The sensitivity of the climate to the effects of CO2 may have been exaggerated admits a climate change scientist:

Staggering Admission By James Annan: “High Climate Sensitivity Increasingly Untenable”

‘Several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2[°C] is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5[°C].’


Roger Harrabin was tipped off about the new thoughts:

Barry Woods@BarryJWoods

. @RHarrabin @davidshukmanbbc James Anaan: “makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. ” …


and said he was already on the case:


roger harrabin@RHarrabin

@BarryJWoods @davidshukmanbbc Thanks Barry. It’s in the queue



That was on February 4th.


It’s now February 7th.


So where oh where is Harrabin’s, or any other BBC environmental journos’, article on this? it is:

Elsewhere on the web / 5 February 2013Most of the science in this areas seems to be saying under 4.5 oC. And the estimates keep getting a little lower. As James Annan, one of the experts



but not on the BBC?

It is absolutely astounding that BBC journalists seem completely free to run their own private fiefdom, their own private news agency that puts out only what they want to put out.  They seem to be completely untroubled by any restrictions supposedly imposed by the BBC charter, the law or indeed by journalistic ethics (bit optimistic with that one I suppose).

I think they could teach the evil Fox News a thing or two about partiality.


Keep paying the license fee.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to ROGER THE DODGER

  1. John wood says:

    Although it appears that the earth is not warming as quickly as expected, it should be remembered that we could be having two effects – a cyclical solar minimum activity reducing temperature and a man-made (or exacerbated) global warming effect. Currently these cancel out however if/ when the solar minimum activity cycle changes we could have very rapid warming indeed.

    This is not to say that I believe in man-made global warming, but it is a plausible continuation and I am surprised that the GW scientists haven’t presented it yet as a new model.


    • stewart says:

      They have


    • NickM says:

      The issue, John Wood, was catastrophic global warming caused only by man – that is, all natural climate influences like variability of the Sun would be drowned out by man made warming.

      CAGW was a hoax and is as dead as the dodo.


      • Nick says:

        But one we are forced to pay for over and over again.

        Until those taxes disappear, the lie perpertuates.


        • noggin says:

          don t expect that anytime soon – there are far too many “vested” interests.
          “its in the queue” :-D, such arrogance … just shows that this devious/deceitful
          b-stard, has far too much sway …
          i bet thats way way WAY behind
          last years used lotto tickets, and a screwed up shopping list …
          12mins 40


    • Ian Hills says:

      What if solar activity is warming the Earth up – and CO2 is cooling it down? This theory makes just as much sense as those of the warmists.

      Latest warmist theory is that aerosols combat global warming by cooling the Earth down – which is odd, as they used to say that aerosols had a “greenhouse effect” because of their chlorohydrocarbon content!

      But that theory must be 30 years old by now, and so out of date. For a while it made fridges awkward to dispose of, though, as they contain chlorohydrocarbons too.


      • John wood says:

        The problem with CHCs wasn’t greenhouse gas, it was the fact that they acted as catalysts for destroying ozone.

        CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation in the infra-red region and the sun is now less active than it was before – those two points negate your hypothesis.


        • Ian Hills says:

          As well as depleting the ozone UV barrier and increasing the risk of cancer, chrorofluorocarbons also cause warming, which though minor was once made a cause of alarm.


    • Old Goat says:

      I very much doubt that there’ll be very much warming at all in the foreseeable future (let alone “very rapid indeed”) – it’s already flat, and likely to cool further.


  2. Richard D says:

    The Forbes Magazine article you cite above (under the heading ‘Elsewhere on the Web’) is hilarious – and seriously deluded. Somebody really ought to tell him that carbon emissions in 2012 were the biggest ever, and the models being used by Climate Change alarmists really are no-where near predicting what is going on in our environment. There has been no warming this century, but carbon emission have been growing every year.

    None of the above is to say that reducing man-made carbon emissions is not a worthy goal – but it ain’t causing climate change to the extent that’s been claimed.

    It’s the models that are wrong, you idiot. That and the science that goes along the lines of “We haven’t been able to find out what was causing global warming in the last century – so it must be man-made.”

    I do recall with some mirth the comment by one hoary old pro-CAGW proponent to the effect that “There has been no warming for years and years, contrary to our models – and it’s a crime that we can’t explain that.” Here’s a clue – the models don’t work – your predictions are manure.


  3. PhilO'TheWisp says:

    In the meantime we have insulated and double glazed our homes, electricity has trebled in 5 years, heating oil gone from 13p to 65p a litre in 8 years, light bulbs cost £2.00 each and don’t put out light, we have bought more efficient cars which still cost more to run every year and have blighted the countryside with bloody windmills! And it is snowing and icy. Rant over, I feel as cheated as Mrs Hunhe!


