As I have suspected would happen, now that there are more and more problems in the climate change crusade, the BBC is increasingly shifting its emphasis on the intensifying push to introduce world government to ensure biodiversity. The UN convention that is frantically studying this topic in order to extract as much political cpaital as possible is meeting in Japan, and Richard Black is of course there at our expense. This is what he concludes:
Many experts believe it is necessary if scientific evidence on the importance of biodiversity loss is to be transmitted effectively to governments, in the same way that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assembles evidence that governments can use when deciding whether to tackle climate change.
What he doesn’t say, of course, is that many competent (but less political) experts maintain the opposite: that his carefully chosen glass half empty phrases, such as “deforestation”, and “species extinction”, are a load of alarmist cobblers. I have referred before to this Extinction Fiction paper by Donna Laframboise which puts the whole pile of pessimist agitsprop into perspective. Mr Black, as usual, ignores material like this and is only concerned to present the negative, world-will-end, must-tax-us-more synthesis; it’s not balanced reporting, just propaganda.
“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assembles evidence that governments can use when deciding whether to tackle climate change.”
Not the normal “HOW to tackle Climate Change” Is this a subtle shift in emphasis?.
Tackling Climate Change is now optional?
The BBC–at the forefront of leading us to the “new” hysteria.
Oh dear… (a bit off topic, maybe), NO Severn barrage. Sack cloth and ashes, hands wrung, we’re even more doomed….
Anyone hear the arguments earlier on Toady about renewable energy? Apparently wind is currently able to handle 10% of the demand – I think I heard that right, but I was too busy falling about. I notice Humphyrs wound it up a bit quick when it looked like the anti-windfarm bloke seemed to be gaining the upper hand. It’s been around 0.8 – 1.0% these last few days, I understand. But no Severn barrage? What ever next…
This 10% claim appears to be coming from a person who refers to themselves online as “Steven Dobbs” and who claims to be a scientist. You’ll find him all over telegraph environment threads and facebook groups. He just repeats the same rubbish over and over again.
AFAIK the claim rests on a brief moment when nationwide demand for electricity was so low, combined with high wind speeds across a lot of the country that for a brief blip wind was covering 10% of supply. This is now disingenuously being repeated as evidence that wind power can now magically provide 10% of the country’s energy needs.
Biodiversity is the new man made global warming(MMGW) which was replaced by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming(CAGW) which was replaced by global climate disruption(GCD).
I loved the way they are trying to include a sweetener for the pill in the form a warning that this biodiversity bullsh*t is costing the world economy, they just had to add that didnt they? Just another faked up justification for the science is settled there is no debate.
Black, joke of the decade now?
Autonomous Mind has a go at Black and Harrabin (with a link back to Biased-BBC).
What was the combined carbon footprint of Black and all those other “science correspondents” flying to Japan? I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they start acting like there’s one.
While the Beeboids are wringing their hands over the loss of “so-called bio-diversity”, I’d like to see them spend the bulk of their energies attacking the Chinese and Africans, who are by far the worst offenders. Come on, BBC, how serious are you?
Black maybe pushing “biodiversity” (what a horrible made up word), but they still have to link it with carbon (read CO2). Otherwise they are stuffed.