The extent of the BBC’s faith in the global warming mantra was in evidence today as they worked up an articleto claim that- contrary to all the actual trendlines of temperatures in existence- we are facing a greater threat from climate change than so far believed.
It really feels like a flame-war between blogs- the more the BBC find their tendentious theory challenged by reality and by the people who inconvenientlly notice it, the more they ramp-up the rhetoric.
Well, this is perhaps not totally fair to them- but earlier this week there was a report released by the Met Office and covered by the Guardianwhich criticised global warming exaggeration. I didn’t hear anything about it on the BBC, and couldn’t find reference to it on the BBC website- showing perhaps that the BBC are not afraid to diverge from their climate mentors when a sacred cow is threatened. Yet when one scientist squeals that global warming is underestimated, it adorns the Sunday morning frontpage of the BBC website.
As the excellent Wattsupwiththat? website says, the BBC misreported the issue raised and misrepresented the qualifications of the scientist featured. Ignorance and bias going hand in hand, unsurprisingly.
Aaaah the BBC ‘science’ reports, they keep on coming and they are getting sloppier by the day, desperate and highly spun, these reports can be so easily debunked now by normal onlookers its a joke!
I would love to be a fly on the wall at the BBC ‘science’ editorial meetings, can you imagine the crazy back and forth between Black/Horrabin and the political commissars?
If the BBC are so commited to evangalize for the AGW religion that they dont care about their ever fading reputation then they are commiting corporate suicide and we all should assist them by sending in stories about the coming ‘judgement day’ where we all burn in the hellfires of damnation and CO2.
This was the second item on radio 2 news this morning!
– Reposted from the general thread –
Just watched the BBC1’s breathless news report about how global warming has been underestimated.
A few flaws.
1. Professor Chris Field “an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change” is not an expert on climate he is a biologist.
2. The beeb’s attempt to explain the problem “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback….” reveals that the BBC don’t know the first thing about climate either.
3. The report is predicated on the idea of positive feedback caused by increased global temperature since the IPCC IV report was written. The lack of that temperature increase in the real world leaves Auntie with a slight reality deficit.
A clearer example of wilful ignorance and agenda driven reporting would be hard to find even at the BBC.
Anyone who still believes in Glabal Warming should have spent this winter in Northern Scotland.
Anyone who still believes in Glabal Warming should have spent this winter in Northern Scotland….
or Southern England!!!!
The BBC aren’t really biased in favour of environmental causes – in the past week or two they’ve done a report in the 10pm news about the cost (and pointlessness) of recycling, and I’ve seen 2 shows on BBC 2 (one was ‘explore’ on sunday nights) about how glaciers in argentina weren’t melting much at all.
No one takes the BBC’s news service seriously any more. We just need to stop the 3.5 billion a year freebie.
Gus- an interesting programme I am sure devoted to something that isn’t happening (melting of Argentina’s glaciers). Since when was non-news considered news? Are you sure they weren’t trying to explain away the phenomenon to preserve the purity of their theory?
maybe, just maybe, they were reporting both sides of a story.
thats an alien concept to a lot of people who post here, but try and consider it.
Gus Haynes: Recycling has nothing to do with the environment. What planet are you from?
The truth is climate change is for real and there is bugger all we can do about it.
Why don’t you ask your mates at the BBC if they are going to cut back on their flying? I already know the answer.
Why does the BBC try to link the forest fires in Australia to climate change when thee is no evidence that lunatics setting fire to forests has anything to do with climate change!!!!
Most beeboids are as thick as pig shit and don’t have a science background, so any left wing loon they can find to spout crap about climate change gets airtime.
Why doesn’t the BBC make mention of the hundreds of scientists that think CO2 has little to do with climate change?
Most people probably think CO2 is dangerous if they listen to thick beeboids like YOU, but of course CO2 is one of the most important gases to life on Earth.
Oh and I wonder if Emma Thompson will be at the Oscars and if so how will she get there? Walk perhaps?