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Now I have heard mrs Huhne on the dog and bone, I have shifted my sympathies to Mr Huhne!


      • Guest Who says:

        Steady on.
        Granted, her appeal is hard to credit, especially in her avowed area of expertise.
        Therefore interesting, as with a few others, quite why she is the go-to gal for some.


      • Roland Deschain says:

        I’ve shifted them to the poor bloody telephone.


  4. Richard Pinder says:

    To remove the Brainwashing we have all been subjected too, I think we should consider the new understanding of the science censored by the BBC.

    It has been proven that there is no absorption of refracted or reflected radiation, the reflection produces the absorption lines in a spectroscope. It has also been proven that the feedback mechanism is negative not positive, so in other words there is no formula for feedback.

    The proven mechanism for the calibration of carbon dioxide warming is this. As the increase in atmospheric pressure reduces the speed of transfer of heat, the increase in heat maintains the equilibrium with the input of heat from the Sun, as more heat is transferred but at a slower rate, maintaining the equilibrium. The addition of 0.1 millibars of carbon dioxide produces an increase in temperature of 0.007 Kelvin. So therefore changes in input from the Sun through direct solar input or albedo, causes Climate Change. Direct Solar Input added 0.1 Kelvin therefore Albedo caused the 20th Century Global Warming.

    In Astronomy, we find that observations using satellites show that changes in the cloud albedo produce by far the greatest changes in the Earths albedo, with other effects such as changes in ice coverage or changes in the transparency of the atmosphere through black carbon, being far too small.

    Therefore the simple answer to the reason for the global warming scare is found in Cosmoclimatology. 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 producing 0.66 Kelvin of the warming.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      What are the dates for the longer solar cycle? And how does this square with the IPCC’s recent admission that solar forcing is more of a factor than they previously let on?


      • Richard Pinder says:

        Solar cycle 22 lasted 9.7 years, beginning in September 1986 and ending in May 1996, the shortest solar cycle since Solar cycle 3 ended in 1784.

        The IPCC is only talking about direct solar irradiance, a warming of 0.1 Kelvin in the 20th Century, not changes in cloud albedo.

        The work of Henrik Svensmark and Jasper Kikby is taboo at the IPCC. Kirkby has been ordered not to make any conclusions about his own work, for political reasons, possibly to avoid it being included in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The official CERN and therefore IPCC accepted position is that cosmic rays have had a one percent effect on cloud cover which has contributed a warming of 0.002 Kelvin in the last fifty years, this seems to be caused by a politically induced mental block that only allows these scientists to see the effects of low energy Cosmic Rays when the fact is that only the higher energy Cosmic Rays that produce the Muons that reach the low cloud base and are unaffected by the Earths magnetic field are relevant.

        CERN Director-General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Kirkby not to interpret the cloud-chamber results, the official position is that the aim was not to prove that clouds are sensitive to cosmic rays, but only to see whether or not they could be. But the CLOUD experiment only confirms that the explanation of how cosmic rays cause cloud formation has been complete and proven since Henrik Svensmarks cloud chamber results in 2006.

        Kirkby 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.

        Cosmoclimatology is still censored by the IPCC.


  5. pedro says:

    oh yea… so much for global warming while we have all been shivering half to death for the last few months,,,if there was global warming,,,i would be its biggest fan,,,why you might say that …think about the logic,,,if england was consumed by global warming and we had a climate say like florida,,,think about all that money we would save on gas and electricity bills…..think about the 20,000 pensioners who would not die in the uk every year because they cant afford to heat there homes,,global warming,,,i say bring it on comrades.


  6. Old Goat says:

    There’s no significant warming – there never has been. Everything (including polar ice) is more or less as it should be. If anything, there is a trend towards a coolness.

    Anyway, the CRU can’t make up it’s mind, as usual, and when faced with evidence that their predictions were dodgy, they felt the need to lose or alter the data. This is what they were saying in 1972.:

    Then we see this: (look at the graph)

    and this:


  7. mat says:

    Aww be fair guys Harribo is skating on thickening ice on this one, he can no longer just fondle CRU press releases as all his own work because like the Met no one is listening except the questioning non believers who rip his stuff to bits as soon as it hits the BBC website [152rd page from the main page hidden in para 111 below a story about funny otters and be quick as it’s on a 1 day rush !]


  8. AsISeeIt says:

    I recently caught a snippet of an old episode of The Big Bang Theory (I have teenage daughters and it is an amusing show in a way that our BBC could never deliver).

    Couldn’t help but notice these lines….

    “Are you here for the conference?

    Yeah, I’m doing a global warming panel.

    Oh, good for you. ……

    Well, I got to run. The panel’s tomorrow morning. It’s called, Remembering Snow: A Look Back.

    I’ll try to catch it.”

