From the New York Times:
“A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.””
Read the whole thing. The BBC is highlighted here I think for good reason: they are among the worst offenders. (via NewsBusters)
Prepare for a year of unprecedented global warming propaganda from Al Beeb.
If u think the Beeb has gone over the top in the past promoting these left wing lies, u aint seen nothing yet.
Hands up if anyone is surprised…me neither.
Had somebody the other day try to tell me that the pre-xmas cold spell was a sure sign of global warming, and that we had better expect more of the same in the future!
Oh,come now,this is simply the wrong sort of global warming.As you are aware,GW can cover every conceivable kind of weather conditions from fog to sandstorms.Besides this is rather parochial,somewhere else is bound to be getting hotter,isn’t it now?
The BBC has experts,scientists,meteorologists,news readers,comedians,disk jockeys, speciality acts,jugglers,Dr Who,they cannot possibly be wrong.
Do you really believe the BBC would take your money if it was wrong?
Perhaps this recent article, by an ex- BBC science editor, Daid Whitehouse, bears repeating here:
“Has Global Warming Stopped?”
http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004
On local warming in the North East of England, the BBC seems to have the right coverage here:
“Giant knickers put out house fire”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7167549.stm
Looks like man-made global warming theory is melting away faster than you can say Al Gore. A lot of reputations are now going to disappear along with it: all those who were part of the famous ‘consensus’ (not). Those people should never be taken seriously again.
It’s over, guys. Reason, truth and real science are fighting back.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/413976/good-news-earth-not-flat.thtml
“It’s over, guys. Reason, truth and real science are fighting back.”
It’s not over until the last cheque has been cashed.
It’s 8:09 on the 3rd January and I’ve been up for about an hour drinking coffee and wouldn’t you know it – it’s white over.
Quick, burn some fossil fuels! Shoot some polar bears! We need to maintain this arbitrary equilibrium (on this 4.5 billion year-old planet whose climate has yo-yo’d(?) all over the place since its formation and been through at least 4 major ice ages) at all costs!
In the mean time, maybe some of you First Church of Environmentologists can come and shovel the snow off my drive if it gets a lot deeper, and I can point and laugh.
Enjoy the snow everyone if you’ve got it. It won’t be before long before they make it illegal because it’s politically incorrect (unrepresentative of Modern Britain), with the People’s Glorious Revolutionary Broadcasting Service leading the initiative.
Councillors in Kent have backed plans to build Britain’s first coal-fired power station in more than 20 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=2EHYDLV3N55Q3QFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/03/ncoal103.xml
Brilliant!
Today’s Toady gave a free ride to the bloke from the First Church of Environmentologists on the Kent coal-fired power station. Would it have been too much for the Montaquinn to ask him what his alternative would be? Reliance on Russian gas?
He also got a free ride when he rubbished the idea of carbon capture as being unproven technology. She might have pointed out that windmill technology is demonstrably inefficient, and needs the back-up of carbon-burning or nuclear generation providing the base load. But she didn’t.
Let us pray…..
Lurker in a Burqua | 02.01.08 – 9:58 pm | #
Melanie Phillips, the oracle, has spoken
Thanks for the link Lurker,it’s got some GREAT posts.
Hello! Hello! Dr Gregory, are you there?
You have dismissed earlier comments from skeptics and maintained the party line. Do you have any tiny doubts now?
And, to any ‘scientists’ reading, do be more careful of these dire, alarmist warnings. MMGW, ozone layer, Millenium bug etc etc. One day there will be something real and we won’t believe that a wolf is near.
Happy New Year all. I rarely post but I don’t miss a comment. Thank you.
Blimey, is Mel Phillips still alive? Surely it’s odds on that she’d have been butchered by one of those ten a penny evil Muslim fundamentalists/depraved yoof of today that she so tirelessly warns us about by now….
Anyway, most interesting article I’ve seen on the climate change front recently was those ‘circuit board’ solar energy panel things that you can basically slap anywhere which represent the germ of a triumph of a privately funded technology based solution which has always represented the best path between the ‘destroy the economy or we’re dooooomed’ and the ‘don’t worry, Mel P says it’ll be fine’ camps. No coverage on the beeb though??
