Check out Katty Kay – taking over for Matt Frei as alpha Beeboid at BBC World News America since he left for Channel 4 – telling Mayor Bloomberg of New York that she is “astonished” to learn that more and more people in the US are turning away from Warmism.
“What is it with the American public opinion that seems to fly in the face of all the scientific evidence?”
Calm down, dear. Substitute any other political issue and the Beeboids are usually equally astonished by American public opinion. But never mind.
First of all, it’s not that the people don’t believe the climate changes. That’s BS Number One from the Warmists. Of course the climate changes; we all know that and it’s not in dispute. The question is whether or not it’s caused mostly by human activity. The science on that is being debated all the time, yet the BBC acts as if it’s not, and only whackos don’t get it.
The reason I call this BS #1 is that the very euphemism the Warmists have forced into the discussion – “Climate Change” – is disingenuous. What they all really mean is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The “science” of AGW, invented by people whose careers and fortune depend on it becoming fact, is what Katty is talking about, and not about whether or not the earth’s climate changes or was in a warming trend for a while. But because the Warmists have already won the argument – if you’re using their terminology, they’ve already won the argument, even if you’re still talking – Katty and the BBC can get away with saying that people like me don’t believe in “Global Warming” when in fact it’s that we don’t believe that building one more clean coal plant will sink the Maldives. The recent record cold temperatures around the US probably don’t help. But that’s only weather, yeah.
The reason they switched terms is because “Global Warming” can mean all things to all people. There is no cause or effect implied. Yet we know the BBC and all Warmists believe the cause is human activity, as the topic of this discussion between Kay and Bloomberg proves. As the term itself is dishonest, this BBC segment is dishonest and Katty and Mayor Mikey are dishonest for using the term.
Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is a committed Warmist and an über-Nanny Statist. Don’t even get me started on the behavior he’s banned against the wishes of New Yorkers. Hell, even the fact that he’s mayor right now is undemocratic, because he went against the voters – and his own promise – and twisted enough arms to change the term limit rules so he could buy a third election run for mayor a third time (and I speak as someone who happily voted for him the first time, knowing full well that he was a RINO Nanny). So this guy is the perfect example of an elite ruling class forcing his own personal wishes on a helpless public. No wonder the BBC wanted to talk to him. As soon as Bloomberg says “reduce consumption”, you know where he and the BBC stand. All your personal freedoms are belong to us.
I’m not going to bother getting into more details of Katty’s interview with the mayor, because it’s beyond the point. The BBC – as admitted by Jeremy Paxman in the sidebar – long ago took sides in the debate, and actively works to pursue a specific political agenda. Carbon emission regulations, coal plant permits, government subsidy/investment in various technologies, and the regulations for the entire automotive industry are all political issues. Even if we’re talking about seat belts in cars or helmets for motorcycles, creating a law about any of it is a political issue. No matter which side one is on, it’s done in the legislature by – in theory – democratically elected representatives, and these laws can be changed or repealed entirely by the next batch of democratically elected representatives if that’s what the voters want.
It doesn’t matter which side of the Warmism debate one is on. Legislation is political, full stop. The BBC always takes sides in this specific political issue, and deliberately chooses disingenuous language to support it. And as seen here, they do political advocacy posing as news and information.
“The reason I call this BS #1 is that the very euphemism the Warmists have forced into the discussion – “Climate Change” – is disingenuous”
This is the biggest fraud indeed when “debating” climate change. I bring this up many times with people. Climate change is not AGW. The AGW theory is the most flawed theory in the history of science.
So instead of using the tried and tested scientific methods the zealots turn science into a farce.
AGW is not proven, it will not be proven, so the activists masquerading as scientists reverse the “null hypothesis”. The arch druid Trenberth does not want to prove the theory he wants anyone who disagrees with hime to disprove it.
http://globalsham.blogspot.com/2011/02/agw-scientist-prove-global-warming.html
Only a religion can be based on blind faith. You will never prove to me that God does not exist, I have faith. Yet AGW is supposed to be science. Any scientist who comes out with quasi- relgious language does not deserve the title “scientist” but preist.
“What is it with the American public opinion that seems to fly in the face of all the scientific evidence?”
What evidence? No really, what evidence?
No increase in storms/tornadoes/hurricanes/droughts/floods.
Sea levels are not rising and have even shown a recent tiny fall.
Polar ice levels are normal and there has been a significant rise in snow pack levels at high altitudes.
Global temperatures have shown no measurable rise for over a decade now and even show a slight declining trend from 1998.
Polar bears are thriving.
Ocean acidification? A bigger load of bollocks you could not invent if you tried, its up there with the hollow earth theory.
None of the predictions of doom and disaster so eagerly pimped by the BBC have to pass, every prediction that the BBC has made has failed completely. CAGW predictive models have failed, the IPCC predictions have failed, greenpiss/FoE hysterical scaremongering are being shown to be just that.
“all the evidence”? In fact all the evidence now points clearly to one overiding truth. CAGW is a giant fraud. These ecofascists have no shame do they?
‘“What is it with the [ ] public opinion that seems to fly in the face of all the [stuff the BBC selectively chooses to notice/agrees with]?”
That does seem a rather extraordinary way to phrase things when claiming to be an impartial reporter.
The BBC, its employees, those it supports and their groupies having problems with majority public preference seems a bit of a meme.
Look, we’re getting pretty miffed at the stupid public for not believing in our obviously invented religion – it’s for their own good, after all (we can’t have them getting too comfortable with heated homes and electric light, can we?). What is it with them? Why can’t they understand that what they can see is actually happening (or rather, not happening) is at odds with the indisputable truth that we’re giving them (as a result of clever computer modelling)? Eh?
I mean, it must be evident to even them, that when they see a static (or falling) sea level, that the opposite is occurring and we have the foresight to notice, and warn them of their future inundation in, say, a few thousand years, or even next week – possibly.
Equally, when we tell everyone that the world is warming up, and all that horrid CO2 is making it warmer, and that it’s their fault, why do they need to resort to observation and science to find that perhaps that’s not the case at all? They are being deceived by their very eyes – WE know the truth, why won’t they listen when we tell them? Why do they laugh in our faces?
Yes, we know that everything we say can be refuted scientifically, or by looking at a few old newspapers, but that’s not the point – we know best, and we can save the planet!
They must realise, surely, that the dreadful catastrophe which is about to befall the world and destroy us all, can only be averted by the application of stringent taxation, removal of freedoms, construction of windmills, and the disintegration of national economies
I do wonder about these names…is it Katty Kay so she won`t forget it when she`s asked?
We have a Nina Nana (or something like that!) on Channel 4,so wonder if their posh names are taken off them at some Liberal InductionCeremony that they`re not telling us about.
WE have a Judge Judge running our courts and of course…David Willey wanting the Pope to issue condoms(he`s the Beebsboy in Rome).
Be easy to just call all the eco loons” Green” wouldn`t it?
cj,
The ultimate must be the aristocratic Lord Stansfield, Anthony Wedgewood Benn , who became ” Tony Benn ” just to prove he is a man of the people. What a pathetic prat.
In order to honestly support the establishment position on GW, mere acceptance of AGW is insufficient. One must additionally believe that the A in AGW is <i>catastrophic</i> (i.e. that it is CAGW), in the sense that mere adaptation to its effects is unfeasible, and mitigation is the only option; and that self-evidently idiotic, corrupt ‘greenie’ policies offer a benefit in preventing the coming catastrophe that outweights their incalculably astronomical cost.
In other words, it requires a degree of faith in the ideal of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent power of the State that only a socialist can muster.