I think she’ll fly. So if leftist losers like YOU don’t want to give up flying just who does?
It’s not just the BBC, the quality of science reporting across the board is hopeless, even in publications like the Telegraph.
Like the OP said, even the Hadley Centre, the main source of global warming/climate change/whatever it is this week data and modelling have said that people (ie Moonbat) should stop being dickish. If one reads the IPCC reports then you find that projected rises in temperatures are not actually that high. What the lonnies do is take the highest outlying scenarios from the models and wield them like the gospel.
But of course if they are serious they’d build up a nuclear and tidal powered electricity grid.
Gus Haynes:
The BBC aren’t really biased in favour of environmental causes…….
Gus dear, this is what it looks like when you aren’t really biased in favour of environmental causes……..
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
“Oh and I wonder if Emma Thompson will be at the Oscars and if so how will she get there?”
Of course she’ll fly. It’s the Oscars luvvie. Don’t you realize what a powerful voice she could give to the green lobby just by being there? Important people like Emma Thompson have to fly those wicked first class airplanes so that she can deliver the message to all the plebs in economy class:-
Stop it! Unless you’re Emma Thompson and all her high-brow chums. In which case, carry on.
Top environmental campaigner lays into eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil conventional farming in the Mail on Sunday today.
She claims “ploughing destroys the nutrients in the soil by exposing them to sunlight.” [But then tells us that farmers have been ploughing for 10,000 years – so a fairly slow destruction,. I assume]
And she then says “The flocks of gulls and crows squabbling behind the plough for worms and beetles is [sic] just a childhood memeory for me. …The soil is dead and there is nothing for them to eat.”
[I’ll be sending her the grid reference to look up on Google Earth, where my ploughman and I can be seen in our two tractors, surrounded by seagulls.]
And, even spookier, her Pa, who’s a sheep farmer, has never lost a lamb to a fox in 50 years!!!!! Eeeeeeevil fox hunters. Eeeeeevil farmers. Eeeeevil Toreees (by implication].
So who is this Rebecca Hosking? Of, of course, I should have guessed by the tone: a top Envirobeeboid.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3316079/Rebecca-Hosking—camerawomen-to-environment-campaigner.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/15/thermageddon_snake_bbc/
I burst out laughing when I hear beeboids or leftist losers talking about ‘reversing climate change’
Clearly these morons watch too much Star Trek. You know “Mr Worf engage the hyper drive Tacheon warp field..” and hey presto the planet has a new atmosphere and on we go to next weeks episode.
Reversing climate change is physically impossible as climate change is a natural function of the planet and Universe.
Perhaps the leftists might like to explain how they would stop the Sun’s short term and long term cycles that effect our climate for example?
Volcanic activity. Are they going to stop volcanoes erupting and spewing millions of tons of CO2 and Sulphur into the atmosphere?
What about tidal erosion? Are they going to push the Moon away from us?
These leftists take too many drugs and are clearly spaced out most of the time to make any sense.
From The Sunday Times
February 15, 2009
Hotshot greens caught wasting home heat
An audit of properties, measuring heat loss, has revealed that Chris Martin, the pop star, Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, and Sir David Attenborough, the broadcaster, are among those who reside in homes that are “leaking” energy.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5734082.ece
Clearly these morons watch too much Star Trek.
Be fair. Even the most fantastical science fiction at least has some sort of basis in science. The same cannot be said for the doctrine of environmentology. That’s about as far away from science as I am from handsomeness.
Martin, always great to hear you refer to someone you disagree with as ‘your mates from the BBC’.
I don’t care if the BBC have once, somewhere obscure, linked the Oz wildfires to climate change, cos on the nightly news, and morning radio, they make no such claims.
If 99% of what they report is correct, why do people on here get so worked up about that 1%? that one time, one comment. like the ‘defection’ comment – so small and insignificant, its irrelevant.