The fact is these windmills can’t be relied upon. Some leftie vegetable eater “claimed” the wind always blows out at sea. DUH! Can we have some scientific backup for that claim?
The other issue is energy storage. It’s very difficult to store engery for use later on. Any storage method usually involves a significant loss of energy in the conversion process (such as the water store method)
The reality is the veggie eaters actually want us to go back to a time when we didn’t have electricity and just sat around collecting fruit and weave baskets.
I’m no fan of the nuclear option either (and have spent some time working at a nuclear power station, which I hated every minute of)
The best option is to reduce the need ofr power in the first place. How? By cutting the population.
I still don’t understnad why the vegetable eaters don’t suggest this? Could it be that witohut more thick students the green brigade would lose any influence?
Not only that but I’m fed up of the pillocks from the greens getting so much airtime when they have NO political mandate in Parliament.
Not a single green MP has ever been elected to Parliament. We’re more likely to get a BNP MP before a green one.
And as usual the lefties get their knickers in a twist over ONE coal power station in the UK, yet in China they build several a month and there is not a murmour. Why not?
Windmills are not the solution, but they are part of the solution – we do live in a windy island and the wind is free and British, even though the technology to harness it certainly isn’t free.
Whereas a sunny island we are not, and solar panels must be a less reliable not more reliable part of the mix.
The thing is that notion it has to be a mix (wind, coal, nuclear, wave) appears unaccepted by the BBC.
However the BBC do appear to accept that things do have to change, we have no choice but to dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels (not necessarily for the right reasons).
This is not for some fanciful global warming idea, but because of the finite nature of fossil fuels, the fact that the UK is fast running out of its own (with the noteable exception of coal), and the long term danger to the UK of relying upon quite possibly hostile countries for all our fuel in the future (Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia).
Of course if it were MMGW then it would be the world one has to look at and the BBC would be up in arms about the Chinese building scores of fossil fuel power stations every year, but they are strangely quiet, so it can’t be that can it…
“The best option is to reduce the need ofr power in the first place. How? By cutting the population.
I still don’t understnad why the vegetable eaters don’t suggest this? Could it be that witohut more thick students the green brigade would lose any influence?”
The reason is simple,the greenies could not survive without the infrastructure that a technological society provides.The greeny new world would be a new dark age with warlords who control resources and territory,the greenies would be slaves,or at best feudal serfs. Those that are free would have to spend most of their time foraging for food and keeping warm.
The Tookies,not the Monbiots are going to rule any future dystopian society.
Peter: But is this not yet another leftie double standard. They hate technology, such as the aeroplane, but happily make use of it themseles for their so called “noble causes” like chasing half way across the world to Bali for example?
We are a tiny island. With a population due to hit 80-90 million by 2020 (that’s another 20-30 million on our exisitng population) our energy gap will grow.
All of these new immigrants into the UK needs a house, a car a job, a hospital and a school. All of these require energy and emit CO2.
Only a total moron (such as those working at the BBC or the Independent) thinks that we can reduce CO2 emissions with such a massive rise in population.
Of course the reality is the Greens don’t actually care. They want to destroy western society. They have this obsession that humans are killing the planet and therefore something must be done.
OK. So why not poision the whole human race? Then the Earth will happily orbit the sun for the next 4.5 billion years and the Greens can all die knowing they’ve saved the Earth.
englishidle: I am indeed here. And in fact will be touching on this very issue tomorrow. I’ve even been talking to Dr Whitehouse about it. I hear the Hadley Centre’s next batch of data will once again confirm this plateau. Interesting times. I wouldn’t say global warming if “over” though… much as I respect Dr Whitehouse’s opinion!
As for the opinions of Ms Phillips, well the less said the better.
Lurker in a Burqua | 03.01.08 – 9:44 am |
“Councillors in Kent have backed plans to build Britain’s first coal-fired power station in more than 20 years.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/…03/ ncoal103.xml
Brilliant!
I like how the BBC article let Greenpeace’s lie and the Green Party’s obfuscation get top billing over Midway Council’s statement of reality.
