Have to love the BBC’s latest advocacy on behalf of the global warming alarmists Here’s the catchy entirely non-biased and accurate headline summary ” The idea that the Earth’s climate is determined by cosmic rays and the Sun’s activity is discredited by UK scientists.” Really? I don’t think so! What would have been honest and accurate would have been for the BBC to report that a small group of Lancaster University scientists have released research which leads them to believe that solar rays do not have a significant impact of Earth’s climate. The headline implies something definitive, so echoing the Al Gore “The debate is over” mantra. The BBC seems oddly reluctant to report other research which concludes that solar activity IS a primary driver of climate change but then again that does not fit in with the narrative which the BBC seeks to impose upon the general public. The way I see it there is much to debate on this hop topic which is why this kind of one-sided reporting is so repellent.
THE SUN HAS GOT HIS HAT ON.
Bookmark the permalink.
Where to start with this article?
The headline bears little relation to what these scientists concluded from the evidence obtained.
There is opposing opinion represented.
As far as the science goes, 20 years is the blink of an eye in climatological terms.
The scientists assume that because solar activity has diminished and temperature hasn’t the two must be linked; as if that is the only other factor that can affect temperature besides AGW.
I dispute the conclusion reached about global average temperatures rising as they have never matched their 20 year peak in 1998 Global average temperatures (1934 being the hottest over the century). The harsh winters seen in many parts of the world recently further weakens their argument.
Anyone tried to follow the links to the right of the BBC article – they all seem to be FUBAR.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
Here is a link to the report. The report makes it clear that THERE IS A LINK. Their argument is that the rapid rise since 1985 cannot be explained by this alone and that it’s effects are not strong enough to cause such a rapid change.
Click to access rspa20071880.pdf
However, they don’t explain why climate temperature started rising from around 1800 onwards. How can that be caused by human activity?
There is more to climate change than just the activity of the Sun. The Earth has a complicated climate. The activity of the Sun, the activity of the winds, the gulf stream for example, volcanic activity and yes even us to an extent will have an effect.
Where I disagree with the leftie bean eaters is that humans alone are respobsible for the change in climate.
WE are not. In the Greens want to make a REAL change then cut the population of the planet.
Penalise people for having children, make it as socially unacceptable to breed as it is to drink drive.
In 1800, no cars, no power stations, no jet planes, most ships sail powered and most of the planet still agricultural and a population on the Earth of about 500 million.
The BBC ignores these facts and they just put their own spin on the whole thing.
This article really lays bare the eco-madness that infects the BBC. For starters, what a headline: “‘No sun link’ to climate change”. Well, I’m not a scientist, but I have noticed things get a bit warmer most summers in the British climate. Must be to do with those plastic bags I throw away every spring. As other commentators have noted, the insistent “very”s somewhat undermine the pretence of scientific rigour, as does the researcher’s “We started on this game because of Svensmark’s work”! (Is “game” a new scientific term I wonder?). As to “The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate “sceptics”” – well, as the BBC never remotely entertains a scientific position other than the Green orthodoxy, I wonder how it expects its viewers to even know such heretics exist! Where, for example, was the BBC on March 4 when ‘The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change’ was signed in New York?
The BBC along with other so called MSM have been upping the rhetoric and propaganda to insane and vindictive levels recently as the AGW theory becomes discredited by scientists! The BBC have in the past tried to blend propaganda with truth in a subtle almost unnoticed way but as the tuth about natural climate variation has come out they first tried to hide it and ignore it but they reckoned without the internet and its wonderful uncensored and free exchange of information! Every time the BBC post a propaganda lie about climate change they are swamped under an avelanche of posts by ordinary people who expose the lies and mis information and manipulation! OH DEAR! This web thing is truly the mortal enemy of a corrupt and lying media isnt it?
And yet the BBC still try to peddle their lies to the public almost as though they still cannot quite believe that the viewers just are not swallowing the BBC bullshit anymore! If the BBC reads this, You are dishonest, lying, manipulating and hiding the truth, I know it ,you know it and soon you will be found out and brought to book!
THE BBC: WE LIE AND WE CHEAT AND WE HIDE THE FACTS AND WE EXAGERATE AND DISSEMBLE AND THEN WE COUNT OUR MASSIVE SALARIES AND PENSIONS HAVE A LAUGH ABOUT IT AND THEN WE LIE AND CHEAT SOME MORE!
ITS WHAT WE DO AND WE JUST CANT HELP OURSELVES!