Recycling has everything to do with environmentalism. if we don’t recycle our cans and our papers what do you think happens to a lot of them? they clog up the landscape, our towns and cities. they pollute rivers, fields etc. so yes, recycling is a key part of environmentalism. not climate change, but environmentalism is not soley about climate change.
Strange – a biologist says we have underclubbed the warnings of global warming and it is headline news.
Yet no mention of the guardian report last week or indeed of the fact that the north pole happily refroze itself back 30 years in 3 months.
Biased means only showing one side of the story. This is what the BBC is.
Gus Haynes: Utter rubbish from you yet again. Don’t mix up pollution with climate change.
I’m in total agreement that we need to clean up our planet. However, unlike eco loons like you I think that should be done by rewarding people not punishing them.
As a child during the 70’s me and my mates used to go round collecting bottles off people to take back to the shop to get the money back.
No need for yellow jacket Hitlers employed on 30k a year to search through rubbish then and no need for unslightly bottle banks.
You’re also wrong about the BBC and climate change regarding Australia. The BBC have been claiming in almost every news report that these fires are down to climate change which is a blatant lie.
The BBC never get 99% of their reporting correct. If they got it 1% right I’d be happy.
The BBC does not report the news it gives opinions from left wing losers like Harrabin who like you is a leftist arty farty loser.
How many times have YOU flown in the last 10 years? I bet a lot more than I have and I bet your BBC mates fly a lot as well.
Why not practice what you preach and give up flying and walk everywhere?
I’d happily shut down every airport in the UK, I don’t care as I detest flying.
But that won’t happen as the rich leftist types don’t actually want to change their ways.
The BBC continually gives arseholes like Emma Thompson airtime yet never take her to talk over the number of flights she takes or the large homes she owns, I wonder how much electricity is wasted there?
The BBC need to start reporting hard facts and not leftist propaganda.
Gus Haynes,
‘tin cans & paper clogging up the landscape ‘
‘99% of what the BBC report is correct’
You are joking right Gus?
Dear Gus you seem an inteligent type of person yet I think you have not investigated just how effective landfill is and how eco friendly it can be when done correctly, no mess, no pollution, no clogging, you may wish to explore the positve role of landfill systems. the recycling tragedy is that it is politically driven by people with no sense of profit and loss whatsoever, the people who created the recycling laws created such an incredible mess instead of a gradual capitalistic approach to the business, socialists find it high on impossible to create a vibrant money making and useful business and in fact they should never ever be let loose on commerce of any kind, they resorted to central diktat and big brother type threats, the abject failure of EU recycling laws which were set up by anti capitalists with no background in business should be a lesson to us all.
The BBC is certainly NOT correct 99% of the time, Oooooh that it were, there would be no need for B-BBC!
The BBC is highly selective about reporting AGW/MMCC ‘events’ they work to a pre determined agenda, this is a fact, any news which contradicts the ‘agenda’ is ignored this is a fact.
Your ‘enviromentalism’ has been hijacked and perverted by political activists who are intent on hiding behind a facade of caring for the environment when in fact they are just using it for their own purposes, they are in fact contaminating the true nature of enviromentalism.
Most people here would support true enviromentalism not polluted with the ‘watermellon marxist’ agenda.
Gus 5.16 pm
Have you not seen/heard the recent stories about councils being unable to continue selling our recycling to China? They don’t know what to do with it, and we’ve been fooled into separating our rubbish, being told that it was for the environment and forced to use bins making our environment ugly. We’re lied to all the time, and journalists aren’t doing their job, they are colluding with the lies.
This article on Greeniewatch is about Canada, who have been recycling vigorously for years.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/search?q=china+recycling
Extract:
“Most residents recycle with the belief they are helping the environment and are unaware that their municipalities are shipping materials to China and South Korea, creating a huge new carbon footprint. “It is a contentious issue here,” said Jo-Anne St. Godard, executive director of the Recycling Council of Ontario. “We took advantage of (China’s) cheaper labour force to have them clean, or re-clean, our recyclables, to sort out the more valuable items from the less valuable.”
