Another day and another item on global warming alarmism. Here you can listen to Professor Peter Wadhams suggest the Arctic ocean could be ice free during the summer in as little as 10 years. If true, this would be great news for the global economy. Not sure the BBC see it in those terms thiugh! The global warming fetishists keep lowering the date by which the Arctic will be ice free in the summer and since this assists in the daily narrative, the BBC will keep pushing it down our throats.
ICE FREE…
Bookmark the permalink.
This’ll be the expedition/survey that the BBC have been propagandizing since the spring – and the dearth of reporting of which probably means it cannot have gone entirely to plan?. wuwt, deal with this subject very well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/top-ten-reasons-why-i-think-catlin-arctic-ice-survey-data-cant-be-trusted/
What chances the BBC sent along a film team and whether the footage will appear as a television series soon, then in iplayer, then on a DVD, then on and on and on and on……
Maybe that’s the answer, this GW scam was started by the BBC Natural History Unit as a way to make more programmes?
No, that’s too fanciful, isn’t it?
To be fair the MSM has followed this fraudulant story like the sheep they are.
It seems that Shukman reports what he is ordered to report and no more, it seems very likely that he didnt look at the facts behind the story when he was ordered to peddle the story either.
The Catlin fraud was widely derided at the time but yet again we see that even though the expedition was discredited its fraudulant findings have been dragged up to support yet another bogus study to justify the Copenhagen summit.
So desperate have the AGW believers become to find stories to promote their failed ideology they are scraping the barrel and throwing together any old rubbish for a story.
If Shukman had even half a brain he would have known full well that the findings of the Catlin fraud mean nothing and prove nothing.
I wonder if Shukman will read this blog? if so then this open letter is just for him!
Mr Shukman,
You are a disgrace to science, you peddle mumbo jumbo psuedo science to confirm a socio political ideology, you lie and you cheat and you help those who lie and cheat to defraud the public you are supposed to serve, you sir are beneath contempt and soon I hope to see you endure the shame and ridicule you so richly deserve.
In 2007 the BBC was telling us of someone who said the Arctic could be ice free in summer by 2013. Now it tells us of a report which says it could be ice free by 2019.
I wonder why the BBC doesn’t mention the previous prediction in the current report?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm
I am sure that Professor Wadhams is basically a good and honest scientist, but like all scientists he needs funding from various bodies to continue his research. I know that this exercises Professor Wadhams; here he is in the Guardian a couple of years ago
“Wadhams says he is about to leave Britain due to inadequate funding for his research, despite its influence on government reports. He is one of those scientists who has no difficulty making a direct link between climate change and the fate of the polar bear.”
So what better way to attract funding than to jump at opportunities to appear on the BBC with dire warnings about the planet? Or am I being cynical? I note that nearly 3 years on Professor Wadhams has yet to leave the UK.
What has this to do with the BBC? Merely that
1. The BBC never allude to the possibility that an expert may have other agendas when it is a BBC approved cause
2. The BBC always allude to other agendas, real or imaginary, when it is a cause that the BBC does not approve of.
For example, imagine a spokesman from an ioil compny being interviewed about climate change and the interviewer not mentioning that said spokesman may be saying things in such a way because they are influenced by big nasty business etc. The BBC don’t realise that academics also have agendas and organisations to play to in order to get funding. Professor Wadhams undoubtedly does very good polar science, but it is naive to think that he isn’t also thinking about money (to fund his research), and the more an issue is thought important, the more money is likely to be diverted that way by funding bodies.
You know these lefties love to throw around the accusation that these anti-global warming ™ groups are funded by big oil…as if that proves those who oppose global warming ™ have an ulterior motive.
But what about the gruop that rambled through the Arctic? Correct me if Im wrong BUT wasnt their major sponsor an insurance company that specialised in insuring against problems caused by global warming?
So if these guys can up the game through some party propoganda that “proves” global warming ™ is coming, they can then up their premiums.
No…of course not…pro global warming ™ groups with ulterior motives. Never!
Mailman
Further more, Id love to see al beeb become increadibly curious around the games that have been played out by all those involved with the IPCC and its subsequent papers.
It would be interesting to see first hand some of the stories around an organisation thats supposed to be open and transparent doing everything it can to deny access to the data used to support global warming ™.
In fact, 10 years after a certain chap who was curious first asked for data…he finally got it! BUT only because one and only one scientific journal enforced its data archiving requirements!
For a journalist that believes in real journalism, there is a story there around the blatant obstruction being run by everyone involved in the great con that is global warming ™!
Mailman
Thank you for that reference,Phil. I had been looking for it earlier.
I notice Professor Wadhams got his oar in on that piece as well. Since that article, the sea ice has been increasing which probably accounts for the revised date!
The model has to be adjusted to take into acount what actually has happened.
Oh, sometimes I wonder why I bother but someone has to.
By the way, Richard Black on Earth Watch at the BBC site has a feature denying BBC bias. It is a hoot!
BBC – Today: Tom Feilden: An inconvenient truth about global warming
Definitely think there has been an editorial reaction to this info becoming propagated.
1 oclock news shrilling for global warming on two fronts with Mr Shukman leading the flag wavers. Agree with Cassandra above. His whole approach is emotive, no questions asked, no scientific rigour or interrogation, just acceptance of whatever agrees with the agenda.
A disgrace or incompetence – or both.
Yes the BBC seems to ignore their own reports (take a look back) predicting ice free sea by 2013.
oops Sorry about the last post I had taken it from a translated page at Radio Bremen
What the BBC seems unable to understand or display any willingness to investigate, is why the pernicious dogma surrounding Climate Change is pushed so relentlessly by those who appear to dictate the pace and direction of discourse on this subject.
The answer of course, is “Cap n’ trade”. Pioneered in Europe as the “Emissions trading Scheme” under the guise of environmental protection, in which cause it has conbtributed to date precisely nothing, this monster is now raising its head in the USA, where, once given life, it will grow to be the single largest commodity market on the globe (Greeniewatch, 15th October).
Trading fresh air.
The ultimate dream of the global banking and financial communities.
Will the BBC take up the baton on behalf of the less privileged on the planet who will bear the brunt of the costs, both monetary and human, of feeding this monster ?
Don’t hold your breath.
The BBC has the means and resources to instigate a thorough and complete review and investigation into the state of the UN IPCC claims and the research that underpins it all.
The whole structure is rotten to the very core with basic errors and fabrications lifted from places like wikipedia, it wouldnt be hard to lift the lid on the fraud and incompetence that is rife within the pro AGW/AAM community, it seems the watchword has been ‘if there is no real evidence to be found then simply make some up,nobody will check!’.
Abandon ship! nailed the problem when he said that the BBC are unable to contradict or call into question the motives of those behind the pro AAM narrative and yet they are in there as fast as lightening to ‘uncover’ dark motivations behind any group that doesnt follow their defined narraive and ideology.
Its not just ordinary bias, its BBC bias!
al beeb also plugging climate change this morning when reporting about the millenium seed bank keeping all the worlds seeds in case catastrophic climate change ruined all the 3rd worlds plants
Peter Wadhams has very close connections to Greenpeace
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/20/should-we-discount-peter-wadhams-research.html