42 Responses to APOCALYPSE NOW.

  1. centre-right says:

    They’re right, this is the worst case (for them, in any case, along with all the ‘activists’).
    All this global cooling means that their shallow bleating rings rather hollow. Anyway, if they were truly serious about ‘combatting (horrid word) climate change’ dozens of nuclear power stations would be about 50% completed by now, and the Severn Barrage would be close behind. All we get is nonsense about nonsense.
    A touch of schadenfreude never goes amiss!


  2. martin says:

    Note how the BBC talks about ‘assessments’ as if they are facts.

    Funny that when the UN were telling us that Saddam had WMD the BBC and other leftists were assuring us that the ‘experts’ were wrong (which of course they were)

    I never take anything an expert tells me as fact.


  3. martin says:

    So will the BBC tell us what its contribution to climate change will be?

    And again we have the crap about electric cars. Electric cars are shite. I’ve used one, Peugeot used to make an electric 106. It’s utter crap.

    The future is the Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. But you still need energy to create the Hydrogen. That can only come from Nuclear in the short to medium term.

    Windfarms, tide power etc is just wank and cannot be relied upon. Even the leftist scum like Moonbat admit that.


  4. AndrewSouthLondon says:

    BBC: “The scientists hope that their conclusions will remove any excuses from the political process.

    Dr Katherine Richardson, who chaired the scientific steering committee that organised the conference, said the research presented added new certainty to the IPCC reports.

    “We’ve seen lots more data, we can see where we are, no new surprises, we have a problem.”

    “Mass migrations”
    The meeting was also addressed by Lord Stern, the economist, whose landmark review of the economics of climate change published in 2006 highlighted the severe cost to the world of doing nothing.

    He now says the report underestimated the scale of the risks, and the speed at which the planet is warming.”

    Complete TOSS from start to finish. The more your theories are undermined by evidence, the more they bleat “Its worse than we thought!!!” Panic at being found out. Lying scum.

    BTW you paid their airfare to Copenhagen.


  5. centre-right says:

    Martin, it’s not the actual experts who are loathsome. It’s the self-appointed activists and ministers of the Church of Climate Change who take the worst-case scenarios and turn them into ‘fact’.
    The actual IPCC projections are very undramatic, if you wade through the actual AR4 report.


  6. martin says:

    I note that the BBC calls Lord Stern an expert on climate change. No he isn’t. He’s another arts tosspot.

    Would you trust Lord Stern to build a Rocket or carry out a Heart operation just because he wrote a load of bollocks about it?

    Only in beeboid land can someone be an expert on something they know sod all about.


  7. centre-right says:

    oh, and agree totally on the fuel cell and nuclear power business.


  8. JohnA says:

    They can’t keep the good guys down.

    The BBC’s deliberate boosting of the Copenhagen conference (plus today’s ludicrous afternoon play starring George Moonbat) directly contravenes the requirement for balance – there has been NIL coverage of the other conference going on this week.


  9. martin says:

    centre-right: Agreed. That’s my point. Leftist tossers like Harrabin take ‘theoretical data’ and spout it as fact.


  10. JohnA says:

    one of the speeches in the New York conference the BBC are deliberately suppressing :



  11. jimbob says:

    there was 100 months save the world – as of july 2008


    today prince charles told brazil there is STILL 100 months to save the world….


    surely HRH means 93 months left to save the world?

    has the countdown started or not? we need to know !


  12. centre-right says:

    jimbob, it’s like the Nostradamus followers or the nutters who think that the world will end with the Mayan calendar in 2012. When we all turn out to be OK, they look like fools.
    Any fule kno that Prince Charles is no scientist, and I do think that William should take the throne before he does.


  13. archduke says:

    this is awesome. you’d think that the daily mail would be somewhat sympathetic.. being as its readership is the traditional royalist/conservative audience.

    not a bit of it.


    “The Prince of hypocrites”

    to honest, that article wouldnt look out of place in the Morning Star or Daily Mirror.

    are folks finally twigging that this climate change malarky is a load of utter twaddle?


