The BBC has a new article on its website about the latest work from Michael Mann, and it’s as if Climategate never happened. Gerald Warner mocks the BBC, while Watts Up With That mocks Mann’s apparent discovery of the Medieval Warm Period
The BBC clearly thinks it has “done” the CRU scandal and is now carrying on as before, faithfully reporting the carefully orchestrated release of Copenhagen climate propaganda.
(Hat tip ibjc and Marky)
Update 19.05: IPCC climatologist says Mann no longer credible, acknowledges career probably screwed for daring to say so.
I wish they would put a comments section to that article. It would get slammed. Beeboids really do live in a parallel universe dont they? As if anyone with any sense will believe anything they, and the so-called scientists, say about the weather again. Idiots.
The BBC must have had a hot meeting on how to respond to Climategate. Conclusions
1. Avoid addressing the issue for as long as possible – till it becomes old hat. Hopefully it goes away. In the meantime carry on as usual.
2. By then, the CRUtape authors should have come up with some defence. Once they have, then mount a huge offensive campaign again the sceptics, as well as lauding the CRU and its eminent scientists, who have been unjustly maligned by a bunch of people who have no credibility etc.
3. Give little or no time and space to the sceptics- just enough to avoid being accused of bias.
What choice does the BBC have? Hard times are ahead for all governments. Somehow they have to find the money. If the don’t, then the BBC will also have to share in the cuts.
The question still remains- why do all Western governments, and it seems it is only Western governments, need such huge amounts of money.
Its not western governments that need the money, it is the western banking system.
This system is basically screwed, and has been for some years, as the bulk of the value of its financial trading is based on the “derivatives” bubble, which now eclipses by some multiples the size of the “real” global economy.
Of course this trading, by its very nature, is based on nothing more tangible than fresh air, but has been up to now very profitable.
The banks are aware of the weakness of their position, and see the setting up of a new derivative trading system based on CO2 indulgences as a potential way out of the hole they have dug for themselves.
There are some very powerful and influential forces at work trying to put systems like “cap n’ trade” in place as soon as it is reasonably possible.
That is why otherwise sensible and rational politicians and commentators insist on continuing to push what the rest of us now recognise as the most ridiculous nonsense.
It is clearly not about a bit of inclement weather.
The BBC, the official organ of state propaganda, has to follow the official line.
It dare not do otherwise.
Oh dear, the BBC really are scraping the bottom of the barrel – the Now Show features an “only right wing idiots take the University of East Anglia e-mail leaks seriously” type sketch. Well, it certainly isn’t humour, so what exactly is it meant to be?
Am I the only one who finds this show highly annoying? It’s just not funny and I just hate the way that these liberal lefty comedians pontificate as part of the act.
“only right wing idiots take the University of East Anglia e-mail leaks seriously”
And left-wing idiots continually want to take everyone down the road of big government, totalitarianism. Have learnt nothing about what should have been learnt by the end of the twentieth century or actually have wet dreams about state control in every part of our lives.
I heard this rubbish as well although I turned it off after 5 minutes. Amazingly it managed to reach a new low even for the Now Show. You would think the leaked CRU emails provide a gold mine of material for the satirical comedian/journalist what with the incompetance , arse licking and data fiddling they reveal. Instead we now have an entire generation of comics whose entire act relies on hating Thatch but don’t realise they are 30 years out of date.
I thought that climate change we definate fact?
Guest – It is a fact.
I would not have noticed myself, but someone pointed out to me the other day that the majestic glacier which used to sweep past my house and down across the Warwickshire plains has gone.
Melted.
Completely buggered.
It must have been that bloke up the road with the land Cruiser.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml?s_sync=1
There is some lively debate going on (mine starts at 89). I hope for the sake of allah my last posting in response to the Dave geezer gets through cause I spent farken ages formatting it!
Some of you whinge about this forum but the BBC ones, for the billions they get, is absolute sh1t!!!
Regards
Mailman
US and China to reduce emissions, but not enough
By ARTHUR MAX (AP) – 24 minutes ago
AMSTERDAM — Even after the U.S. and China set targets this week for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the world’s combined pledges ahead of next month’s climate summit fall far short of what experts say is needed to avert dangerous global warming.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9TuMrvrknh-ZXwqmZ2N-48kff3wD9C84L280
and
India to reveal climate change goals soon: Sarkozy
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hvUDXjzcK9bYyPcj1qVUuTQi5Slw
———————————
Very strange. Now even China and India have joined the AGWCC racket.
You have to ask just what did the west promise them to sign on the line?
