Fascinating to see here that even when the BBC is salivating over the G8 conference (aka fashionable posturing for already over sized political egos) it cannot resist the temptation to shill for AGW. Note the convenient link in the G8 story that presumes to show us how “global temperatures have risen” so reinforcing the narrative that demands we must obey Obama and the rest of the eco-loons. When it comes to climate, the BBC does not allow any debate. The starting point is that AGW is a fact, and the only issue is how much should we pay in the form of raised taxes and reduced liberties. With Robert Harrabin there to help lead the unholy (geek) chorus, is it any wonder that so many people are so spectacularly uninformed on this issue?
Its interesting that the graph in that article shows the temperature dropping since 2000.
Sorry, the above was from me.
Also, I believe that the fact the year 1990 was used to baseline temperatures was simply because this year made the warmists cause look better than baselining it on 1985, for example.
Mailman
I seem to remember the BBC informing us in the first months of 2009 that we would be in for a long dry summer (no laughing at the back there!)
Of course Barry O can spout all the shit he likes about cutting CO2. Congress in the USA will never agree to anything that will cost American jobs.
Barry is a one term joke. Anyone else see the tool trip over last night? If that had been George Bush the BBC would have been playing it over and over.
Yes they take 1900 as the baseline figure, yet we know that the planet was still emerging from a mini ice age.
As usual the figures don't tell the truth.
Have the BBC shown Obama drooling over a 17-year-old girl's rear at the G8 conference ?
http://minx.cc/?post=289515
and here is another girl getting the Obama ogle :
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/09/caption-contest-first-ogler/
I particuarly admire Obama + G8 chums committing to an 80% drop in C02 by 2050.
I think they may well have shuffled off the planet by then!!
A nice bit of publicity for no consequences! Even the thick bastards at the BBC must smell a rat with this aimless drivel + collection of empty promises.
pmsl @ 2050. Cylons would have destroyed humanity by that time
Obama likes the boys as well
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/members_of_obama_s_church_kill.html
pity they're not alive anymore to tell the tale
ahem
They seem to have deleted the graph. Centring on a single year was going to get them a lot of flack I think.
that link should read-
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/members_of_obama_s_church_kill.html
bugger!!
google "obama homosexual murder"
and it's the first link
Gary, you're not a fan of Pastor Manning, by any chance?
I don't think many of the alarmists truly believe this bollocks anymore. They may have at one point but are now too embarrased/scared to admit to a mistake.
This is why they must at all times have pretence of a consensus. So their arguments don't have to be scrutinised in any great detail. If they were so confident of the science the BBC would be delighted to have a sceptic (or in their inflammatory laguage "denier") on to debate with their "experts" and let the public decide who is right.
They have to press on with their disastrous policies now so that in decades to come when nothing happens they can say: "see, told you so, we were right and we saved the planet" and the gullible comprehensively educated public will lap it up.
In real science even the scientist is sceptic. You just have to see the dishonesty of some of the "AGW scientists" to prop up their "theory" (e.g. "the hockey stick"), this tells you all you need to know.
we've got camp moonbat aka climate camp 2009 to look forward to as well
You can't have the same dicussion about whether or not climate change is happening and whether it's man made or not every time the subject is discussed. Just as there won't be a pro/anti- evolution debate in every nature programme.
The scientific consensus and the consensus among world governments is that it is happening and that it is affected by man. Whether or not it is valid, the reality is that governments and the leaders at the G8 will be taking measures which address it and which may affect our lives.
I'm not a scientist or a climatologist but you're opinions on the subject are ideologicaly driven. You have a problem with the green lobby and some of the measures they use 'AGW' to argue for. I sympathise with this, but that doesn't mean that climate change isn't a reality.
Also, to state that 'the BBC does not allow any debate' is simply untrue David as I'm sure that you are well aware. You should chosse your words more carefully.
2050 The Islamic Republic of Great Britain (EUSSR region # 234) proclaims everything, including the climate, is the will of God. Sense at last.
Worth reading:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
Anon,
Proof to back your assertion up that Al Beeb engages in meaningful debate.
Also, you need to read what people actually say because as far as Im aware no one is actually saying the climate isnt changing.
A common argument employed by the loony alarmists.
Then again, why let facts start getting in your way now aye?
Mailman
The Anonymous who repeated the mantra about scientific consensus is overlooking the BBC's sensitivity about which scientific consensuses it wishes to accept, and which it wishes to question. To take an obvious and long standing example, the scientific consensus about intelligence and IQ tests – that intelligence varies, is well measured by IQ tests, is correlated significantly with parental IQ – is of much longer standing, and has much more experimental data to support it than anything about global warming. But it is never stated as a solid consensus on the BBC. Instead, the IQ analogues of climate change sceptics invariably get higher billing than the real experts.
Meanwhile, the constant drumbeat about "sustainability" and stop the world we want to get off eco-wackery is ever present on the BBC
eg http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/07/map_of_the_week_why_costa_rica.html
Anonymous the climate changes all the time, no matter what we do, that is a red herring. What we are talking about here is AGW and the supposed consensus is a wafer thin veneer mostly engineered by giving government funding to alarmists and the IPCC whose tactics include leaving out conclusions in their report such as that we cannot know with any great certainty how much if at all AGW is driving climate change.