  14. archduke says:

    It’s the self-appointed activists and ministers of the Church of Climate Change who take the worst-case scenarios and turn them into ‘fact’.
    centre-right | 12.03.09 – 11:22 pm |

    have a look at the websites of the various climate change quangos – such as the Carbon Trust.

    now look at the bios of the people involved.

    you’d be hard pressed to find an actual scientist.


    Sir Ian McAllister – Chairman
    “Ian McAllister is Chairman of the Carbon Trust, in addition he is also Chairman of Network Rail and former Chairman and Managing Director of Ford Motor Company Limited.

    Ian McAllister is a graduate of University College London, where he completed a BSc in Economics.”

    Tom Delay, Chief Executive
    “A chartered engineer with extensive experience of the energy sector, Tom worked for Shell for 16 years”

    “Tom gained a first class honours degree in mechanical engineering”

    Michael Rea, Chief Operating Officer
    “Previously, Michael was at McKinsey & Co where he specialised both in corporate & business unit strategy”

    “Prior to that Michael worked at Procter and Gamble in product supply.”

    “Michael Rea is a graduate of University College Dublin where he completed a BEng (Mech) in 1991”

    Dr David Vincent, Director, Projects
    “joined the Carbon Trust in April 2001 on secondment from the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. ”

    “David Vincent is a physical chemist by training.”

    Tim Lancaster, Director in China
    “Prior to joining, Tim was Head of Technology at BBC Worldwide

    “After gaining an Arts degree at Magdalen College Oxford, he spent five years as a consultant with Accenture.”

    Mark Williamson, Director of Innovations
    “Prior to the Carbon Trust, Mark was a senior manager at Accenture

    “Mark is a Chartered Engineer and holds a first class honours degree in electrical engineering and a PhD in wireless communications”

    James Wilde, Director of Insights
    “worked for management consultants McKinsey & Company.

    Hugh Jones, Director of Solutions
    “Hugh worked at both IBM and PwC Consulting

    “Hugh graduated from Cambridge University in Modern Languages, and specialises in European languages. He also holds an Environmental Technology MSc from Imperial College.”

    Matt Friend, Managing Director, CTEL Branded Businesses

    “worked in strategy and strategic planning at Diageo, and previously at Gemini Consulting,



  15. archduke says:

    oh, and agree totally on the fuel cell and nuclear power business.
    centre-right | 12.03.09 – 11:22 pm |

    agree here too. its the only way right now.

    so if we only have “100 months” to save the world, how come we’re not seeing a MASSIVE expansion of nuclear power station building. AND I MEAN REALLY MASSIVE….

    no -instead we have the likes of Germany, one of the biggest economies in the world, actually decommissioning nukes and no plans to build any new ones.

    meanwhile we have “the one” warbling on about windfarms in america – and again, no plans to massively ramp up nuclear.

    its all a load of bollocks.


  16. archduke says:

    by the way – i’m all in favour of energy independence. its pains me filling up my car.

    not because of some balls about my “carbon footprint” – no its just that i dont like my hard earned cash making its way into the hands of Islamist nutjobs like Saudi Arabia and Iran or fascist dictators like Chavez or Putin.

    so i’m with the greenies on that front – i want to lower my CO2 emissions. but not because of global warming crap.


  17. Gus Haynes says:

    yes a lot of it does from ‘experts’, many of whom are not experts in relevant fields. but the BBC does not endorse climate change to a blank cheque – it merely reports the popular view. it is not agreeing with the ‘worlds gonna end in 100 months’ alarmists


  18. Atlas shrugged says:

    Gus please read the below.

    “People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behavior. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”, Jeremy Paxman, Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007.


  19. Gus Haynes says:

    yeah i read it. i like paxo, he speaks a lot of sense. I agree the coverage isn’t great, but its not pro-global warming coverage, it just goes along with the masses. its not bias, its called dreadful reporting by lazy journalists.

    as for global warming itself, I know nothing about science or climatology so i don’t pretend to offer anopinion on the topic worth listening to. i wish many others did the same.


  20. archduke says:

    “it merely reports the popular view.”

    gus – in science , there is no popular view.

    have you read the carl sagan baloney detection kit?



    Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts

    “Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.”

    Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no “authorities”).

    Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.

    If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work


    now , if you want to argue against what Carl Sagan said, and redefine what science is , be my guest.


  21. Gus Haynes says:

    I have no intention of arguing that. the very problem of the issue is that we, the mass public, do not know enough real hard evidence about climate change because science has become way too politicised.

    it should be about scientists presenting evidence, and politicians running with that. the reality is more than scientists look for evidence to support what the politicians/bankrollers/business want them to find.

    the scary thing about the climate change debate is that so little is known, yet so much is spoken.


  22. archduke says:

    you’re missing one important aspect – the government funding of grants to scientists.

    therein lies the problem

    if you are anti-warmist , you dont get funding.

    and that is worrying.


  23. Gus Haynes says:

    it works both ways – businesses fund scientists to prove it isnt happening.

    with both sides having an agenda like that, the truth becomes a victim.


  24. archduke says:

    by the way gus – i dont work for some evil oil corporation. i’m just an average joe.

    but i watched carl sagan and read “demon haunted world” when i was younger.

    his predictions are coming to pass – science replaced by pseudo-science and quackery , led by Prince Charles no less.

    and all paid for by the taxpayer.


  25. archduke says:

    Gus Haynes | 13.03.09 – 1:46 am

    businesses look for what actually works.

    big difference.


  26. Gus Haynes says:

    no, business who stand lose by environmental crusades also fund scientists to find evidence that supports their aguments. its just the other side of the coin of scientists paid to look for global warming.

    i never said nor assumed you worked for big business. i’m not one of these ‘big business is bad’ people.


  27. archduke says:

    btw the way

    your comment

    “it works both ways – businesses fund scientists to prove it isnt happening.”

    so explain the bios of the carbon trust.


    “business” is some cabal of conspiracy mate. some are idiots and work for management consultancies – they’re usually in the global warmist camp.

    others just dont have time for this crap.


  28. archduke says:

    Gus Haynes | 13.03.09 – 1:52 am

    ok . fair enough.


  29. GCooper says:

    I posted about this on the general comments thread quite a while ago.

    Over the weekend, I also copied the plotline of the ludicrous R4 play on AGW broadcast this afternoon.

    I’m not whining (honest) but after a while you wonder whether even the good guys are listening.


  30. Jack Hughes says:

    I’m confused: the promised mass migrations will just make us more and more vibrant and multicultural – in a very real sense.


  31. Diogenes says:

    Great News!


    Global warming will save 1400000 lives per year.

    I herewith offer a prize of *one hearty congratulations* to anyone who can find mention of this research on any BBC source.


  32. JohnA says:

    There are two conferencs on climate change this week. One in Copenhagen, getting headlines all the time from the BBC, including the latest apocalyptic warning from Lord Stein. Described as a meeting of 2500 climate scientists when a MINORITY of then are such.

    The other conference in New York is the GW sceptics, opened by the Pres of the European Union. Not a single mention anywhere on the BBC all week.

    THAT is blatant bias.

    A poll this week in the US showed 40% as sceptics. Therefore – global warming is far from a settled “popular opinion”.


    Haynes has totally ducked answering the central point put to him before he skulked off again. Lots of senior people at the BBC have admitted its bias. He denies it at every turn. What evidence does he have that his view is right ? Their views are based on real experience.

    Without evidence, his constant claims on every issue that the BBC is not biased is mere trolling.

    Answer the point, Haynes – or piss off with your constant trolling.


  33. Andy2 says:

    I’m not surprised that Gus and others seem blind to the AGW bias at the BBC. The problem that we scientists have with trying to convince people that there is NO scientific consensus on AGW, is that the global warming alarmists have been very successful in establishing their views as dominant in the mainstream media. The Times and the Telegrah today both carry alarmist stories:



    Neither of them make reference to the New York conference.

    My view is that the alarmist view is the “consensus” because political activists are much more media savvy than scientists. Serious doubts about the entire theory of AGW have been raised by very eminent atmospheric scientists, yet they are given little, if any, attention by the media.

    PS I’d love to get my hands on the IPCC climate model datasets, assumptions and parameters, but they just won’t release them. I wonder why?

