying data, and circling the wagons to actively block the peer review processin scientific journals.  If the science was as settled as they claim, none of that would be necessary.


  7. Backwoodsman says:

    Just to look at this from another angle. When these people turn up in Copenhagen and tell the Indian goverment they need to do xyz to save the world. the Indians are going to throw the whole dodgy data business back in their faces.
    The bbc and friends may think its an ‘inconvenient truth’, one they can ignore, but more sceptical countries will not let this drop !


  8. John Anderson says:

    The CRU is at the Uni of East Anglia – which didn’t exist until about 1967.  I knew the then Pro-Vice Chancellor a little bit,  it was certainly NOT a place of science.

    If the CRU director had been at a real centre of science, Cambridge Uni or Imperial College for example,  he would have resigned – or been forced to resign – by now.,  to avoid the institution’s reputation being tarnished.

    U of EA is and always was a bit like a Peter Simple outfit. 


  9. hettie says:

    I loved the headline “Global Warming Science Alarming, Climate Experts Say” 🙂