Obama went to China and then China makes a promise to cut CO2, what did the POTUS promise in return for communist compliance? Did Obama give away Tiawan into the embrace of China? Did Clinton promise India of support in a war against Pakistan?
The reality could be very scary indeed!
this climate change guff HAS GOT TO STOP. humans are supposed to drive forward, progress. survival of the fittest and all that. we are not supposed to build airplanes and then stop flying in them as there MAY be a risk ONE DAY in the future that the flying will melt the ice caps. its craziness.
The BBC are hoping they can keep the lid down for the next 2 week until Copenhagen, it will be interesting to see their discomfort while they try, they may succeed in keeping it in the middle pages, so to speak, but there are some in the AGW camp who find this behaviour of their colleagues distasteful, Mike Hulme a respected climatologist has been hinting at this for a while and now he’s added his voice quite forcefully:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/uea-climate-scientist-possible-that-i-p-c-c-has-run-its-course/
“The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”
“It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course.”
– you would think this would be quite a monster scoop in the regular universe, its sad to say I wonder if the BBC will even report it.
“All the evidence we’ve heard regarding global warming never constituted, in any manner, actual evidence that it was taking place.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/what-is-%E2%80%94-and-what-isnt-%E2%80%94-evidence-of-global-warming/
When people say that the floods in Cumbria are the result of climate change you can agree with them, but this does not prove that it was because of CO2. And that is the argument that people don’t get. It is already imprinted in the subconcious by the BBC et al that “Climate Change” = “Climate Change” + CO2. It does not prove that at all. Even if the climate changes (which it does), it does not follow that CO2 is responsible. That is why “Global Warming” was changed to a natural occurance ie “climate change”. Afer all no one can disagree with the climate changing. The BBC and their friends argue that any change in climate no matter what is a result of CO2 although they don’t tend to dwell on the CO2 bit this is taken as read. When was the climate static? Before industrialisation, did climate not change? Was it always the same throughout the year with no floods or high winds or sometimes warmer one winter compared with the previous one? How anyone believed their nonsense in the first place has always bemused me (and quite a few others here). Especially when the theory of global warming did not stand up to the fact that temperatures have not been rising for the last 10 years. Not only did they “try and hide the decline” they also changed the terminology – this to me was the giveaway.
The trouble is that the upward temperature trend has continued over the last ten years. It is only by ignoring the fact that 1998 was EXTREMELY warm ie a freakishly warm year, if you will, that it is possible to argue that there has been no warming by starting ones ten years at this freakishly warm year. One can’t make a judgement about a trend from one extreme year anymore than you can about one extreme event such as the recent flooding. I’m equally against the reporting of this flooding as evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
Ed (ex-RSA) – but where is the evidence for this “global” trend? These data are taken from only a few countries it does not include most of the earth which is water. How many surface temperature stations were there in 1860?.
“Deriving a reliable global temperature from the instrument data is not easy because the instruments are not evenly distributed across the planet, the hardware and observing locations have changed over the years, and there has been extensive land use change (such as urbanization) around some of the sites.
The calculation needs to filter out the changes that have occurred over time that are not climate related (eg urban heat islands), then interpolate across regions where instrument data has historically been sparse (eg in the southern hemisphere and at sea), before an average can be taken.
There are two main global temperature datasets, both developed since the late 1970s: that maintained by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and that maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies . Both datasets are updated on a monthly basis and are generally in close agreement.”
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Surface_temperature_record
The graph you use seems to be taken from AR4 – which to say the least is now under suspicion.
We can only go back to 1979 to get some idea of global temperatures from satellite temperature measurements. But I agree that such a short period cannot be used for a long term trend.
And may I ad that even if the data from CRU is corrrect it does not mean that CO2 is the cause.
There are follow on consequences of the CRU fraud scandal that is going to become a deciding factor in the next general election.
There is a grassroots revolt building quickly within the ranks of the conservative party, the Cameron leadership is blindly and slavishly following the man made global warming fraud regardless of the wishes of his grassroots party and the rank and file are getting very angry.
Cameron sold out his party when he connived to refuse the voter a say on the EU superstate, he is now refusing to listen to the loyal rank and file about the AGW fraud, as the evidence mounts of a scandalous coverup of the fraud, Cameron is busy imposing a series of utterly destructive policies on his party regardless of the facts.
He must believe that he will win the election on the back of the publics hatred for Brown alone and that he doesnt need his grassroots anymore, he must believe that he can rely on Tory grassroots loyalty to supress a rebellion, if he does then he is mistaken.
