Another morning, another hysterical story proving just how bad “global warming” is for dear old Blighty! The BBC provided a platform for Ruth Davis head of “Climate change” at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to give flight to her theory that Britain’s birds are being driven northwards and towards extinction by the grim advance of global warming. There’s nothing like a little one-sided climate sensationalism to get the week off to a good start!
The key phrase in this woman’s speech was “as temperatures rise”. Typical ‘begging the question’ prediction of the global warming hystericalists.
As someone who performs modeling with large datasets professionally, I am highly suspicious of the fact that the IPCC refuses to publish the key parameters, assumptions and alorithms it uses to produce its climate predictions.
Ruth Davies used to be Head of Water Policy at the RSPB. Now she is Head of Climate Change Policy. I have no idea whether she has any atmospheric science qualifications. Has the RSPB simply taken the IPCC’s predictions as truth and mapped bird demographics on top of IPCC datasets? Looks like it. If so, it’s very shoddy scientific method.
–quite — Anyway – the prediction for the drastic reduction of birds is 100 years hence – I suspect many other factors will have influenced the situation by then – and anyway – whats the bird population changes over the last few hundred years – do we have that information?
Andy2
100 to 1 says she is NOT a climatologist.
JohnA:
At those odds, I’ll bet you a quid – I can afford to lose a quid!
I didn’t hear this piece but I did read the Daily Mail coverage of the story – I would point out the following:
(a) Bird population coverage is always in a state of flux.
(b) There’s a big difference when considering breeding populations and non-breeding populations which is not always made clear.
(c) If one did accept temperatures are rising – certain species will benefit from this and increase their geographical coverage in the UK.
(d) New species will also establish themselves in this country.
(e) Occasionally, life sucks – and this is no different if you are a Scottish Crossbill.
is it still safe to swim in the UK’s coastal waters? its just that with all these climate change warnings, are great white sharks attackng swimmers now?
The last people I’d take notice of about the global warming scare is a government funded broadcaster.
It is scary how easily the extremely flaky AGW hypothesis, which fails on every scientific criteria, has been absorbed and repeated by so many people. The IPCC (‘Clowns and Crooks’?) may have been scientifically feeble, but they sure were (and are) politically astute. The government-funded RSPB is a nice example of the corruption of power, with Ruth Davis as just another selfish, blinkered, ill-informed agitator. What are her pension rights – that’s what we want to know!
As the excellent site http://www.fakecharities.org points out, the RSPB is no longer a charity in the true sense of the word. It receives almost £20m a year in government/quango/EU grants (£3m alone from the latter), and its agenda on global warming is slavishly that of its masters.
Every so often, their “climate change” officer – like so many of these fake charities – churn out an alarmist press release based on fake science, in order to justify their existence and to ensure that their begging bowls continue to be filled.
The BBC, for its part, of course, slavishly reports these releases as if they were fact.
This particularly piece of quackery (!)was elevated to headline status, illustrating – yet again – just how low BBC “journalism” has fallen.
I can tell you why. We’re expecting more winter weather this week including snow.
So the BBC feels it has to keep ‘reminding’ the prolls that man made ‘dangerous’ climate change is here and we (that doesn’t mean them by the way) have to give up our cars and flying.
As pointed out previously, the rspb is now part of the nulab ‘third way’ industry and a recipient of a geat deal of tax payers money, much of which it spends on PR demonising the actual guardians of the countryside, like game keepers and moor owners.
You must realise that the rspb have been responsible for a number of projects which have turned land which previously held reasonable bird and mamal stocks into wastelands, largely through a lack of predator control.
The beeboids are doing ‘declining farm bird populations’ on the morning farming / commedy slot, so this is obviously a co-ordinated job. The beeboids love rspb types – people who know as little about the countryside as them, but by golly they know whats right for it !
Robin Horbury | 02.03.09 – 12:17 pm
Excellent post!The proliferation of quangos, agencies and the like that keep agw and similar issues in the public eye, either directly or to distract from an unwelcome media focus on the trus issues, are directly in the interests of the BBC. All rely on on public funds and make convenient bedfellows. In some UK regions the proportion of the working population employed directly in the public sector exceed that of the former Soviet Union. I wonder how many others rely indirectly on the largesse of the public purse and how this effects not only the requirement to ‘stay on message’, but also the prospects for any economical recovery!
fakecharities.org
What a great site! Pass it on to as many as possible!
when i heard this on the radio this morning i smiled and thought i bet David will write about this on BB.
but how can you lot ignore the evidence which is currently being gathered by eminent scientists such as ;
1. broadsheet comment journalists
2. people on comment is free
3. R4 comedians
4. R4 presenters
that and i quote “there seem to be less sparrows in my back garden these days”.
the question is how we can defeat the rigidly scientific aneddotal evidence from the twittering classes that we are all going to die from lack of sparrows, bees , worms etc in said radio 4 presenter’s back garden.
jimbob:
“the question is how we can defeat the rigidly scientific aneddotal evidence from the twittering classes that we are all going to die from lack of sparrows, bees , worms etc in said radio 4 presenter’s back garden.”
