Interesting article here in the Guardian of all places suggesting that recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. (I’m not sure anyone says global warming does not exist, some of us query the factors driving it!) The reason I bring this up is that I just watched part of the new David Attenborough series “Nature’s Great Events” on BBC1 and was struck by his constant evangelising on behalf of AGW. Anyone else see it? Great imagery but lots of scaremongery!

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Gerald Brown says:


    And the answer to part 2 of my message is….No?


  2. Cassandra says:

    Start counting the days folks, how many days will pass before the BBC acknowledges that the arsonists might be Islamists waging a ‘fire Jihad’ against Australia?
    The BBC already highly selective as to the underlying cause of the intense blazes will hold back from publicising a photofit of one of the suspected arsonists, from front page spreads to a small set of highly edited stories the BBC website is coy to say the least.
    The BBC agenda and narrative is threatened by the Australian fires, the causes may well be very uncomfortable for the BBC to take in, so many things the BBC will have to keep secret, so many facts the BBC will have to ignore or downplay.
    If it turns out that Islamists started the blazes that killed hundreds and the greens played a large part in the horror by their utterly callous and shortsighted behaviour in opposing back burning and fire breaks it means that the BBC will have to admit some truths that will shake them to their shoes and shatter their well crafted news filtering efforts.
    The BBC website is carrying a deflection story about the lack of a warning system yet they are wilfully ignoring the other more pertinent stories emerging which can only mean that they are engaged in news censoring.


  3. mikewineliberal says:

    And the answer to part 2 of my message is….No?
    Gerald Brown | 12.02.09 – 5:17 pm

    I loathe all that ethical living balls. Don’t mistake me for a green!


  4. GCooper says:

    MWL trills: “I’m am pretty well read on the debate about AGW. I was reading Prof Stott’s website years ago (is it still going?), and Simon Hoggart before that, who is a long time sceptic…”

    That would be Simon Hoggart the noted climatologist, would it?

    If that is neant to be indicative of your being ‘pretty well read’ I would suggest it betrays an alarming degree of complacency.

    If you want to lay claim any sort of familiarity with the debate, I suggest you start with http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

    as a day to day clearing house and





    If you don’t read sites like these on a regular basis and rely, instead, on the Attenboroughs of this world, plus half-remembered snippets from Prof Stott and a former Guardian columnist, then you know nothing at all about the current state of the debate.

    Which would explain a lot.


  5. Martin says:

    Nice to see someone shut that prat on QT by pointing out many of the fires in Australia were man made!!!


  6. Cockney says:

    GCooper – you can find any view on the web, no matter how ridiculous, not that the skeptic views are ridiculous (except those driven purely by the fact that something doesn’t fit with ones’ wider political ideology and therefore “must” be wrong irrespective of the scientific arguments).

    Your pointers are a worthwhile read and “educational” but not necessarily convincing. The majority scientific opinion (not “consensus” mind) is that MM climate change is a very significant risk (not necessarily a “fact” mind). Chucking out web addresses doesn’t alter that.


  7. JohnA says:


    I have seen no evidence that the majority of CLIMATE scientists go along with the GW tosh.


  8. caveman says:

    People who should know better and who have the intelectual capacity to dig up the truth are simply not doing it, its so frustrating to watch!
    Cassandra | 12.02.09 – 12:28 pm |

    This is one issue that is not frustrating for me to watch, as I enjoy watching the AGW case gradually and satisfyingly collapse in front of our eyes.

    The only way the exposure of the scam could go wrong now is if one of the following happens:

    1) the CO2 output of the whole planet falls, including that from India and China, and the ECO-loons claim the current cooling of the earth is due to less C02. The small matter of the cooling starting first will have to be dealt with. But there will be plenty of grants for the graph designers to sort that one out.

    2) The earth starts a natural warming phase. This is what the ECO-loons were hoping for all along, and they must be very cross with the planet for doing the wrong thing.