Melting glaciers are an essential part of the BBC’s AGW alamist narrative. Yesterday it was Greenland alarmism; back in June, it was that Mount Everest is becoming treacherous because of a deluge of meltwater. Mark Hendrickx has done some very thorough digging into the Everest claims, and found that at their root, as usual, is exaggeration and distortion. The source was a paper quoted in the IPCC AR4 report which – it was claimed – showed that Himalayan weather station readings showed rising temperatures. Mr Hendrickx notes first that none of the stations are actually in the most mountainous parts of the Himalayas; and second that they show rises that are so small as to be statistically insignificant. Two of the stations actually showed falls. As Mr Hendrickx concludes:
The case for dangerous man made global warming hangs on the wall like a frayed medieval tapestry. By pulling just one loose thread the whole thing starts to unravel. We pulled one of those threads recently…
But the BBC goes blundering on, always reporting the alarmist drivel and never the work of those who show the lies for what they are.
Interesting tweet from from the BBC’s Peter Bowes last month (funny how Twitter catches them off-guard!):
LA temperatures today are the coolest ever recorded for July. Only 21C 1:24 AM Jul 8th via TweetDeck
http://twitter.com/peterbowes
That’s something I didn’t see on the BBC website.
Joanna Jolly, the female beeboid behind the Everest story, has form on this sort of thing:
Oxfam warning over Nepal climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8225901.stm
Arduous life in Nepal’s parched hills
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8226049.stm
Why doesn’t the BBC expose the massive scandal of all the billions of aid to Nepal that has been syphoned off – which is why the hill dwellers lack irrigation, why the micro-hydrolelectric systems that could be easily installed in the mountains are missing or faulty ?
No – that is too deep for the BBC to explore – “all foreign aid is good”. Much easier to run untrue scare stories about climate change.
I seem to remember the BBC creating some similar hysteria about an Antarctic ice shelf that was breaking up. It turned out the cause was some undersea water flow or something. but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good beeboid climate change story. After all the BBC is full of ‘science experts’ like um Roger… oh no hang on..um yes Richard… ah no, um yes David.. ah no, OK it’s full of twats though!
Global Warming, R.I.P
“Observing increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperatures, scientists assumed that the former must have caused the latter. How did the warmers know that it wasn’t the other way around, and that higher temperatures caused higher CO2 concentrations? Or how did the warmers know that there wasn’t another process, a naturally occurring one, that caused the temperature rise, with increasing CO2 just along for the ride? Answer: They didn’t, because they never bothered to look.
They never felt that they had to look, since emitting CO2 for the true believer is a kind of original sin, a crime committed by affluent societies that requires no corroborating evidence, let alone a scientific trial to determine guilt. But Spencer decided to look, peering into the CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) satellite data more deeply than anyone else in the field.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/global_warming_rip.html
Harrabin et al will not read Spensers monograph let alone report it. Anyone bet me £10 that it will not be seen by BBC listeners/viewers?
There is no scientific doubt that the source of the roughtly 30% rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is fossil fuel burning. Not even scientific sceptics believe this.
Reasons:
1) The 30% rise matches the estimated amount of fuel burnt
2) Fossil fuels have a different ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 than carbon in the atmosphere. There is much less carbon-13 in fossil fuels because they are so old that it has mostly decayed. The drop in carbon-13 relative to carbon-12 in the atmosphere is a strong signal of burning fossil fuels and its magnitude matches that expected if fossil fuels were the cause.
3) Any natural source of carbon dioxide on such a scale should be detectable (for comparison volcanic activity emits about 1/100th of the carbon dioxide of fuel burning).
There is too much money in them thar Carbon hills. Mountains of money, tax money, our money, to be extorted from us via hiking energy bills, of traders dealing in Carbon futures, of banks and finance houses who have staked hundreds of millions in Carbon futures. We are talking here of trillions.
With such large amounts of money involved, everyone is on the act. Not just the banks, and government but also Big Oil, Big Gas, the lot.
And what have we got? No real financial support. Not even the taxpayer funded media, which would have been expected to take a more sceptical view of AGW, and sided with the common man, who will have to pay for it all anyway.
The flat earth society comments on. I guess it just goes hand-in-hand with the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. Funny you didn’t comment on the actual story to which you are referring but instead dig up some old garbage to back up whatever it is you’re tryng to prove or disprove. Whe knows? Have fun waiting for Armageddon, children.
Greetings, Hyperbole Troll.