By aksing your friends to look at the alternative viewpoints on the matter, then asking them to ask their friends, etc etc.
How about emailing your friends the following link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
Excerpt:
“Yesterday, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate, claiming they are not scientific, in part because the modellers have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.”
Some new entertaing ammo here:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8937
…from the very eminent Dr. William Happer (fired by St Algore himself).
Aztec heart sacrifices, eh? That weird Harrabin thing at the BBC won’t approve at all.
Why does heading north bring about extinction?
Cheers.
“Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
The whole AGW case relies on Climate modeling, but to the BBC these flawed predictions are gospel. The RSPB, are like all the other “charities” they are chasing the money.
On Today this morning Ruth Davies said (and this is a near quote)
‘A top NASA scientist said that one coal-fired power station proportionally could be responsible for 400 extinctions’
As a meaningless statement it must win the prize.
What does proportionally mean in this context?
What time frame does she mean? The life of the power station? Can this be extrapolated backwards so that she is saying that they have already been responsible for extinctions? If not, when do we start counting extinctions?
Can she tell us how many species have become extinct since the first coal-fired power station was built?
Captain Fatty:
Why does heading north bring about extinction?
If it were a choice of extinction or living in Scotland, what would you choose?
I woke up this morning, March 2 – and looked out of my window to be greeted by the sight of a Manhattan covered in a foot of this bizarre white stuff. I’m not leaving my apartment until I find out what it is. My first thought was that Clinton must be in town but then I realized no, he hasn’t been here for a while.
Think I’ll stay in an ride it out with a little light reading, like this expose of Obama’s ‘science advisor’ John Holdren, the man who supports compulsary abortion for women as a solution to global warming. Are we sitting comfortably? Then we’ll begin.
Again though leftist just don’t get it. For every species that can’t adapt another species will come along that can.
Almost every day we see reports of new species of animal or fish being found. Leftists just don’t get it that evolution means just that. Species evolve and adapt to the climate.
As for people not being able to cope with warmer climates that’s nonsense. humans have lived in deserts for thousands of years.
In all probability,birds are migrating north because of the huge influx of people into the South of England,the deforestation and concreting over of arable land.
That and the high price of nests.
“As for people not being able to cope with warmer climates that’s nonsense. humans have lived in deserts for thousands of years.”
Yeah but deserts seem to be home to a high proportion of extremely backward nutters trying to kill each other and everyone else, and a very low proportion of sophisticated well dressed metrosexuals enjoying civilised evenings in Michelen 3 star restaurants.
Evidently they bring out the worst in people and should be avoided if at all possible.
Yes, those Michelin thre star restaurants certainly attract the riffraff.
Darwin explains rather well why some species thrive and others become extinct.
For the IPCC, darwinism is to use a cliche ‘an inconvenient truth’, and one that nature proves every single day.
martin | 02.03.09 – 4:03 pm
Almost every day we see reports of new species of animal or fish being found.
I don’t think these are new species in the sense of having recently come into being. Just new species in the sense of not having been found and recorded by Man before. Most have probably been around for millions of years.
Preposteroso:
If it were a choice of extinction or living in Scotland, what would you choose?
Ah, yes. Extinction. Every time.
Limbaugh Rallies Conservatives to Fight Democrats, Find ‘Right Candidate’
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/28/romney-wins-second-cpac-straw-poll/
Links to video of speech at bottom of page
I don’t think anyone really doubts the earths climate is changing, and ‘global warming’, despite being named badly, is genuine. However, its not as simple as many on the left make it out to be. We in the west (especially America) are always labelled the big baddy; yet no-one mentions how China is really world polluter no.1. And third world countries – do these places have any kind of environmental policy? Don’t make me laugh.