Balance, I guess. But objections from two different sources, versus the lone voice of the committee chair does seem rather unbalanced to me. Not to mention the fact that the Green Party MEP (always good for local issues, oh yeah) is spouting doubletalk – “Just cos it’s more efficient doesn’t really mean it’s more efficient cos that’s too easy.” And Greenpeace is apparently telling us that reducing emissions and increasing efficiency is…um…against government policy on reducing emissions and increasing efficiency.
Oh, wait. It’s from a wire service and not written by the BBC at all. No problem, then. Since the 130-odd BBC website sub-editors and copy writers just copy and paste reports from wire services and other media without editing, there’s nothing for me to worry about.
As for the opinions of Ms Phillips, well the less said the better.
David Gregory (BBC) | 03.01.08 – 4:54 pm | #
—
As for the ‘facts’ peddled by the BBC, the less said, the better.
David P:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7169105.stm
Erm, you forgot to mention the hefty contribution from EOn themselves….
Martin,
Hypocrites indeed,look at the “carbon footprint” of any rock star.
The greenies will accept the privations of the New Dark Age with fortitude and equanimity.They will watch their wives die in childbirth,perhaps even die toothless in their forties.Burying children will return to levels normal in these societies.If they are lucky and there are no epidemics they will survive the winter on the produce they have stored,providing the harvest has been good.
Diseases such as typhus,long forgotten,will aid the inclement weather in these Northern latitudes will keep populations down.
Eventually,they will have to burn the sacred trees to keep warm and cook food.
I’ve just watched some BBC News 24 nonsense about climate change yet again. However, is there more evidence that the loony leftie scientists and vegetable easters are telling porkies?
Read this link from the BBC from Jan07. Note the comments about El Nino already having a knock on effect on temperature rise for 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stm
Here is a key quote
“..This year’s potential to be a record breaker is linked to a moderate strength El Nino already established in the Pacific Ocean.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that it was expected to continue into the first quarter of this year, which would have a knock-on effect…”
Now check out link 2. Here the SAME bunch of lefties almost ignore El Nino as a contributor to the global temperature of 2007 but of course they were at the Bali conference where presumably no dissent from the man made climate change crap was allowed?
Here is a key quote.
“The year began with a weak El Nino… and global temperatures well above the long-term average,” said Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA)..”
If in Jan 07 they were saying the mild El Nino efect would contribute to global temperatures, how come a few months later it has been erased from history when the scientists themselves said that there would be a four month delay in the effects of El Nino?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7142694.stm
Martin
This might explain what happened
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html
David Gregory: According to the Jan 07 article El Nino was already deemed as moderate. Are they suggesting that the effect of El Nino simply went away? This was NOT a prediction, it was given as a statment of fact. They did not say “we predict a modeate El Nino) it was already observed as being moderate.
The real truth is a lefty orgainsation funded by Nu Labour fiddled the data.
Oh and the prat from the Met office came out with the already proven lie that most of the warmest years have been over the last 13 years. This has already been shown as a lie, but NOT reported by the BBC.
Here is the link
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Martin: You are confusing US temperature records with global ones, and indeed those for the UK
Hee is a nice link for hose not sold by the corrupt BBC and it’s backisde licking of Greens and Nu Labour on climate change.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Martin: I WAS reported by the BBC too. Even made the Today programme. Time for the FAQ
David Gregory (BBC) | 03.01.08 – 5:25 pm |
Erm, you forgot to mention the hefty contribution from EOn themselves….
Not only that, but I was completely wrong to comment in the first place. I was apparently complaining about crap run in the Telegraph, and not on the BBC website (and I somehow didn’t copy the link correctly). My apologies. I was still seeing BBC-banner red from other things, and mixed it up. John Reith can duly chastise me for poor reading comprehension and bringing pre-conceived notions to the table.
However, the BBC article you linked to is still heavily weighted towards anti-coal comments, isn’t it? Further, E.ON was only allowed one quote with actual figures in their defense, when two anti-coal sources both got to quote figures out of context, unchallenged. In fact, this BBC article is even more unbalanced than the one I was complaining about in the first place. Both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth get to call E.ON names.
