It’s been a tricky time for the eco-wacko global warming cultists what with Mother Earth not doing what they demand, but I see that the BBC has managed to find a way to fight back with the exultant headline “Global Warming – “Confirmed”. I see our good friend on Biased BBC Richard Black is behind this advocacy on behalf of the Berkeley Earth Project. Lest you doubt the veracity, read this from Richard, right up there in the third sentence in case you missed it;
The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.
Global Warming – proven. LOL – poor old Richard, desperate to sustain the cult and his BBC masters keen to provide him with a pulpit.
No mention in the Today interview at 8:30 of this comment http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/pielke-sr-no-surprise-about-best/ by Roger Pielke Sr concerning the question begging part of the BEST “research” to the effect that that since all the temperature observations analysed come from the same source it’s no wonder they are correlated. The surprise would be if they weren’t: and Richard Muller claims to be “surprised” by the results of BEST’s conclusions.
BTW were my ears deceiving me when I picked up at the fag-end of the Radio 4 8:00 am bulletin that not only did the BEST findings vindicate the fantasists at UEA concerning the data but that the increased temperatures were due to man? Even Muller didn’t claim this when asked directly.
Apparently, the BEST results have been published without peer review and without publication in a learned journal. It seems that the BEST analysis is too fragile to bear the lightness even of the pal review process of climate “science”. Furthermore, as Anthony Watts notes http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/ concerning the warmist triumphalism of the Economist “. . . The Economist still doesn’t get it. The issue of “the world is warming” is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes.”: a stricture which Richard Black (a “journalist”) consistently ignores.
Winter’s are getting milder according to this at around the 15:00 mark!?
What planet are they on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015zm98
Such a shame to see conservation issues being polluted with AGW nonsense.
If they are still publishing headlines like above “Global Warming – Confirmed”. It shows that they don’t really believe the arguments are “all done” and that there is a “scientific concensus” as they have previously claimed as a reason for not allowing opposing points of view to be expressed.
They know they are pushing lies and hiding truths. This proves it.
Thanks BBBCs – as I heard it on the Today program I just knew there would be more than meets the eye. They did of course explain that it was pre peer-review but having just gone to Wattsupwiththat I have a better understanding of why it is too early to draw conclusions.
The BBC and science just do not mix! They really don`t!
Neither does the BBC mix with economics, now its all been shown to be horseshit.
That is exactly why we get the Blacks and Harrabins…Pestons and Flanders.
Yet the BBC hope we`ll soon be calling it “Stefanomic”…prepschool single mum on squillions and a track record that screams “whatever she suggests…just do exactly the opposite”.
The BBC and science, economics…no contact points of reality to discuss…bit like Gary Richardson and sports reporting!
The BBC is, however absorbent with the Guardian…or should that be?…who cares?
Most sensible criticisers of global warming alarmism do not state that the earth has not warmed in the past 100 years. What we state is that the earth has been warming since we emerged from the little ice age of about 250 years ago.
We believe that some of the warming could be due to man made CO2 emissions but we cannot state how much, and it could be small. We also believe that the earth has been warmer recently (by geological standards) during the medieval warming period 1000 years ago and during the “roman optimum” 2000 or so years ago. These events cannot be due to the industrialisation of the world and have not been explained although it is believed they have something to do with sunspot activity.
Finally we believe that the effect of C02 caused global warming will be small – even in the absence of negative feedbacks it is logarithmic meaning that each new molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere has a smaller impact that the previous one. If there were positive feedbacks leading to runaway warming then it is sure that these would have been triggered at various points in the earth’s long history.
And the effect of CO2 will be mostly beneficial as the warming seems to be confined to the higher altitudes where most of the crops are grown and the greater CO2 will enhance yields. If it does cause warming then this will reduce the number of winter deaths and together with the higher levels of water in the air this will greenify the planet.
BEST has said nothing about this. So this new work adds nothing.
Sorry for altitudes read latitudes.
“Despite it concluding that the temperature of our planet is rising, many remain sceptical of the theory that global warming is man-made phenomenon.
They say that the latest findings are simply evidence that the earth is going through cycles during which the average temperature fluctuates.
