As we inch closer and closer to Copenhagen, the BBC runs a story claiming that sea levels could rise by four and a half feet! Our pal Richard Black manages to run this ludicrous claim without so much as one word to the contrary from the reality based community. The “science” gets looser by the day but the BBC is hyping this like there is no day after tomorrow…
A SCARE A DAY..
Bookmark the permalink.
Ooops as usual I post a long rant on another thread and it comes up in a new thread!
The trash report comes from the fraudster Richard Black and its a poor rehash attempt to provide backup for the Copenhagen festival of lies, quite how he thinks we will buy his lies is beyond my ken.
It looks like what it is, a throwawy trash science bag of mumbo jumbo manipulated to look like a dire threat.
Only in the ridiculous fantasy land of AGW can a cooling antarctica and record ice mass lead to melting and sea level rise, the planet is cooling in line with natural cycles and ice levels are rebounding from cyclic reductions, the worlds sea levels are stable and the rise has been tiny and is now slowing to almost nothing, all this is a fact and no amount of fiddling and forgery and fraud will change reality, all the lies in the world will melt away in the face of reality and truth.
Difference between BBC and Pravda? We all know which one has a reputation for censoring news that doesn’t file the party line.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0
Wow, four and a half feet. That’s quite a lot. Oh well. Maybe they can find a way of harnessing that immense heat below the surface of the Earth. According to Al Gore, the high priest of AGW and an all-round super-genius, it’s ‘several million degrees’ only a few miles down. We can tap into that using existing drilling equipment, and with all of that energy, we can not only burn off this water, but also get lots of lovely, green geothermal power.
“warming seas are accelerating melting in the west of the continent.”
Well then, that’s that – it must be down to CO2 because there is no other explanation.
Well, apart from the fact that the West Antartic Peninsula sits on top of an active volcano.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080120160720.htm
I wonder if Michael Mann asked him not to mention that.
Oh and look, on Today, Prof John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey and lead editor of the latest panic-inducing report on research in Antarctica “comments on the findings”. Naughtie commented in mock-concern that sceptics would be, well, “sceptical” about this with which Prof Turner agreed. BBC listeners of a nervous disposition shouldn’t worry: the report is peer reviewed and robust. Accordingly, all the “facts” the BBC wants known (and none that it doesn’t) are put before its listeners. Before BBC fans get upset at allegations of partiality, I know the Times led on this as well but, you see, I don’t have to pay for the Times and the Times isn’t legally required to present impartial information to its readers. OTOH I admit to disgust with the Times which published a flagrantly biased AGW propaganda sheet disguised as its colour supplement over the weekend.
We were also told on the news section of Today that “maverick” new leader of the Australian opposition (and a climate sceptic) risks humiliation at a possible snap general election because he will have the Australian Senate throw out Rudd’s carbon trading bill. This might be true but it’s not news. The news is that Turnbull – the previous leader of the Australian Liberals (Conservatives) was toppled by his party because, finally, the Australian Conservatives (unlike ours) balked at the AGW crap forced down their throats encouraged, in part, by the CRU revelations of the corruption of climate science. If the BBC wishes to editorialise (using words like “maverick” or phrases like “putting an agreement in Copenhagen in danger” or speculates on possible general elections or their outcomes) then don’t call it news: call it “opinion” or “analysis” like most hitherto respectable MSM outlets do.
The more Al Beeb and its scumbag reporters peddle the climate change lies, the more people will see its just a load of bollox
say it loud and say it proud, sod off swampy
Umbongo 10:32
News at 1 had Turner given a free ride by Sophie Raworth as he took the “even worse than we thought ” line. Not one sceptical question.
Look at this old 2006 BBC webpage / radio prog – getting in a lather about science being doctored – its from the Bush era of course – so it was fair game then apparently!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/scienceblacklist.shtml?focuswin
Grant
They’re desperate to keep the panic needle in the red until (at least) after Copenhagen: it’ll get worse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm'Show Your Working’: What ‘ClimateGate’ means
How high’s the water, Scammer?
Four feet high and risin’.
How high’s the water, Scammer?
Five feet high and risin’.
Ryan
The link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm .
That’s a thoughtful article and a fair assessment of where the practice of science stands and two cheers for the BBC for allowing the use of one of the less frequented part of its website.
It’s a pity that Hulme and Ravetz don’t go further and ask, in particular, why in practice the BBC acts against the “scientific” process they espouse by propagandising for the warmists, giving unchallenged publicity to the most hysterical panic-inducing predictions and, wherever possible, closing down debate where it matters most – on TV and radio.
Sorry, the link is
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm
Any reader who had not already informed themselves would think the matter was simply about a leak of private correspondence and wonder what the fuss was about. It is something of an achievement to have written such a lengthy article without ever referring to the apparant data manipulation, data destruction, bad computer code and self-confessed “trickery” which is what Climategate is actually about.
To be fair to the writers I think they are talking about a different and more general matter: the process of science itself. However, since the proximate cause of the posting of this article is the corruption of that process revealed at the CRU, there is a massive elephant in the room which the BBC insists on ignoring.
Were the BBC truly impartial, the comparison of the genuine scientific process (per the article) with the goings on in climate science would have been obvious from what should be a plethora of information from all sides made available all over the BBC website and on its major broadcasting outlets.
I don’t believe it’s wholly blameworthy for the writers to ignore the particular corruption at the CRU although, as I noted, it might have been salutary to use the actions of the BBC as an example of those complicit in the general corruption of climate science.
Anyone else think that the BBC has ramped up the Climate propaganda this week, in reaction to the CRU fallout?
6’oclock news – 3 global warming advocates, missed the first guys name, followed by someone from the global warming foundation (no conflict of interest there then!) and then rounded off by a quite impassioned Lord Stern, the well known climate scientist, to tells us its real, its happening and yes you’ve guessed it, the science is settled. No guessing what he thinks about anyone questioning the science. (Not sure what he would make of the link below – after all there are 9000+ guys with actual phd’s in science). Accompanied by lots of emotive images of melting ice etc.
No counter point, no balance no dissent, just out and out propaganda.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Associated Press report this but not yet on the Al-Beeb – breaking news you would think, but not for our national news organisation!!!
“LONDON — Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.”
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-climate-scientist-to-221080.html
But this is not new “science” – it is based on past papers that may have used the assumptions put forward by the “Hocky Teams'” that CO2 is responsible for the warming.
I could probably produce the same result myself if all I did was go through a hundred or so “scientific” papers produced by Mann and his pals.
I wooder when this report was produced? It must have been before “Climategate” unless the BBC asked SCAR to knock it up for them in time for Copenhagen.
Interesting letter in the Times [Oct 2007] by the same Colin Summerhayes Executive Director, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, Scott Polar Research Institute who now tells us about the 41/2 foot sea increase.
Here he is disagreeing with a previous article by David Bellamy.
“”Sir, David Bellamy has been pushing his anti-global warming barrow around for some time, peddling the same old mistakes (Comment, Oct 22). He apparently understand so little about the issue that he thinks that the “hockey stick” graph that shows a marked increase in global warming since 1900 was generated by a computer (it was actually a summary of measurements and proxy measurements), and he further thinks that it is wrong — whereas it was vindicated not by a bunch of greenies, but by the US National Academy of Sciences. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article2725341.ece