Anyone watching the Green “debate” on Newsnight? Three panellists and all points of view so long so long as they are eco-wackists Emily Maitlis frames the question “How can we stop climate change” LOL – just super bias. Hey Emily – how can we stop the Earth from turning?
ECO WACKOS OF THE WORLD UNITE
Bookmark the permalink.
Test.
And I expect no one said to her “We can’t, climate always changes” . How can so-called intelligent people believe that we can stop the climate from changing?
You make an assumption that beeboids are intelligent. All beeboids are left wing arts graduates. NONE OF THEM have studied science or engineering.
They just don’t get the idea that the climate always has and always will change.
They are simply THICK.
But Emily has nice legs.
Sorry Martin I don’t agree – these people are not thick – they are quite intlligent in their field (wihich is not science).
Goldacre ..[idntifies] five traps people fall into when evaluating information which lead to misunderstanding, misinterpretation and, at the end of the day, bad decisions:
1. We see patterns where there is only random noise
2. We see causal relationships where there are none
3. We overvalue confirmatory information for any given hypothesis
4. We seek out confirmatory information for any given hypothesis
5. Our assessment of the quality of new evidence is biased by our previous beliefs.
Read more: http://2020science.org/2008/11/09/why-clever-people-believe-stupid-things/#ixzz0U2KZWqVG
“How can we stop climate change”
Hasn’t the earth’s climate aways changed? It goes up, it goes down…
West haters and the BBC want a change of political climate any old reason will do.
Hey, Emily. We can’t. Next question.
I thought (http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/10/settled-science.html) that the BBC had quietly admitted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm ) that: “”For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.”
So the Pravda website has an item that asks “Whatever happened to climate change” because the science has been proved to be a load of cock, then this silly item on Newsnight and now all beeboid stations are proclaiming that polar ice caps will be gone in ten years.
All a bag of arse that prves the beeboid do not do joined up journalism – they can not even get one message across.
The bigger question is “Emily, why are you orange?”
Thing is if you look back at recent BBC reports they’ve been predicting no sea ice from about 2013, well we’re not far off that now.
Perhaps they should get Jeremy Clarkson to drive to the north pole in a car, AGAIN?
Well, they’re certainly going their dinger this morning over the report that the Arctic Ocean will be free of ice within ten years. Which is, no-one here will be surprised to hear, sooner than previously thought. How is it that as the climate refuses to warm further, everything bad is going to happen sooner than previously thought? Would it have anything to do with having to continually ramp up hysteria to keep the bandwagon going? The trouble is, there will come a point where they have to say that it’s going to happen yesterday.
The report, written by one Professor Peter Wadhams, relies partly on the results of this year’s Catlin Arctic Survey. I don’t have time now to look up the links, but wasn’t this rubbished at the time for keeping to newer ice because the old, ridged ice was too difficult to get over? Not to mention the fact that the weather was so bad, they had to curtail the trip. Anyway, Professor Wadhams was interviewed this morning on Today at around 7:15. It was a very incisive interview, challenging his findings. Not.
The response Hudson’s article has probably prompted them to step it up a gear.
Some full on eco-facists in the comment section here…..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/a-few-points-about-my-article.shtml#comments
To my mind there’s an underlying misanthropy to the MMCC brigade – Man Made Bad, Natural Good.
CC’s going to happen. If it’s the cost of dragging people out of poverty, so be it.
The BBC’s Richard Black on his Blog is claiming there is no bias at the BBC and says “it’s also worth making the point that, as a general rule, the BBC allows the correspondent to identify what the story is.
“You are the person on the ground who’s done the research – it’s your field of expertise – and so, by and large, you get to decide what’s important about the story and how it should be told”.
The trouble is there is no expertise, they seem to take any piece of spin by the warming crowd as gospel and do not check if it is true or other scientist have a different opinion.
Recently we had the story of the North West passge being open for the first time. It’s a lie, it is open most summers and the Russians have used it since about 1910. The German Navy even sent a Commerce Raider to the Pacific that way and back in 1940 but the dear old Beeb don’t even check, they just report it as if it were true.
Today the story is about Penn Haddow, it was not a scientific study it was a publictity stunt. Their website said they were looking for thinning ice and guess what they found it. A true scientific study would have looked at it with an open mind.
Recently it has been reported that sea ice in Antarctica is at it’s highest since they have been studying it but have you seen that on the BBC, they cherry pick what they report to the general population and then claim they are not biased.
Chris – there is a good piece about this “scientific” expedition here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/#more-11702
I thought the eco wacko’s also talked a certain amount of sense about efficiency etc.
Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I want a lovely green cuddly world too, as long as I do not freeze or starve to death in it.
As I’ve pointed out before the serious greenies lost the plot when they let the usual suspects onboard the bus, that is corrupt politicians, lesbians, the unwashed anti capitalist lot and swampie.
Serious pollution issues are being ignored and companies that do pollute are getting away with muder whilst this bunch of rag tag leftists are prattling on about some harmless gas.
Totally 100% correct.
That’s the number one thing I always shove in the faces of friends and acquintances who scream about AGW: if these people spent one tenth of that energy addressing local pollution (other than CO2) and addressing the inefficiencies in local infrastructure, they’d actually accomplish something beneficial.
But that wouldn’t release the endorphins quite like “saving the planet” does.
I just watched the ‘debate’ via Sky+ and thought that it confirmed the worst aspects of BBC bias: It was introduced as ‘greens on trial’ and it was no such thing, no opposing views were aired, the ‘6 years to save the planet’ was accepted as fact and the whold undercurrent was this is how you should think. As it says above super bias!