    A little research tells me the episode was first broadcast in January 2011. Am I alone in sensing the belief in the global warming scam beginning to wear a bit thin. In fact I sense the writers tentatively mocking the true believers. Hopefully the end is nigh.


    • Andrew says:

      Two memories of mine:

      (1) The unlovely character Pip Archer in “The Archers”, who had obviously been completely brainwashed about global warming, almost crying (yes!) as she spoke to her father David. The reason? His parents Phil and Jill were flying to NZ, to see a grandchild of theirs, and she was worried about the emissions from their plane!
      (2) A 1980s French school textbook, which was trying to put man-made pollution into context. It claimed interestingly that 300 Concorde aircraft would need to fly 24 hours a day for 5 years to produce as much pollution as did the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883.


  9. Guest Who says:

    ‘It’s in the queue

    That was on February 4th.

    It’s now February 7th.’
    The BBC concept of ‘a different time’ is often as variable as its grasp of maths, stats and science.
    Maybe he’ll pull a CECUTT unique and claim it’s being looked at and after enough Beware of the Leopard delays say that it has expired and closed.


    • Phil Ford says:

      It’s going to be an interesting year in story of ‘Man-Made Climate Change’. With Barry now safely ensconced in the Oval Office for his final stretch as El Presidente and suddenly unafraid to wax lyrical about ‘saving the planet’ like he never did while he was still looking for re-election, with his fellow-believer Kerry also making noises about stepping up the US’s ‘commitment’ to battling the much-anticipated CAGW cataclysm… Well, many warmists are gleefully rubbing their hands together in anticipation of massive new taxpayer ‘climate-change’ largess and, by default, all the complicit propagandizing from their favourite (and most reliable) mainstream media outlets.

      Of course, the BBC – now so deeply entrenched in it’s militant, political pro-CAGW stance that it couldn’t do a u-turn even if it wanted to without instantly invalidating well over a decade’s worth of natural history sermonizing – intends to be right there beside Barry, cheerleading the approaching climate apocalypse for all it thinks it’s worth. The one thing common purpose trolls can always rely on is, of course, other common purpose trolls.

      Meanwhile, Haribo and his lackeys will hunker down in their critic-proof BBC bunker, stay on message and keep churning out the necessary propaganda to accompany the ‘sustainability’ revolution they one day hope to bring about – and we’ll keep getting mugged to pay him and his socialist buddies for their shrill, increasingly irrelevant climate missives.

      Life at the BBC, comrades.


  10. George R says:

    “BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough’s Africa.
    “David Attenborough claims in BBC One’s Africa series that part of the continent has warmed by 3.5C over the past 20 years.”

    By Leo Hickman.


    • Guest Who says:
      ‘President Lyndon Johnson is claimed by some to have said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.”‘
      When the BBC loses the Graun, then the plot is the least of their misplaced worries.
      This is matters of fact in education and information from one of their few pillars of credibility left.


    • Guest Who says:

      I’ll credit Mr. Hickman (with whom I have had more than a few lively exchanges) with a very definite over-parapet commitment (look at some of the barking responses from what can only be the mutated love-spawn of a Black-Shuckman-Harrabin-Watts hydra and the entire cast of BBC CECUTT… or any of our resident flying circus here), but having watched from the sidelines up to this, he was very much steered (some may say backed into a corner) by a bunch of kids and that darn internet too.


    • Richard D says:

      reading the comments below the Hickman article, the majority view from the ‘alarmists’ seems to be one along the lines of…”Oh God, the ‘deniers’ will have a field day with this”

      Not “Oh God, we’ve been caught out yet again, taking any alarmist data from any obscure reports with very little to back them up !”


  11. johnnythefish says:

    Whichever way you look at it the science is far from ’settled’ as we watch the warmists scuttle backwards and forwards revising their models in the light of irrefutable real-world evidence, propagating more and more theories in an attempt to explain the lack of warming.

    As for the BBC’s stance on ‘the science’, it is clear in their continued linking of ‘extreme weather’ to global warming they now only have the environmental fanatics for company as even the IPCC – the rock-god scientists of the warmist lobby – don’t give it any credence:

    Hardly surprising, really, given who they got into bed with at their infamous 28gate meeting. Completely out of touch, in a world of their own.


  12. Today, I went to the beach front with my kids.
    I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She placed the shell to her ear and screamed.
    There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back!
    LoL I know this is entirely off topic but I had to tell someone!


  13. I like what you guys are usually up too. This kind of clever work
    and coverage! Keep up the very good works guys I’ve added you guys to our blogroll.


  14. Eric says:

    You know the majority don’t genuinely understand the benefits of blogging. Or simply just how much effort that goes into making a blog. Honestly blogging and site-building can be alot of fun and a smart way to cultivate your brand or even online business.


  15. Since the admin of this site is working, no question
    very quickly it will be renowned, due to its quality contents.