Yesterday, I said that remarkable things seemed to be happening at the BBC in terms of reporting that there were problems in the global warming/climate change scam. I spoke far too soon. Roger Harrabin and his fanatical, deeply politicised lefty chums have clearly been fighting behind the scenes to push warming up the agenda to blitz levels. Today on the website are at least four stories all of which illustrate just how deeply enmeshed in the scam the corporation is.
First there’s a report that African conflicts go up when the weather is warm, thus showing that global warming is to blame for the continent’s miseries in more ways than one. The idiotic compilers even blame the Darfur fighting on carbon dioxide. I have read a lot of history that is deterministic tosh, but that takes the biscuit. I suppose the boys and girls at the BBC think the heat is more important than fanatical Islam fundamentalism?
Second on the list, is the news that the government/quango employees at the Forestry Commission, aided an abetted by environment secretary Hilary Benn are wasting millions more of our money by urging the planting of millions of trees “to suck carbon out of the atmosphere”. Of course, there may well be some environmental sense in planting more trees, but hoovering up CO2, a perfectly harmless gas, is not one of them. To the BBC, of course, it’s the number one reason.
Third is that the Met Office – which works closely in tandem with the discredited CRU centre in Norwich – is predicting that this year could be the third hottest in the history of the world, ever. Putting aside that such data is hotly denied by “sceptics” (why can’t we call them something less negative, such as “realists”)because the methodology of measurement is hotly disputed, Harrabin has reported such baloney yet again as accepted fact.
And fourth, heavy prominence is gven to the idea that part of East Antarctica may be melting. There’s hardly a peep in the report that, even according to the paper itself, it might not be – because the measurements involved are highly speculative.
What is entirely missing from the BBC website (as far as I could see) is a report about the real impact of all the “climate change” measures the government are introducing. Namely, that thousands more pensioners die in winter than summer because they can’t afford the fuel bills that have been vastly inflated by the EU’s emissions directives and the madacap rush to build hugely expensive and inefficient renewable sources of energy.
Funny, when I was at school the cold weather was supposed to bring on fist fights – keeping warm through exercise. 🙂
I think what we are seeing (with Copenhagen on the horizon) is the BBC equivelant of “going over the top” (in a WW1 sense). The Darfur story has to be one of the most ridiculous stories ever published on the BBC News website – and will serve only for yet more people to question the motives of those doing the reporting.
It isn’t surprising that a man from the Forestry Commission thinks that planting lots of trees will avert global climate catastraophe. What is surprising is that the BBC doesn’t think that any balance to his views is necessary.
It seems balance is only needed for incorrect views on the BBC. Correct views can be given to the public straight. All part of the service from our benevolent, government funded broadcaster.
And what happens to the money? Show me the money:
BBC report:
“Climate change help for the poor ‘has not materialised'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8376009.stm
‘Warmers’ conclusion: let’s not worry about the waste of money so far, let’s pour more money into a black hole.
Point taken though I think it’s more a greeny hue.
Which means it’s not p*ssed away, it’s invested in ‘good causes’. With a huge cut to facilitators.
Which might be why a public more wise than many give ‘e credit for remain dubious despite the ‘best’ efforts of some.
So we’re supposed to believe that Sudan would be relatively peaceful if it weren’t for this awful “Climate Change”? Good one.
The BBC have gone into denial mode. It’s almost as if the e-mail leak never happened, and they are pumping out more and more propaganda as we get nearer to Copenhagen.
The claim they make that they are even handed is clearly shown to be false.
They really are not fit for purpose.
The BBC have gone into denial mode
Certain irony to that, as they seem to have given up any pretence on objectivity and even in editorial seem happy to refer to debate in terms of ‘How to ‘we’ solve a problem like climate deniers?’
And the BBC are simply not following up the extraordinary climaetgate story. Why? Why is Susan Watts not dealing with this one, for instance – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/ – a detailed, timelined absolutely electric piece which matches the authors FOI request and emails to CRU emails. THis is a smoking Maxim gun. This is a *great* story. But from the BBC, overwhelming pulp shovelled out to support the other side. The *discredited* side. This is more than simple bias now; the BBC is an *active* part of a conspiracy to dupe the world.
The BBC must be stopped.
I thought this summed a lot of the utterances we are getting from our ‘we know better (and even if proved we don’t we’ll ignore that too) classes’ quite well:
QUOTE OF THE DAY – ‘World Leaders’ Say The Funniest Things
“‘The fact that I flew here to sit on a panel for one and a half hours, then I´m flying straight back to the US, is an example of our commitment to environmental sustainability,’ boasts Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo, blissfully unaware of the irony of her statement.”
Taking Care Of Business – http://www.newint.org/features/2009/12/01/corporate-influence/
Just like to post here something John Brignell has written on Numberwatch:
“First a word of excuse and explanation: your bending author does not normally listen to this sort of stuff (honest!) but was waiting for the start of I’m Sorry, I haven’t a clue. Towards the end of the BBC radio 4 news bulletin, they clearly felt obliged to refer to the “warmergate” affair (probably because a celebrity, Nigel Lawson, had intervened). They spoke of stolen documents and e-mails from CRU and later of theft. The next item was a military story in which they spoke of leaked documents. By their vocabulary shall ye know them.”
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2009%20November.htm
Moderators ont he BBC blogs refused to permit users to quote from emails, or link to them, because it was “illegal”. Whistleblowing is only permitted when it fits with BBC opinion on what is RIGHT!
What concerns me, is the absolute failure of the bbc to answer the question raised by the disclosures about the lack of ethics of the scientists involved and the effect this has on the credibility of their ‘research’.
