Monthly Archives: March 2010

The BBC slavishly reports the findings of the Met Office, even though it is headed by a climate change activist, and even though – with funding of £243m from the government to carry on its climate change mission – its forecasts are totally unreliable, its measurements systems highly questionable, and its overall credentials are totally shot. So the latest report from this august body (published, naturally, by the BBC, its house PR agency, before appearing on its own website), that recent research papers confirm increased man-made warming, is elevated to reverential headline status. No one at the BBC ever seems to even begin to question why it is so partisan; its utterances are treated as sacred, like the Delphic oracle was to Athens.

Thank god, then for people like Richard North, of EU Referendum. From his Bradford semi, he’s been toiling and chipping away, working out how much our so-called government is spending on climate change “research” – those confections that the Met Office seems to think are real evidence rather than agitprop. In a cracking posting today, he points out that in the US, to date, at least $89bn has been spent on climate change measures and hot air; here, by just scratching the surface (as he puts it), he’s found that no less than around £500m has been spent purely on funding research projects. And surprise, surprise; they don’t bite the hand that feeds them.

Chances of the BBC uttering a word about this national scandal of our money being tipped on to the climate change gravy train? Zero. Yet the research involved from the Sybils of the Met has about as much credibility as that of a paper on human biology by Mengele.

Update:Fascinating post from Joe Bastardi of Accuweather (definitely NOT in the sway of government grants)here about why the Met office gets it wrong every time…

***Update: The Met office throws in the towel and admits it can’t see three months in advance with any certainty. But still, it – and its press officers, the BBC – claim to be right about what will happen fifty years hence.

*****Update: For the sort of debunking of Met office hot air that BBC journalists ought to be pursuing – instead of pushing their propaganda – take a look at this. I quote from the conclusion:

So the work of the Met Office is just about propaganda. It’s not science. It’s about their attempts to intimidate people by suggesting that there are hundreds of people who may disagree with you if you disagree with AGW. But none of them actually has any argument that would be ready for a detailed promotion in isolation. It’s only the quantity, the brute force of the people who have a vested interest for the panic to continue.

When a spoiled little rich kid called David de Rothschild decides to blow millions on world-saving fantasies , the BBC immediately elevate him to being an “eco-warrior” and devote acres of web space to what amounts to hero-worship. Dear David – whose banking ancestors helped fund Britain’s great industrial expansion – has seeemingly spent his life on a guilt-trip drawing attention to the follies of the West, and of course, in the BBC’s eyes, that makes him a candidate for sainthood. Especially as his main activity is listed as Adventure Ecology, a fanatical “expedition group” raising awareness about climate change.

Our Dave’s philosopy, uncannily like the BBC ‘s, is outlined on one of his websites, this one about his failed mission to traverse the Arctic in 2006:

“Now that I’m back at home safely it’s crystal clear in my mind what I left behind is a rapidly dying ecosystem. Over the last 100 days I’ve had the unique privilege to call the Arctic Ocean my home. This opportunity has given me a first hand glimpse at the truly devastating effects of global warming and climate change. It’s fair to say that most eco systems are usually very capable of maintaining themselves but like everything in life there is always a breaking point when you push things too far, the same applies to the Arctic.

“Prior to this expedition I don’t think I had truly grasped the sensitivity of our climate systems. The bottom line is they are littered with a multitude of tipping points and feedback loops which when crossed replace the so called ‘slow creep’ of environmental decay with a sudden and self perpetuating collapse.”

With a grasp of science like that, no wonder the BBC thinks he’s a true eco-warrior!