And the climate has always changed. Even if we humans didn’t exist it would be changing. We have to adapt to it. We can’t change it.
The councils made money out of selling our rubbish to China
And, in Toronto, where I’ve lived, you don’t have to have ugly bins outside your houses. Days are designated for picking up. For example Monday, paper; Tuesday, glass and cans; Wednesday normal domestic rubbish; and so on.
What’s this got to do with BBC? Journalists should be telling us what other countries do about rubbish collection, and how other countries handle many other things. You have to watch Euronews to see whats going on in Europe, or France24. You have to actually go to Europe to see whats going on. They don’t tell us anything. They only have their parochial westminster village mantras. Such a low level.
Gus Haynes: “99% of what the BBC report is correct”
Who said the golden age of comedy is dead?
Time and again, the BBC’s lop-sided reporting on ‘Green’ issues has been exposed as bogus – both here and on specialist blogs such as antigreen and watts up with that.
For someone to come here and make such a preposterous claim is evidence of nothing but self-delusion.
As Ed Thomas’ link explains (I wonder if Mr Haynes read it?) the BBC clearly misrepresented Chris Field’s qualifications and the significance of his beliefs. These are facts and cannot be gainsaid by silliness about ’99 per cent accuracy’.
If Mr Haynes can say where Mr Watts is wrong, that is one thing. But he cannot, so he writes nonsense instead.
How very BBC!
Environmentalism is a religion, and as anyone who has tried to argue with a Jehovahs Witness on their doorstep (nowadays I pretend we are not in) its wasted breath.
Gus , I have bad news for you, you have been infected with the Green Virus. This is a back-door trojan which bypass and then deletes the only defense – your critical faculties. It then installs prism-focals code, which shift all incoming information 90 degrees left.
You are now part of the Envirobot-net, spewing out anti-anti-green nonsense. Sadly we have yet to find a way of removing the Green Virus, apart from Format C://
Bye!
I’m puzzled by this “need to reverse climate change” mallarkey.
Where to? the last ice age , or the middle ages where the temperature was so warm in London that grapes grew in Vine Street…
ps apparently cliamte is changing on Mars – no doubt the ecoloons are working on a way to pin this on 4×4 drivers as I type
emil: The leftists are all just stupid people who think you can freeze dry the climate. They just don’t understand that our climate is dynamic and for the most part the factors that cause change are well beyond the capability of human beings to control except in the demented world of drugs that these eco loons live.
what amuses me about the fears about climate change is the fact that the human race (or its precurser) survived the last ice age with practically no technology. You’d think we’d be fine this time around wouldn’t you? The left are all over environmentalism like a rash, as they see it as a means of control (which sits very nicely with the ideals of communism: centralisation of orders, control and planning) – the right only come on board when they think there are commercial opportunities to exploit – which could grow if oil becomes scarce. Until then, it’s all hot air.
What is the “natural” climate anyway? A primeval soup battered by lightning strikes?
The trouble with the leftist mindset is that they are obsessed with the idea that everything just “is,” that there’s a natural state of existence and being that should never change. This mindset is also involved in their Marxist beliefs that wealth is a finite pie which never changes and should be shared out equally, that the means of production is “just there” to be taken over by the workers at any time.
In this respect, they have the most conservative minds of us all. When it suits them, they’re proclaiming themselves as “progressives” who have a natural affinity to change and denouncing the conservative mind as a symptom of a mental deficiency, one that’s afraid of change. But really, they have a morbid fear of change. I think their biggest regret is that humanity ever moved on from medieval times. They picture themselves strumming a lute under the shade of a willow tree and trading a bushel of apples for a pig sometime in the late afternoon.
Jason | 15.02.09 – 8:57 pm | #
Sounds good to me. Did they have iPods and Starbucks back then?
😉
What I want to know is “what is the optimum temperature?” According to the politicians , they will reduce CO2 emissions so that they can bring the average temperature down by 2 degrees C.