    PPS There is no consensus in science. We question everything, all the time.


  34. Andy2 says:

    Gus Haynes | 13.03.09 – 1:42 am |

    “the very problem of the issue is that we, the mass public, do not know enough real hard evidence about climate change because science has become way too politicised.”

    Gus, you are spot on with that, as is archduke with his comment that “if you are anti-warmist, you don’t get funding.


  35. Oscar says:

    I did notice the full on coverage of the Copenhagen climate conference on Wednesday (James Naughtie in full propaganda flow) happened to coincide with the crooked financial maneoverings known as ‘quantitative easing’. Global warming gave them an excellent opportunity to bury the bad (not to say dodgy) news. QE was eased out of the news headlines by 9am.

    And wouldn’t it be nice if ‘global warming’ actually meant the weather got warmer? As it is the colder it gets the more frantically the ‘scientific proejctions’ tell us how much hotter it’s getting.


  36. Ethan says:

    Of course I’m going to take Eco Mentalist advice from Prinny.

    The very same Prinny who had his Bentley driven a thousand miles to join him in Europe while he flew on ahead. Very eco friendly the 10mpg Bentley isn’t it. Sold your 1964 Aston Martin DB4 yet Prinny? Or had it converted to Batteries?

    The very same Prinny who needs an entire commercial jet to transport him and his flunkeys eveywhere.

    The very same Prinny who is so into energy conservation he has a man put toothpaste on his brush in the morning. He probably has that man give his royal todger a shake when he’s finished weeing too.

    I say to Prinny why don’t you just feck off and apply for the job of Tampax to Horse face. You remember it was your stated desire in that recorded phone call.

    100 months to go then hopefully we won’t hear any more Eco Bullplop from those Eco Mentalists. Can’t wait. Bring it on big boy!

    Oddly enough there has been no GW since 1998 but then again don’t let facts get in the way of witchcraft er sorry Earth Science.
    As a scientific type myself I consider this a prostitution of real science. Science has become a rent boy for Eco money.
    93 months to go….


  37. Tax-payer-to-the-queen says:

    Why don’t the tossers at the state broadcaster tell us how many thousands of scientists world-wide are keeping an open mind about sun spots, the earth’s changing orbit, volcanic spewings, etc?
    But then the beeb is full of opinionated, ignorant sods. Oh, sorry, that was an opinion.


  38. Pierre says:

    The AGW nuts have been telling us that we’ve got to crucify our economies in order to meet ludicrous carbon emissions targets.

    Now that our economies are officially screwed, these nutters are becoming increasingly shrill – sensing that their fat eco grants are going to dry up. How sad that the bbc sees fit to keep shilling for these crooks.


  39. emil says:

    Some nutter doctor in Scotland shrills for tax on chocolate = headline news for BBC.

    Yet again serious questions are raised about the poisonous content of energy saving light bulbs = tumbleweed blowing across the BBC prairie.

    So that’s rainforests destroyed in the name of bio-fuels and our houses filled with dangerous toxins, all in the name of “saving the planet”. thanks guys


  40. Neil says:

    Filed the following complaint with Auntie, and received the predicatable response.

    Why are the BBC not covering the NIPCC conference in Manhattan ?
    >Despite the bias within the BBC there are more scientists who dispute AGW than accept the politicised , grant driven hysteria that is propogandised by the BBC .

    I understand you feel there was insufficient coverage of the NIPCC conference in Manhattan.

    The BBC gathers many thousands of news stories from across the world each day, the result being that there are too many stories in detail to cover within the limited hours, available each day. A lot of consideration is given by news gathering staff on each report before passing news reports, which will be of great interest to viewers and listeners, to the BBC editors who then form the reports to be presented on the many BBC television and radio channels.

    However, if you feel you have or know of a story that you feel the BBC should cover, please e-mail BBC Newsgathering at:

    Home news: uknewsplan@bbc.co.uk
    Foreign news: worldnewsplan@bbc.co.uk

    I’d like to assure you that I’ve registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

    Thank you again for contacting us with your concerns.


  41. ady says:

    climate change is our newest religion.

    No proof required, you only need to be a believer.