Well, hello, hello, hello. Simply incredible the certainty with which the BBC report the findings of one group of UK scientists on the sun-spots – warming link alleged link. Keep in mind the following is just the link descriptor, which is the first thing a viewer reads before clicking to read the article itself:
“The idea that the Earth’s climate is determined by cosmic rays and the Sun’s activity is discredited by UK scientists.”
Note the subtle avoidance of saying “disproved” by using something perhaps stronger- the great argument of all man-centred warmists, ridicule. Damn, those crazy sun-spotters are so past-tense they’re already finished- discredited no less.
But anyway, to proceed to the article, which begins in highly suggestive terms:
“Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity.”
Well I always thought that outside of opinion pieces a journalist was supposed to source subjective judgements like “compelling”, but maybe that’s a quibble.
But then, I’d quibble with the following statement too:
“This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.”
At the very least under very heavy pressure. Heavy stuff indeed. Yet which is it that was pressurizing the cosmic ray theory (hardly rocket science anyway)? Is it the implied series of pieces of evidence which preceded “the latest”, or is it “the latest”? It’s not clear to me, and do you know, I don’t think it’s supposed to be.
Bottom line (literally): …”we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions”.
So not a bit politicised at the BBC, is it?
Is it my imagination or is it really only the BBC that is still banging on this MMGW drum? It seems many of the other media outlets are quietly backing away from this theory. Personally I believe that most of the media have realised the science is actually quite contentious and it would be ill advised to put ones reputational eggs in the one dubious basket.
The BBC ‘story’ is wrong plain wrong!
The sun provides 100% of our heat and light and is the prime mover in climate and weather.
If there were no sun there would be no life, no atmoshere, no oxygen, no photosynthesis, no clouds, no plant life, no animal life and in effect our world would be as dead as the moon!
What the BBC should have said if it were honest….
Scientists have found evidence that solar cyclic output variation has little to do with climate change!
Now I do not believe the above BUT that is what the BBC should have reported ie THE TRUTH! The BBC dont need to lie and manipulate scientific evidence do they? This is not the USSR, this is not North Korea is it? I truly think that this is real evidence of BBC active bias and I hope they are brought to book!
The BBC manipulate news because they are in their way, as fanatical as plane bombers. The BBC religion is the left-liberal agenda, with a good dash of green. They don’t CARE that their actions harm the BBC, any more than the plane bombers care their actions would harm that other religion. If specific cases are quoted, they tell us we are too stupid to really understand – rather like we can’t understand the koran. The BBC is trailing an opus dei documentary, “They are a religeous sect, aren’t they?” BBC, look in the mirror!
They really think that the sun does not affect our climate – not even a teensy weensy bit? What happens when the sun goes down of an evening – it starts to get chilly and we reach for our fleeces. What happens during summer months in the northern hemisphere when the sun’s position changes – it gets a bit warmer.
There is a correlation between years of enhanced solar activity (heightened sunspot numbers) and the severity of weather systems in the northern hemisphere though no one yet understands what the connection is.
Andy,
No one(in the MSM) WANTS to understand what the connection is because their flimsy house of cards would come crashing down!
Cassandra, Andy,
I think climate scientists may have grasped that the sun is hot and heats the earth.
PAATOOC,
OH is that right? Well I never!
Scientists have grasped it PAATOOC but the BBC have not! The BBC has got hold of information and twisted it, maniulated it and perverted it to fit its narrow prejudice.
Can you point to ONE article or report that the BBC has highlighted that goes against its narrow and partisan view on climate change?
Hmmmm? not one? because there isnt one is there?
Typical PAATOOC/BBC trick of twisting the report to fit your kneejerk prejudice.
MUST DO BETTER.
“Can you point to ONE article or report that the BBC has highlighted that goes against its narrow and partisan view on climate change?”
Well yes. There’s one today, as it happens.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
“Hmmmm? not one? because there isnt one is there?”
I think you’re under the impression there was time for me to answer in the middle of your comment.
“Typical PAATOOC/BBC trick of twisting the report to fit your kneejerk prejudice.”
Yes, it must have been my kneejerk prejudice that meant I failed to answer your question in the middle of the comment.
PAATOOC,
The BBC link that you supplied was a self justifying way of implying that the BBC line on climate change is still correct and a way to discredit the skeptics views.
If all you can come up with is a BBC attack on the skeptics and a self justifying report that even though the evidence points to a cooling the BBC pro global warming line is correct because its only temporary!
I asked if you could point to a BBC report that does not fit its narrow prejudice and obviously you could not! My request still stands though and if you can point to a real example of a BBC report that contradicts the BBC party line on climate change I will be very surprised, very very surprised!
The troubling and worrying thing is that you may actualy think that the BBC report is unbiased, neutral and does not try to discredit the skeptics and also does not try to reinforce its own failing theories!
There are two aspects to the “sun influences climate change line”. One is the long-term impact of changes in the sun, which is shown by the sunspot cycle (low at the moment, leading to cold, say some.) The other is that cosmic rays influence clouds, but they are deflected by the sun at different times, thereby influencing climate. This latter theory (about which I was dubious anyway) is challenged in the current report. The headline, though, says the sun has no influence. And therein is the bias.