“The Berkeley study does not offer any conclusions as to what might cause global warming – but it confirms that some form of warming effect is taking place”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2051723/Climate-change-New-analysis-1-6bn-weather-records-concludes-globe-IS-warming.html#ixzz1bQ0xWhk0
Why have the BBC missed this bit out. All the other qoutes are by the activists. They have not established any link to CO2 and temperature rise. I see also that they use the term “climate change sceptic” – who are these people? The term is completly dishonest.
Looking at temperature changes since 1800 is proof of nothing. It does not tell us if this is normal or not.
I rather suspect it is not.
The Alarmists are petrified by the prospect of being found wrong – their entire careers are invested in this worthless stock. Hence the relentless witchhunt against “doubters” or whatever the latest euphemism for those of us utterly unconvinced by their “preventable man-made catastrophic warming” crock.
The triumphalism of the Geenies is misplaced. Another hundred reruns of “fifty year climate forecast based on temperature at airports” is still just not good enough.
It’s a cult.
Interesting that there is now a complementing blog to the story, which on my browser has been closed at 1k+ comments, and defaults to the ‘Editor’s Picks’ (does he read all these and boost the one’s he likes… really?).
James Delingpole:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100112834/global-warming-is-real/
I only heard the early item on Today with Black?. He said the 30 page report showed a 1 degree warming over 50 years. He DID say the report did not ascribe the warming to any cause, but he had spoken with the author? who had said he thought it was MOSTLY due to man.
If produced 10 years ago would it have said 1 degree in 40 years?
“..but he had spoken with the author? who had said he thought it was MOSTLY due to man. “
“thought” is not proof. I want concluding evidence. Black is once again using propaganda and hearsay and not proof. I hope he can sleep with the poverty this scam is causing.
Muller himself, in his WSJ article, said:-
“How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”
Sounds like Black was employing another bit of “climate clairvoyancy”
How can you ever believe a word Black says? He has got to be one of the most dishonest “journalists” ever employed by the BBC.
It is safe to take as a general starting position that Richard Black’s reports and articles are mostly propaganda, with lots of half-truths, outright lies and evasions. You then can’t go too far wrong.
The BBC groupthink is that global warming is just about the most important issue facing mankind. So why don’t they hire some class journalists to cover the subject, not brazen hacks like Black and Harrabin ?
I also noticed that Black’s article shows an image of Micheal Mann’s thouroughly discredited ‘hockey stick’ chart, although the BEST report has nothing whatsoever to do with a proxy based reconstruction of ancient temperatures.
Did Black do this deliberately to ‘wind up’ the climate realists? Or is he really that stupid?
Occam’s Razor says Black is incorrigably stupid.
I make no claim to have any kind of serious scientific understanding related to climate change , but I do have a sensitivity to when I feel somebody is trying to bullshit. Like for example when they tried to peddle the statistic that passive smoke was more dangerous than direct smoke, and by extension, that in the same room, a passive smoker was in greater danger than a direct smoker.
Here for example is an extract from a study done in 2005 by U.C. Berkeley, which if I’m not mistaken did this same study about Global Warming:
BERKELEY – Exposure to secondhand smoke kills as many women in China as does smoking, according to new study findings by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.
The study estimated that in 2002, 48,400 women in China died from lung cancer and ischemic heart disease attributed to passive smoking compared with 47,300 lung cancer and heart disease deaths from “active” smoking.
So what’s wrong with this statistic, that even has more passive smokers dying than active smokers? Well what are the active smokers breathing along with air in addition to the active smoke they’re inhaling? The same passive smoke as the non-smokers. But somehow we’re supposed to believe that a non-smoker is more vulnerable to smoke than a smoker.
When I tried to deduce what might be the purpose of peddling this nonsense, I figured there were several angles by governments to push this. First they took the focus away from what might be the health effects due to everyday pollution as a result of carbon burning fuels used throughout our society. Now smoking was the real evil affecting everybody’s lives, and not the car you drive or the fancy gadget you use, so they wouldn’t lose any revenue due to this.
Second, they could charge a massive tax on tobacco products under the claim that it was to stop people from smoking.
