I listened carefully in BBC bulletins last night and this morning to David Shukman spreading AGW panic about melting glaciers in Bolivia, which he left no doubt were because of “climate change”. Poor, hapless Bolivians were dying of thirst because of Western greed, etc.
I decided to do a bit of google-digging to find if this, indeed, was the “consensus”. It turned out to be like wading through treacle because the topic is dominated by NGOs and other propagandists, who are as fanatical as Shukman. But without too much difficulty, I came across this(you need to scroll down a bit to get to the relevant entry):
It is ironic that the melting Chacaltaya glacier has become such an important symbol of the AGW theory, when in fact the evidence from Chacaltaya seems to refute this theory. (In contrast, the evidence from Chacaltaya is fully consistent with Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory (5), but that is another story).
At the very least, what this shows is that the science behind Shukman’s melting glaciers is highly complex and the subject of debate. To suggest that there is “consensus” or agreement is nonsense.
Yet again, the BBC’s so-called “experts” on this topic are found to be pushing in the crudest way questionable theories in the hyping up of the need for more taxes in Copenhagen. No doubt Mr Shukman had a nice trip to Bolivia (at our expense) and enjoyed speaking with activists who agreed with him. The Bolivians themselves obviously want to press the “we’re doomed” button because they want cash from Gordon Brown. But pushing their views in this unfiltered, unbalanced way is not journalism. It’s propaganda.
Sorry if this has already been picked up on Biased BBC, but I can’t find it.
There was an extraordinary edition of NewsWatch on 4 December. Deputy Director of News, Steve Mitchell, is asked if “the BBC has taken a corporate a decision to downplay the dissident view in the climate debate” and he categorically assures us that no such decision has been made. This is at odds with the BBC Trust report that says:
“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf page 40)
Later Richard Black, BBC Environmental Correspondent, then blames the BBC Trust for the BBC’s lack of balance in reporting the climate story. Talk about rewriting history!
See NewsWatch at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/video_and_audio/8396579.stm bbc
Jonathan Porritt just allowed to have a rather ‘cosy’ chat on News 24. The camp male beeboid just let him spout utter bollocks without once being given a hard time about the corruption of the climate change science.
HOWEVER, Porritt did admit that man may only be contributing a ‘certain amount (50% or more) and did admit that the activity of the Sun, the orbit of the Earth etc did also contribute. HURRAY!!!
How long ago was it that no one on the left would openly admit that not all climate change was man made?
The real debate is about the accuracy of the climate change models and what assumptions are made, if only Porritt had been given a real grilling, but the camp beeboid looked more like he wanted to ask him out on a date.
I love the way the writers of this site believe the ‘climategate’ email saga is reason enough to ignore 30 years of work from thousands and thousands of climate scientist based all around the world. To justify their side of the argument however, they point to a graph produced by a blogger who specialises in “South American culture, art and handicrafts”.
Its a shame you didn’t study the raw data he produced his graph from a bit more closely though. Its actually taken from readings in the centre of a major city (apparently the data is actually designed to be used to study energy efficiency in buildings). I’m hoping that most of you understand meteorology enough to know why using temperature data from the centre of a large populated area is not the best way of studying climate change.
not quite the “gothcha!” moment I think you were hoping for.
The undisputed fact is that the 18,000 year old glacier has lost 80% of its mass in the last 20 years.
“The undisputed fact is that the 18,000 year old glacier has lost 80% of its mass in the last 20 years. “
Irrelevant. This sort of statement is no different from saying that cold weather in summer is proof that MMGW does not exist.
The ONLY things that matter are average global temperatures and whether or not humans have any influence on them.
“Irrelevant.”
Not really irrelevant to the inhabitants of La Paz who are facing water shortages…
“The ONLY things that matter are average global temperatures and whether or not humans have any influence on them.”
Exactly my point. What isn’t relevant is the temperature in the centre of the nearest large city. Pointing to this data as the original poster was doing was merely a poor attempt to confuse the issue.