Is it really that simple? Its the word of Playstation “scientists” with there flawed models that are taken seriously by politicians – but only because it suits their cause at the moment.
The one time Harrabin tried to report on something that claimed “climate change” wasn’t that bad – he changed the report because of pressure from some eco-loon. So if he can do this what faith can people have in the BBC reporting accurate news?
The BBC have been pushing the “catastrophic global warming” claims for years. There is not even a pretense at balance.
Its not as if the BBC cannot find anyone to speak against their pet theory – they only have to look here.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63
Problem is they wouldn’t know a scientist if they bumped into one. Not many scientists in Blacks and Harribins world.
“They picture themselves strumming a lute under the shade of a willow tree and trading a bushel of apples for a pig sometime in the late afternoon.”
And even this is not reality – they wouldn’t have had time to sit under a tree playing the lute – they would be working 7 days a week in the fields. They would probably be dead at 30 of some agonizing disease, that’s if they had not been murdered or killed in battle.
Cassandra,
when did I say/imply I was a supporter of recycling?
to anyone,
when did i say i was in favour of environmental issues?
answer to both; I didn’t. you said/assumed these things cos its what you want to believe. you see that i dont agree with your views on many things here, and therefore its easy to label me as ‘an evironmentalist’ or a greenie or whatever. I was making a point about the reasons behind recycling. Likewise, I can give you a whole list of reasons why liverpool are a good team, but I still don’t support them in the slightest.
My point about the 99% is in general on this site, not environmental issues as such; why do you guys make such a fuss about the 1% of errors/percieved bias (such as the use of a certain word here or there,), when 99% of the BBC reporting isn’t biased. I’m not pro labour or pro tory, and i when i watch the BBC news I don’t see any bias either way. its funny that the pro tory guys think the BBC is biased against them. you know what, I know some Labour people, and they feel the BBC is anti-labour. go figure… i wonder if its got something to do with being so partisan, thats its hard to see things as they are, not as you want to see them.
“..99% of the BBC reporting isn’t biased.”
Where do you get that figure from? Do you actually know what bias is?
I would suggest you read this and learn something.
http://www.fairpress.org/identify.htm
There is an elephant stalking around the BBC environment propaganda dept. Why don’t they talk about Global and UK population levels?
Each UK ‘citizen’ consumes energy and generates CO2 – much more than citizens of the ‘third world’. The BBC blatantly advocates open door migration from low carbon nations to the UK – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of additional migrants per annum. These migrants also tend to have more children than the host population (check national statistics online if you don’t believe me). The consequence is a rapidly growing population with its associated energy consumption.
Clearly the powers that be who have done the sums cannot believe the eco-wackery and scare stories. If they really believed that the world was going to melt like butter in three years or whatever the eco-loons are wailing about, then they would be addressing the real issue rather than forcing me to live in medieval gloom with an 8w bulb as my only source of light. Since they are not addressing the causal factor and providing policies as window dressing, one is forced to ask what they are trying to achieve – I believe that this is pretty much what people here are saying: to extend the remit of the state, to enforce socially compliant behaviour and to provide a monumental excuse for additional taxation.
Carbon trading has to be one of the most blatant methods of conning people out of huge sums of cash. They have found yet another a way of creating a market and taxing something that has zero intrinsic value. This current financial catastrophe was based on exactly such a clever scheme
I am starting to suspect that Mr Haynes is one of those who believes that something is true simply because he says it.
99 per cent indeed!
GCooper | 15.02.09 – 10:53 pm |
Exactly – how can anyone make up a figure like this – it sounds like the IPCC.
“you know what, I know some Labour people, and they feel the BBC is anti-labour”.
Oooer,he knows some Labour people. He’s probably Gordon Brown’s anger management trainer.
Garden Trash: that one ought to have a name of its own – like Godwin’s Law.
Over the years we’ve had a number of people turn-up here saying the BBC can’t possibly be biased because so-and-so on the Left thinks it is too.