I say the anti-coal figures are out of context for a reason. When Greenpeace says that the new plant will emit 8.4 million tonnes of C02 every year, that sounds ominous on its own. But 8.4m compared to what? Isn’t that going to be 2 million less than what is going on currently? So why let the 8.4 hang over our heads like smoke from a nasty coal stack? Seems rather misleading.
Friends of the Earth says this new plant will go against the European targets of producing 20% of energy from renewable sources. Besides this being another poor example of British citizens being forced to obey rules from foreign government bodies (the UK government agreed to it in practice, sadly), but what about the sovereign UK Government’s policy of reducing emissions in the first place? The new plant will surely help there. But it looks like European policy is more important than domestic needs. Even more bias than appears on the surface, then.
Aside from all that, it must have taken some effort to find a pro-coal HYS comment. One that still manages to take a swipe at nasty nuclear, of course.
I know a couple of people who would potentially be getting their power from this station if it gets built. I would hate to see them deprived of a newer, cleaner power source because of unfair articles like this one educating people against it.
Shock horror.It’s January and it is SNOWING in Winter.
yes i know its snowing but imagine what it would be like without the dangerous efects of man induced global warming. Britain would be frozen solid and we would have to abondon the island to polar bears (if theres any left)
David P: Fair enough. Biased-Telegraph anyone?
“Martin: I WAS reported by the BBC too. Even made the Today programme. ”
Fo deviationism Greggers,conversing with the unbeeb?
David Gregory (BBC):
David P: Fair enough. Biased-Telegraph anyone?
Sure, but the BBC article is actually worse, and in more ways.
David P: *sigh* Of course it is.
Peter: Erm, no idea what you are talking about old chap.
Mr Anon,
We are trying to link the encroachment o cro-magnon persons to the damage done to the sacred ice sheet by the indiscriminate flint knapping.
Our computer models have shown,beyond any doubt,that,contrary to revisionist history,that the movement of peoples preceded the retreat of the ice sheets.
The debate is over.
You gotta love Schukman. On the 6PM news normal service has been resumed on climate change.
Firstly Schukman “claimed” that the storm surge we had earlier on this year was all down to climate change. This is rubbish. A large part of that is caused by the action of the Moon and tidal action (not mentioned by the prat).
Schukman then claimed that the flooding we had was the worst in living memory. Well firstly it didn’t flood in most of the Country. Secondly, most of the flooding had nothing to do with climate change but the fact this corrupt Government has failed to invest in new drains and has gone on a mad house building scheme (to accomodate the millions of new immigrants)so water is no longer absorbed into the ground.
The floodng back in the 1950’s was far worse and killed a large number of people. This flooding did not.
Schukman also then claimed that “global warming” still means we will get cold weather, just less of it. DUH! Just tell America that, have they not seen Iowa? The USA has been in the middle of a deep freeze for weeks. Global warming? Bollocks.
He then came out with the usual crap about the warmest years blah blah blah. Will he shut up about that? In fact 2007 was cooler than 2006.
No Greggers you wouldn’t.
Peter: Bless.
Bless you also my child.
Peter: ZZzzzzzing!
David Gregory,
Sorry, I thought your ‘Fair Enough’ was just referring to my admission of stupidity, not my comments on the BBC article. I guess it was both?
David Preiser (USA) You guess wrong. Though I did enjoy actually watching you go through the process of proving the BBC is as “biased” as the Telegraph.
Look into my eyes, not around my eyes
David Gregory (BBC),
It’s my own fault, and I accept all laughing and pointing. Although technically I proved that the Telegraph is just as lazy as the BBC for thoughtlessly copying and pasting, not necessarily biased in the same way. That’s always the danger for all media outlets when they do these kind of regurgitative wire service feeds, I know.
But thanks anyways for the opportunity to redeem myself.
“People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”, Jeremy Paxman, Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007.
‘struth,that’s inconvenient. The curse of Algore strikes again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7169690.stm
I know you mentioned earlier with some glee how the US figures which were proved to be wrong, were just the US figures
– so where did you get your Global figures and doesn’t anyone at the BBC think to check that if the US figures are wrong, then maybe so are the other figures?
– or would that be too much like hard work, and not the cut n paste of press releases that reporters like to do these days?
By the way, well done for getting a mention in the new york times!