‘fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me’
Caneron betrayed his party on the promised EU referendum and now he is betraying his party over the global warming fraud and his supporters are starting to realise that if Cameron is anything he is NOT a real conservative.
The very worst thing that could happen to the UK is not a Brown victory but a Cameron victory, the anti democratic charade has concentrated the peoples minds on the pathetic bladder on a stick Brown in the hope that the people would be so sick of one puppet they would vote for the other puppet and not see the real nature of the other puppet.
I beg all real Tory voters to give serious thought to where you place your vote at the next(last)general election, the consequences of a Cameron victory could well spell the end of the UK as a free democratic nation, the hate figure of Brown has been placed there for the mob to throw stones at but the supposed saviour from the Brown regime could well be worse than Brown.
Off topic,
That is probably one of the stupidest posts Ive seen from You Cassandra. What do you suggest people do, vote for UKIP, in which case Labour will stay in power! Given Labours systematic destruction of the UK your claim that the tories could be even worse is absolutely diabolically ridiculous!
Fact is, global warming ™ is hot politics and any politician that goes against the current mantra is dead in the water.
And as for the EU thing, completely and utterly unrelated to global warming ™.
Lets try and stay on track, we have a big enough battle on our hands defeating global warming ™ jihadi’s without having to worry about eco whackery or the next general election.
Mailman
Dear mailman,
I have the greatest respect for you and I understand your frustration but the EU and the global warming fraud are closely linked, the AGW fraud is being pushed by the EU and has been for years, they are fanatical about it because it greatly expands their power.
David Cameron could tell the truth to the British people about the EU treaty, he could honour his promise of a referendum, he could strike down the evil sellout treaty in weeks IF he wished to do so.
I ask you to consider the distinct possibility that Cameron is fully on board the global warming swindle because he has sold out to the AGW conspiracy, I ask you to consider the possibility that Cameron lied about the referendum because he has sold the Tory party out to the EUSSR, I believe Cameron never had any intention of giving us a referendum.
The urge to kick out the hate figure of Brown has become so urgent that the electorate will vote for Cameron as an escape BUT what if we are jumping into the Tory fire from the newlabour frying pan?
I ask you to consider what is the point of voting Tory IF the circumstantial evidence points to the fact that Cameron has sold us all out to the EU and NWO global government based around the AGW fraud?
I am very sorry to offend you but the Tory party we loved and I voted for since 1883 is dead, it has been taken over and subverted, many Tory voters are starting to see the sad reality.
I would rather see the bladder on a stick retard Brown voted back in rather than a lying sellout traitor.
“I voted for since 1883” ? er I am not that old! I meant of course 1983.
The EU debacle is NOT Daves creation. This is purely a labour created problem and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Tories.
Plus, I expect al beeb will start playing up concerns like yours and the closer we get to the election the harder al beeb will push the “vote for UKIP instead of Tories” meme…because if enough people do that then labour will stay in power.
And as I keep telling my Eye-ranian friends, you get the government you deserve!
Mailman
It’s got everything to do with the Tories. It’s their job to sort it out and David Cameron has shown he has absolutely no intention of doing so.
You are right Roland – Until the Tories come out and challenge the “one world” socialism being put forward by all the western governments then he is as much a part of this as any socialist apparachnik. The only sensible person who will be remembered by history is Vaklav Klaus..
The idea that you vote Tory to keep out Labour is not a very convincing argument. Vote in who you trust will hold this government to account. If the Tories are still following the pro-AGW line regardless of the uncertainties that have come to light, then they are just as bad. Why vote for a party that is trying to demonize CO2 more than Greenpeace
” Yet, astonishingly, although dozens of MPs queued up to speak in favour of the [Climate Change] Bill, only two dared to question the need for it. It passed by 463 votes to just three.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
Here is another example of David Cameron living in the same political group think village with all the other uninformed elite.
“In nine days time, representatives from 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen for the UN Conference on climate change. This summit is of historic importance. It is an opportunity for the world to take bold action to deal with the real danger of climate change.
So this week, ahead of the summit, members of my Shadow Cabinet have given a series of speeches setting out plans to help protect the global environment. Each one of these speeches sets out specific steps which need to be taken if we are going to reduce our carbon emissions.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018236/climategate-the-conservative-backlash-begins/
Careful what you say… or do…
Personally, I’m less keen on being governed, or informed by folk who seem to have a hive mind and deem fair questions to be resistance..
As to Cameron, as I survey the ‘anyone but Brown’ options… he ain’t high on the greasy pole either.
And the notion that either of these two, or their parties, (and most others) have a clue about the environment, much less care beyond short-term deals, is laughable.