The BBC/Left approach is actually quite an arrogant one – it basically says, climate change is the west’s fault, and we can stop it if we try hard enough. I don’t believe we can – humans are not poweful enough to have that effect on this giant planet. We can make small differences here and there yeah, but stop climate change? No chance. That’s the problem with the BBC approach – it’s very ‘if we all unite and act together bla bla, we can stop global warming’.
Is this approach anti-business? Yes
Naive? Yes.
Misleading? Definitley
Truth is, no-one (even scientists) don’t know enough about global warming, let alone how to stop/delay it. A good book to read is ‘State of fear’ by Michael Crichton – its fiction, but is very educational about the modern day obsession with global warming.
Hi Punish,
actually we can stop global warming, it is a real danger, and it is the fault of industrialised nations. China is not the biggest polluter, it will be so at some point soon, but the US is at the moment. That’s why it was so vital that Obama got elected, and rolls back the years of neglect under Bush. Hopefully the days of refusing to sign Kyoto are long over.
Hi Martin,
where are these new species being found? perhaps you could enlighten me to as your claim?
thanks
Do you know anything about the Kyoto protocol? It is a favorite of the left, yet few of you seem to understand what it was actually about. It’s committment to cutting CO2 gases was so small that it was irrelevant. Anyway; what use does a treaty do? Canada signed Kyoto, but they haven’t come close to meeting their targets for years, due to the oil sands in Alberta. What’s so good about these treaties then if the countries that sign them don’t even stick by the rules?
How about you impress me with your environmental/Kyoto knowledge before we discuss it further.
“I don’t think these are new species in the sense of having recently come into being. Just new species in the sense of not having been found and recorded by Man before. Most have probably been around for millions of years.”
Then how do you account for David Milliband? Something like that couldn’t have survived the stone age.
Libertarian at 6.11, I saw those videos and it is the first time that I have seen Rush Limbaugh on a podium. He is tremendous and he is the right candidate.
As to where the cash comes from, and for what ultimate Common Purpose.
AGW is a NAZI agenda, straight out of a famous publication from Adolf Hitler himself.
The bribes, sorry, scientific grants and simply massively enormous government borrowings come respectively from R……..d foundations and banking conglomerates as a matter of published fact.
The British R……..ds are effectively the British establishment, or certainly by far and away the richest and most powerful single part of it. They control the incredibly enormous wealth of the Papal bank, the Crown Estates ( The Commonwealth ) and are the Queen of England’s personal bank manager, as well as being the owners/controllers of the corporation of The City of London. They also ‘helped’ ( shall we say? ) very much in the setting up of The BBC, The UN and The EU, as well as being the majority shareholders of the IMF, BIS, and the World Bank. They have long since been known as large direct contributors to the Conservative Party. However it is also said that they are also indirectly even larger contributors to all other major political party’s as well.
It seems to me that an obvious conclusion could and should be made as to the REAL reason why the BBC follows the agendas it so obviously and slavishly does.
However I have a wife and 5 kids to consider, therefore you will have to work it out for yourself. Surly I don’t have to actually spell it out for you all, or do I?
‘If it were a choice of extinction or living in Scotland, what would you choose?
Ah, yes. Extinction. Every time.’
Starting with Rangers fans. Ha-ha.
The BBC are doing yet another of their rigged debates again, this time its the ‘intelligence squared debate’ about climate change and asking whether the money spent on fighting global warming is worth it or not.
The two sides have been carefully chosen by the BBC propagandists, both sides agree about the AGW/MMCC theory(natch) they just differ slightly on whether the cash should be used for mitigation or adaptation(duh), strawmen aplenty, lots of them and oooddles of plain old BBC lies and propaganda dressed up as debate, still using the same old lies that almost every scientist is an AGW believer and only the odd loony in the pay of big oil disagrees, the narrative must go on and the agenda must prevail.
I urge you to try and watch this joke of a debate so rigged and full of dogma and prejudice it would be funny if it were not so expensively tragic!
One of the first sentences is ‘nobody is denying the reality of man made global warming BUT blah blah’ when in actual fact tens of thousands of scientists disagree with the false theory.
Watch out for the uber comical statement, ‘we must save the planet for future generations’ Ooooooh right! but you dont mind saddling those same future generations with crippling debts and a future without the benefits of an industrial economy, do these dummies think that we will live in some kind of constable painting type pre industrial peasants heaven happily toiling in the fields while the special elite live it up behind the new high walls of the new manor houses?
The post democratic version of animal farm brought to ugly life with the elite living it up and the new grey peasants on rations and standing in queues, their dream is our nightmare and they are winning!