It’s a terrifying indictment of the state of teaching in our schools that they can fail to spot such a logical flaw.
Is one of the labour people who think the BBC is biased – Frank Field perhaps?
I defy anyone to tell me that the BBC is not biased in its reports on “global warming” We have Harribin and Black who only pick up on “research” that suits there agenda – and this research is not always from the leading experts in the field – in fact anyone who says they are a scientist no matter what their discipline is, will do as long as it fits in with the theory.
If I wanted an operation I would not ask a biologist to perform it or an environmental campaigner – I would want a qualified surgeon.
Jon: That’s the point. The BBC wheel out any old tossport and call him/her an ‘expert’ on climate change.
I mean Al Bore? Would you trust that prat to talk about airline safety or surgery? Of course not so why the environment?
It’s all too much:
“…There is an elephant stalking around the BBC environment propaganda dept. Why don’t they talk about Global and UK population levels?…”
Because that addresses TWO issues.
1. Immigration. The BBc likes high levels of immigration, these people tend to vote Labour and of course the BBC likes a growing population to expand the TV tax
2. Birth rates. If you cut back on population growth by cutting birth rates through the tax system you tend to get fewer young people and more older people which is generally bad for Labour and for leftist views as old people tend to be more traditional in their views.
GH, 5:16:
“Recycling has everything to do with environmentalism. if we don’t recycle our cans and our papers what do you think happens to a lot of them? they clog up the landscape, our towns and cities. they pollute rivers, fields etc. so yes, recycling is a key part of environmentalism. not climate change, but environmentalism is not soley about climate change.”
GH, 9:56:
“when did I say/imply I was a supporter of recycling?
to anyone,
when did i say i was in favour of environmental issues?”
Um . . . 5:16?
Gus Haynes- humans share 99% of their genes with pigs. Most words on the BBC website are spelt correctly. The BBC usually write in grammatical sentences which make sense. I could go on… so much to admire about the Beeb. Why always be so negative?
Just know the BBC won’t report this. Who would you believe an American Astronaut and Geologist or some limp wristed prat on the BBC with a degree in English?
This has been brought up before, but what’s silly is the BBC takes the position that the debate is over and man is destroying the planet by causing it to get too hot, and they don’t even notice it when the science in their own reports contradicts them:
Alpine melt reveals ancient life
What fascinates scientists about the age of the finds is that they correspond to times when climate specialists have already calculated the Earth was going through an especially warm period, caused by fluctuations in the orbital pattern of the Earth in relation to the Sun.
At these times, historians now speculate, the high mountain regions became accessible to humans.
So there are other causes for Global Warming?
The Roman coins found on the Schnidejoch are being seen as proof that the Romans used this route to cross the Alps from Italy to their territories in northern Europe. Interestingly, one of the Earth’s chillier periods coincides with the decline of the Roman empire.
As the Earth cooled and the glaciers grew again, the Schnidejoch and other passes like it would have been blocked by ice. So did fluctuations in the Earth’s climate contribute to the fall of the Roman empire?
“Well that may be stretching things a bit,” laughs Martin Grosjean. “But what we do know is that the climate has fluctuated throughout history; in the past the driving force for the changes was the Earth’s orbital pattern, now the driving force is green house gas emissions.”
Grosjean – who has a vested interested in Climate Change scaremongering as that’s how he makes his living – is using these finds as proof that because the earth is warming up, CO2 emissions must be causing it. That’s not proof of the cause, just proof that the earth goes through warming periods. Especially since the same orbital fluctuations they have no problem associating with warming periods haven’t exactly, you know, stopped. But at the BBC, as in China under Mao, there’s no room for opponents of the consensus.
Sky News reported the other day on their Ski Report that this winter had been a bumper one for Snow.
Tumbleweed on the BBC of course, but if there had been NO snow you can bet that tosspot Harrabin would have been up some ski slope prattling on about climate change.
The BBC and one half of a story. It’s what we do.