The BBC’s usual grasp of science is shown in this article. Also, the article follows the usual BBC ‘news’ convention of omitting any opposing opinion in cases where the BBC ‘knows’ that all opposing opinion is incorrect. And all opposing opinions are incorrect on climate change, multiculturalism, the EU and all other BBC hobbyhorses.
The BBC just ‘happen to find evidence’ that supports their crooked prejudices?
Zanu PF just ‘happens to find a few extra ballot boxes’ filled with Zanu PF votes?
What is the difference between the two examples of dishonest and crooked practice?
Both organisations are corrupt and both are serial liars and propagandists who are blind to the truth and serve only their own political self interest! Robert Mugabe banned the BBC because a crooked liar can always tell another crooked liar when they sees one!
The other week I read a magazine article by Tony Bright-Paul about climate change. I reproduce part of it.
“The causes of these temperature variations is not completely known, but we do know what is called the Milankovitch effect, when the earth’s orbit changeds from almost circular to extreme ellipse round the sun (the tilt changes from 21.8 degrees to 24.4 degrees and the date of the equinox varies), so when we get nearer the sun, we get warmer. This not rocket science – everyone knows that they get warm when the sun shines.
As the earth warms up, the oceans (the major source of CO2) get warmer, sending streams of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Mr Al Gore perhaps conveniently failed to notice that the temperature rises before the CO2.”
The fact that for the past 10 years the *latest* information is that the Earth’s temperature has plateaued, despite rising CO2, coupled with falling Sun activity, is also omitted. How strange!
If the Al-Green-Beeb are so keen on *latest* information why not report the temperature curve of the past 10 years?
The bias continues.
Links to read:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
and,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
they completely miss the point – cosmic ray theory states that sub atomic particles can cause the development of clouds. and cosmic rays not only come from the sun -they also come from the stars in the sky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Role_in_climate_change
this is a completely different theory to the “variable sun” one – where the sun’s actual heat output varies over time.
” Cassandra | 03.04.08 – 3:17 pm”
i also wonder about that. are we really getting the truthful picture of Zimbabwe.
sure , Mugabe is a thug, and Zimbabwe is a hellhole – but its not exactly North Korea, is it?
The comments above about the orbit of the planet are spot on.
How do the greenies explain the imin ice age that we had a few hundred years ago?
Was that man made?
The left love Mugabe.
Terry Sloan seems a pretty poor kind of scientist. This is a hack propaganda piece through and through.
He is trying to prove something that the Solar theory DOESN’T claim. The Solar theory puts the emphasis on the cloud seeding properties of (near) light speed Cosmic rays from distant star formations and super novae in the galactic arms, and proposes that past ice-ages are related to the Solar systems orbit around the Galaxy and proximity to these Cosmic ray emitters.
The Sun actually deflects these deep space rays when it “throws out a huge burst of charged particles”. And therefore we have less clouds during an active Sun (the theory claims).
So when Terry Sloan says:
“For example; sometimes the Sun ‘burps’ – it throws out a huge burst of charged particles,” he explained to BBC News.
“So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing.”
He is totally wrong about what the theory claims. And it doesn’t look like he has been quoted incorrectly.
Even if the Solar Theory is bunkum you really should try disprove what it actually claims rather than discussing it over coffee with your fellow activists and running a few Excel algorithms. Even a cursory glance at the theory would have informed him that the theory postulates (and shows experimental proofs) that the activity of the lower speed Cosmic rays emitted from the Sun do not penetrate to the Cloud seeding levels in the same way as deep space Cosmic rays.
I fully sympathise with the exasperation from Dr Svensmark when he says:
“Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds”
It seems abundantly clear that no one in the BBC understands how Science works either.
BTW I should have said “He is trying to disprove something that the Solar theory DOESN’T claim”
More bollocks from Roger Habbabin. On BBC 10PM news they did an article on how the climate has “cooled”. BUT! fear not for Roger Harrabin said it was a one off (how does he know) and that the cooling (which only took place in the Pacific by the way, so that’s why the BBC failed to mention all the snow that the USA and Canada has had this year!!!) oh and the snow covered slopes of central europe!!! Oh and the snow and ice in the Artic. No mention of that in that dipsticks report.
Harrabin spun his usual shit claims that “most of the worlds scientists believe in climate change” how the F**K does he know? Has he counted them all?
What he means are the left wing politicians that mince around at the UN and call themselves the IPCC.
On the BBC they managed to make yet another reference to 1998. When will they give up on this one freak year?