The AGW/MMCC fanatics are determined to bring back the USSR and give us all a chance to experience the joys of pure socialism, hell on earth for the many and paradise for the few, in the end its all down to relative status isnt it? I mean whats the point of living the good life of foreign travel and good jobs if all the smelly thick prole scum can enjoy it too? making the majority poor just increases the relative wealth of those new elite doesnt it?
Socialism = poverty for the many and wealth and power for the few.
Capitalism also = poverty for the many, and wealth and power for the few. Since 80s Britain has grown into a ruthless capitalist society, and has the gap between rich and poor shrank? No, it’s widened. Same in America. Capitalism is supposed (in theory) to be based on the idea of rising tides raise all boats. Only it does not work that way in reality.
Punish the Monkey writes: “I don’t think anyone really doubts the earths climate is changing, and ‘global warming’, despite being named badly”
I’m afraid that is rubbish. Plenty of reputable scientists doubt any such thing as ‘global warming’. ‘Climate change’ meanwhile, is just a meaningless cliche. Climates change – it’s what climate does.
I suggest you ignore trolls like Gunter and do some research. Good places to start would be here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
http://www.climate-resistance.org/
and
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/
Please don’t take the BBC on trust. They are lying about this subject – and so many others.
I have done more research than you will ever do my friend, and the planet’s climate is changing. Not in the ‘abrupt’ way, nor in the last 30 years, like the argument is often used. However in the last 120 years or so, temporatures have risen and are rising.
Climates change like you said, thats my argument too, so whats your problem with what I said? Didn’t you see that I wrote that ‘global warming’ is a bad phrase? You seem like a troll yourself.
Atlas; no, you don’t have to spell it out. We know exactly what you mean. You are perfectly clear. No more comment needed. Please!
There is no abrupt rise in temperature occurring now.
So no call for abrupt policies.
Debate would be useful. But the BBC, as our major source of “news”, brooks no debate. Just Al Gore style propaganda.
Punish the Monkey writes: “I have done more research than you will ever do my friend,”
Really. Perhaps you would like to explain how you know this?
“However in the last 120 years or so, temporatures have risen and are rising.”
Oh, they are, are they?
I suggest you get back to doing a little of that research you’re so proud of.
You might start here. It was written by the former BBC science editor. That was in the days before auntie got religion, of course.
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2007/12/global-warming-temperature
Gunter | 02.03.09 – 6:35 pm |
actually we can stop global warming, it is a real danger, and it is the fault of industrialised nations. China is not the biggest polluter, it will be so at some point soon, but the US is at the moment. That’s why it was so vital that Obama got elected, and rolls back the years of neglect under Bush. Hopefully the days of refusing to sign Kyoto are long over.
Gunter, you are either ignorant or simply lying. I’m going to bet that your ideology has blinded you, and you don’t know which it is. Either way, you need to stop now.
The US President does not approve or reject the Kyoto Treaty. The US Senate does. When you blame the Bush Administration, you couldn’t be more wrong, because in fact the Senate rejected the treaty in 1997, during the Clinton Adminstration, with none other than then-VP Al Gore leading the Senate.
The Kyoto Treaty was crap, that’s why we didn’t sign it under Clinton, nor under Bush. Nor should we now. While you’re praying for the Climate Change Policy Change you hoped for in the Obamessianic Age, you better talk to the Japanese. Or the Germans, for that matter.
Oh, yes, you’re also lying about the US being the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide. I assume that’s what you meant when you said “polluter”. Contrary to BBC propaganda, China took over the top slot in the summer of 2007, even according to your co-religionists at The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
(Sorry, you have to copy & paste as HaloScan won’t let me put in more than three links.)
Your credibility here is at a low point. I do hope you don’t work for BBC News in any capacity.
“Your credibility here is at a low point. I do hope you don’t work for BBC News in any capacity.”
Gunter has the right qualifications.
Gus Haynes | 02.03.09 – 7:36 pm |
Capitalism is supposed (in theory) to be based on the idea of rising tides raise all boats. Only it does not work that way in reality.
True. Some boats have holes in them, and others are simply made of stone and will sink to the bottom no matter how high the tide rises.
Atlas:
(I know it’s been asked before, but)
Do you have a girlfriend?
Gus Haynes | 02.03.09 – 7:36 pm |
Capitalism is supposed (in theory) to be based on the idea of rising tides raise all boats. Only it does not work that way in reality.
Supposed (in theory) by whom?
Dictionary.com has this
cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
•noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
See? No rising tides, no boats and nobody ever promised you a rose garden.