Comparing it to evolution is patently absurd. The government is going to force me to change the way I live and tax me to the grave over AGW, they arent going to do it over evolution so I think we are entitled to a decent amount of debate over this issue over others.
If you can give point me to an example of the BBC giving a fair hearing to a AGW sceptic please point me in that direction I must have missed it.
"You can't have the same dicussion about whether or not climate change is happening and whether it's man made or not every time the subject is discussed."
No you're quite right – lets not have a debate, lets ignore everyone who does not go along with spending billions on trying to stop the worlds temperature going above 2 degrees.
And while we are doing that – when the subject of ID cards is raised lets not question those who do not beleive they will stop identity fraud, we will just go alng with the Government Minister.
"The scientific consensus and the consensus among world governments is that it is happening and that it is affected by man"
Prove it. Give me a link or the names of all the scientists who back this consensus. If you do that I will give you a few links to scientists who don't .
Well-known 'climate change' scientist Vivienne Westwood is currently holding forth on global warming on wanker Woss's shit show right now.
Dunno about you, but I'm convinced by her cogent and well researched arguments….
@Red Lepond
I had to google to see who Pastor Manning was!!
I suppose it's too much to hope that 'Anonymous' (why are they always anonymous?) could show us any significant examples of the BBC reporting that some of the world's leading climate experts consider AGW a myth?
GCooper
These anon postings are very like the BBC line – just put out some statement, don't back it up and when challenged just ignore it.
I read somwhere not long ago a piece from some Danish politician saying "If in 40 years time we found out that AGW was wrong at least we would have the satisfaction of knowing that we developed other forms of energy and it would have been worth it" (that was the gist). In this statement it was obvious that even she did not back the consensus 100%.
I have no problems with developing alternative energy and getting away from over relience on Middle East oil, but if this is the aim why can't they just say so? I'm sure that there would be a lot more consensus on this then trying to scare peope to death with thier childish doomladen predictions and it would be a lot cheaper.
Gary, well, you learnt something valuable today.
Down with the long-legged mackdaddy!
David Vance: "When it comes to climate, the BBC does not allow any debate."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/sceptics.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/04/monday_7_april_2007_1.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk38/feature_earth.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-too-hot-to-handle-for-the-bbc-401501.html
Anonymous
Bwaahaahaahaahaahaah!!!!
You're not seriously trying to put forward Iain Stewart's Climate Wars as evidence of the BBC allowing debate on the global warming issue?
Not one sceptic was allowed to put the case on that programme. Not one. It was possibly the most deceitful programme I've ever seen on the BBC. The only input from a sceptic was (a)two-second soundbites (b) Roy Spencer talking about an error he had made in a paper.
I'd be grateful for your opinions on what there was in that episode that could be construed as "allowing debate".
And you are putting forward the BBC not doing a whole day of programming devoted to the green case as evidence of allowing debate on the issue?
You use language in a different way to other people.
A contrarian scientist's view:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
Again I see that all the numpty comments are from "anonymous" sources
Show yourself you coward and put a name to the drivel you spout.
Alternatively show me the evidence and stop pretending that all is well in the world of BBC/New Labour!
i dont know what to say to our anonymous leftist commie beeboid scumbag apart from fcuk off you leftist prick
In my post at 10:31 PM, July 10, 2009 I asked for some information from Anon which should be easy to find (if his statement where true), but as with every request for the names of these thousands of scientists who agree on the "consensus" on AGW – no one is able to give me their names. I wonder why?
I once wrote to David Cameron asking him to name the scientists he will be basing his "climate change" policies on – he never mentioned one name, never mind the thousands that are claimed to make up this consensus.
The BBC is using our money as an accomplice in this propaganda, of course:
Christopher Booker –
[Opening extract]:
"The moves now being made by the world's political establishment to lock us into December's Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes. Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train. " (Christopher Booker, 'Sunday Telegraph'.)
Come on, BBC, tell us more about the costly plans you want your Labour chums to impose on us:
'Times' ('Politics')
"Low-carbon strategy will raise household energy bills by £200 a year."
-by Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor.
[Extract]:
"Household energy bills will rise by more than £200 a year under the Government’s low-carbon strategy being announced next week.
"Meeting Britain’s targets for cutting emissions could push another 1.7 million households into fuel poverty, meaning that seven million homes would be spending more than 10 per cent of their income on fuel.
"The Renewable Energy Strategy, to be published on Wednesday, will state that more than £100 billion will have to be invested in renewable energy infrastructure, including 7,000 wind turbines, by 2020."
Peter Sissons confirms all our suspicions about the BBC and AGW:
"In a wide-ranging attack, (Sissons) also claims it is now 'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming. He says: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.
'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.
'But it is effectively BBC policy… that those views should not be heard"
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling–bosses-scared-it.html)
Straight from the horse's mouth!
Anything to say about that, Anonymous? As Bishop Hill so eloquently put it,
"Bwaahaahaahaahaahaah!!!!"
Craig
The PeterSissons article makes some scorching criticisms of the BBC – and has been raised on the open thread also.
I think this needs a thread of its own