The ‘Mail’ goes, where the BBC fears to tread:
“Scientists in climate change ‘cover-up’ storm told to quit”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html
And the BBC’s Environmental Lobby neede to be closed down too.
Watching BBC News 24 last night I alsmost fell off my chair – they said last winter many deaths were partly caused the the particularly severe winter cold – see here too http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8375884.stm “The winter of 2008/9 also” had the coldest average winter temperature since 2005/6″
What ? I couldn’t belive they actually said it, and with a completely straight-face, although they moved on rather sharpish.
And yet they constantly peddle the AGW nonsense….
And here’s another one, about rising sea levels. Apologies if it’s already been mentioned but it’s impossible to keep track now, there’s so many.
{Next year we will see the influence of the warming El Nino current, and the Met Office says there is a 50% chance that global temperatures will hit an all-time high}. they never say it the other way round like. the Met Office says there is a 50% chance that global temperatures will NOT hit an all-time high.
The BBC mantra is ‘never mind the quality feel the width’ these junk science disposable reports are designed to flood the airwaves, to bombard the viewer and overwhelm the sense of sceptisism, this is a simple propaganda trick that the nazis and soviets used to great effect, dodgy used car salesmen and barrowboys use the same method and it works.The worse the product the harder the sell technique has to be.
The level of fear and uncertainty has to be ramped up quickly, it really doesnt matter if the reports are complete lies as long as the target audience is saturated with them, sow fear and despair among the people and then lo and behold offer them a chance of salvation.
The BBC are in fact copying their tactics from the worst and most evil regimes in history.
If you are not sure then remember this, not one of these trash mumbo jumbo reports will EVER be renounced or re investigated for accuracy, they are the ultimate disposable reports, they are the toilet paper of the media world and the BBC will NEVER EVER appologise or correct any of them EVER.
The BBC is evil, their tactics are evil and their motives are evil, lying and cheating to further their political objectives in the most perverted way imaginable, these tactics learned from the nazis and now faithfully reproduced by the BBC, these people wonder why we hate them them so much?
MORE obama on the headlines
MORE lies about the urgent need for climate controls
MORE panic
MORE state sponsored fear mongering
we all need to stop paying our licence fees, its the only way to stop these people, we have to take direct action, force their hands
Updated version of ‘Daily Mail’ report:
“Climate change scandal deepens as BBC expert claims he was sent ‘cover-up’ emails a month before they went public”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html#ixzz0XuuWwjOs
Theres something funny going on here. Did the “whistle blower” send the emails etc. to the BBC first? And because the BBC did nothing, they were then relised to the Air Vent? If Hudson had knowledge of this on Oct 12 and the later relise had emails to 12 th Nov, then it must be an insider who has leaked them.
In which case why was there no “internal enquiry” last month when the emails were sent to Hudson.? Yet there was when they were leaked to the Air Vent blog.
Everything points to an insider leaking them – who but a liberal would leak anything to the BBc on “Climate Change”? He or she must have thought the BBc would run with the story and when they didn’t, realised them to a “sceptic” blog.
If this is true then this implements the BBc in a cover up.
The BBC apparently also didn’t inform CRU or the police that they had this material/
I’m fairly right-wing, but I got As in Physics and Chemistry A levels, and I find the scientific arguments for climate change quite compelling, unlike the arguments from you ‘deniers’. I’m sorry, but repeatedly accusing the BBC of being evil doesn’t really do it for me.
Could I ask: Do you recognise ANY limits to growth? If so, what are they? How do you arrive at them? How do you calculate your uncertainties? All this has been done very rigorously by the scientific community, and they continue to do so.
At the current rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 we’ll be at 450ppm by 2030 – about where it was 33m years ago when the South Pole last froze over (which was long before the North Pole froze over).
But your dangerously low knowledge of science is such that you don’t even recognise CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those absorption bands that show what frequencies in the Infra-Red are absorbed by CO2, not to mention satellite measurements, are completely ignored by you.
I suspect that’s because it’s just too inconvenient for you?
Given that you have the vote, would you please educate yourselves in the science of climate change and be open to its conclusions? Don’t forget – nothing in science is ever 100% certain. But when ice sheet melt doubling every 10 years looks even 50% certain, isn’t it time to take the issue seriously and give it a second look?
If there’s anything evil about the BBC it’s that they are NOT doing that. Rather than ducking the issue there need to be scientifically reviewed documentaries with debates – so that ordinary folk can make up their own minds as to whether the planet is in peril or not.
Come on BBC – stand up to the deniers please!
David Attenborough – would you come to the rescue?
If enough people can recognise the reality of climate change we then can have a more useful debate – on how to get a global agreement on how to limit CO2 emissions. Why should anyone limit their lifestyle while others emit with impunity?
Given that the atmosphere is a globally shared resource, there obviously needs to be global agreement. The real debate is therefore a global one – how to put a fair financial disincentive that EFFECTIVELY limits CO2 emissions (sorry to shout).
What we have at the moment is globally accelerating CO2 emissions.
The Copenhagen summit failed. Does that mean we just give up?
The best answer I’ve seen is the Carbon Tax, which gets rebated to the general population. It’s then the market that decides where the energy comes from, not big government subsidised schemes.
A 2 Degree C rise will likely flood coastal cities by the end of the century, and all nations would stand to lose big time. If that happens what will life be like, even 30 years before? Would the global financial system survive if that outcome became widely recognised?
What seems more likely to me than a warmist scam, is rather wealthy fossil fuel special interests trying to cast fear and uncertainty on the case for action. (Tobacco special interests did this successfully for many years.) It therefore doesn’t augur well for our grandchildren, unless people are willing to educate themselves.
The best scientific book I’ve found is Storms of My Grandchildren, by James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.