Oh and on the “BBC” graph they showed climate temperates for the last 50 years or so only, yet talked about change for the last 100 years. But the graph didn’t go back 100 years. Why not? Could it be because climate temperatures didn’t change much and tha they are simply trying to make things look worse than they really are?
Yes, climate warming has ended and twats like Harrabin have got to start eating their own words.
Interesting that on Talksport right now James Whale is talking to Philip Stott who is a global warming sceptic.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Stott#Global_warming
i came across a temperature station kml layer for google earth the other day. data goes back to the 1800s… with thousands of temp stations in the USA.
it was notable that the color coded RED stations that showed the highest level of upswing in temperature were pretty much all in the midst of suburban sprawl..
doesnt take a genius to figure out whats going on here.
“how do you like your fried eggs? asphalt cooked or wal-mart car park fried?”
regarding climate change, the bbc has shiney new website.
http://www.bbcgreen.com/
if one filters such a site through my handheld Carl Sagan “baloney detection kit” filter, the output that i am getting is
“EPIC FAIL”
might as well just have a website for scientology.
Martin,
Great post! Now if we can just get the BBC to listen and learn????
I am trying to imagine a group of BBC journalists(political agitators) sitting round a table with their lattes doing their level best to find and then spin any information that comes their way to support their political prejudices.
there seems to be three main priorities in making an enviromental story:
a)How does this information support our political beliefs/party line?
b)How can we spin this information to give the appearance of supporting our political beliefs/party line?
c)How can we smear and demean the scientists who dare to oppose our political beliefs/party line?
The sory outline is then passed to an expert media propagandist/censor/political agitator who has been trained in the art of marxist style media subversion techniques and they manipulate the story further and hey presto! You have a story that would make Hitler or Stalin blush with pride!
I just emailed the Editor at BBC Green. What a load of old tosh!
I’ve given the Terry Sloan report a read.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=50485053.1/1748-9326/3/2/024001/erl8_2_024001.pdf?request-id=dc8477d8-95b7-4f41-8d3c-66ad69a3f659
The quote about Solar bursts and cloud cover relate to short term effects AFTER the cosmic rays increase, so it does seem that Sloan understands the basic principals of the Solar theory. The “burst” quote attributed to him though is just misleading and sloppy (because of journalism or Sloan I know not)
However even within my limited ability it still seems clear Sloan cannot deny a strong correlation between Solar activity and low Cloud Cover, but makes the claim that he has disproved Svensmarks theory of an ionisation cause. At this point, if the item is really interested in the actual science, it would have been interesting to give Svensmark a chance to give a detailed response, but we know that is not the purpose of the piece.
However,as far as I can see, this short Excel spreadsheet run by Sloan and his partner and has nothing to say about temperature correlations.
So why the additional activist comments:
“The IPCC has got it right, so we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions”
And I really take issue with the claim that
“[Svensmark] has no reason to challenge the IPCC – the IPCC has got it right.
Does he think he has booked his way into Gaia heaven now? The IPCC really is beginning to be a new kind of unassailable Priesthood and we are finding acolytes eager to please it like Sloan. And of course the BBC.
Interested Party,
Great post! Its fantastic that people like you are coming out and taking issue with the lies and manipulations that come out of the BBC.
Keep up the good work.
Cassandra
Thanks for your appreciation I have a bit of a focus on the current phenomenon of climate change hysteria, and the BBC have a habit of leading the pack with their well timed media propaganda releases. The fact that the UK has a reputation of being a little bit more unhinged on the subject is largely down to the Beebs help.
Here’s a bit more background on this latest and previous attempts by the BBC to help shout down the Solar theory, it’s beginning to make me think there might something in this theory after all 😉
http://junkscience.com/blog_js/2008/04/03/here-we-go-again/
IntersetedParty,
Visit http://www.antigreen.blogspot.com for a comprehensive trashing by real scientists of the BBC lies and propaganda and its retarded reporters Messrs Harrin and Black!
These real scientists are very annoyed(and you know how hard it is to annoy a scientist) at the BBCs complete lack of balance and its complete lack of journalistic integrity.
The truth has been frozen out by the BBC and to be honest most of the MSM including CNN etc.
Nigel Lawson (Lord Lawson) related on BBC 1 Andrew Marr Show this morning, how difficult it was for him to find a publisher for his new book which is critical of the mantra of man-made global warming:-
“Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a ‘new age of unreason'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/06/ealawson106.xml&page=1