Notice that the whole agenda by governments related to carbon emissions are not linked to health but to the ‘green’ agenda of ‘saving the planet’. This way you’ll continue to use everything the way you have without worrying about your health, but you’ll just pay a lot more for it.
So long as they keep peddling this bullshit, I’m not buying into it.
“Or is he really that stupid?” Yes.
What happened to the comments on Blacks articles? There used to be a majority of people who questioned his “wisdom”. Now they seem to have all been converted to the cause. I suspect foul play.
For instance compare this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html
With the one above. It is not feasable that all these people would be converted to the cause. It looks like Black must be rating the comments himself.
Have to say I take a certain pride in being rated lowest in his latest outpouring. I must be doing something right.
It is odd.
I note that critical comments get an immediate negative (probably the author), and then a rush more soon thereafter as he drums up support on the intranet.
Funny it usually nets a dozen tops, mind.
I actually often mark mine negative as well as I suspect most check the lowest rated to find out who is talking sense, as the highest are often gems such as ‘Great post, Richard!’ or playing other posters rather than their arguments. It is still a bastion of ‘denier’ ad homs the mods seem happy to allow.
An FoI on these risible ratings (here you only show support… named… all BBC cherry vultures may like to comment on that difference?), and especially the Editors’ Picks, apparently promoting a possibly rigged vote to inform the broadcast news, would be fun.
Also, why is the arrow for ‘Highest rated’ pointing down, and ‘Lowest rated’ up?
Is Johann Hari on mod duty?
What happens after the first flurry of ‘rating’ is interesting, as much for the ratings as the comments, of which this one I liked, making a bunch of apposite points at once, on top of pointing out the author’s thin skin and snide abuse of position…
31. Barry Woods
21ST OCTOBER 2011 – 21:03
could it be the reason that Jo Nova, climate Audit, etc are quiet is because they are taking time to read the NON peer reviewed papers, rather than just a press release, organised to cause a media frenzy ( at least amongst the eco journalists) and take some time to analyse them.
Additionally a reviewer of the papaers (Doug Keenan) is very critical of the statitical analysis used at B Hill.
As one presumes this is against the default -10 from the tribal groupies, impressive.
“A mathematician’s response to BEST”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/a-mathematicians-response-to-best/#more-49696
Black will not, of course mention any of this.
Richard Black can cut-and-paste press releases from warmist NGOs and bent academics.
But he cannot really walk the walk – he cannot really analyse the complexities of the debate on global warming.
By contrast – here is a piece by ex-BBC David Whitehouse, a quick response to the recent press notice from Berkeley on research not yet peer-reviewed. Real writing, a real critique.
How is it that the BBC, committed to “Delivering Quality”, shoves out endless crap from unqualified Black – mostly ignorant propaganda – but no longer employs David Whitehouse – a real scientist ?
BBC – Delivering Bias and Propaganda
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/sceptical-berkeley-scientists-say-human-component-of-global-warming-may-be-somewhat-overstated/
Here is another from a Statistician.
“His conclusion is that “Global warming is real.” He hopes that “Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”
But this blog, and all of the scientists who are critics, have agreed with this conclusion since this beginning. There simply is no debate on this question. There are no tempers to cool. ”
“The fallacy—and it is a fallacy Mr Muller commits—is to suppose that because many climatologists have offered one theory for the observed warming (and cooling), and that, at least for the moment, they cannot think of one better, that therefore their theory is true. Thus, I remain skeptical.”
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4525
This is not something that can be ignored by Black. It is fundamental to the whole theory. Not one of Blacks articles are honest journalism.
We must be on the way to the Church of Climate Alarm sending out pairs of missionaries to convert doubters on the doorstep, modelled on Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Would you like a copy of our publication the Carbon-Watch Tower my dear? It’s free, and all true. Really. It’s been proved. Chris Huhne loves you. “
Mr Kirkby at CERN has all but proved that it is Cosmic Rays and Cloud Albedo. It has been calculated that a one
percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global average surface temperature on the Earth.
Mr Kirkby at CERN has all but proved that it is Cosmic Rays and Cloud Albedo. It has been calculated that a one
percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global average surface temperature on the Earth.