Christopher Booker has written a preview of his Global Warming Policy Foundation paper for the Daily Mail. I can’t see anything spectacularly new in it, however…all he outlines (and more) has been chronicled on this site and by others such as Bishop Hill and Tony Newbery at Harmless Sky.
Meanwhile, Richard Black has been forced to file this morning the last resort of a reporter with nothing to report…he says the Durban talks are “lacking urgency”. Well blow me down. Could that be because the bottom has fallen out of the market?
From Mr Black’s Durban report today:
“On the Green Climate Fund – the new body that will eventually collect and disburse sums of $100bn (£64bn) per year to poor countries – there is consensus on rules…
“Negotiators have an option on the table here to raise billions of dollars to help protect poor people on the front lines of the climate crisis by capping emissions from the shipping sector,” said David Waskow, Oxfam’s policy adviser. “Blocking progress on this practical solution would undermine a future where everyone has enough to eat.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16080539
Here again, we see an unelected NGO (Oxfam – who else?) at the forefront of attempting to ‘weath transfer’ from richer nations (under laws it is trying to bring into existence) to poorer ones under the pretext of climate change – this is social/economic engineering on a global scale and it has to be stopped. Stealing (and theft it will be) £64bn annually from taxpayers in wealthier nations to hand over to corrupt, often criminal governments and their Swiss bank accounts is just wrong, on every possible level. Nobody really imagines any of this money would ever get near to the people it was supposed to be intended for, right?
And let’s not forget this is what Durban COP-17 is REALLY about – the whole business of hard money and who gets what and how easily it can be stolen from taxpayers without anyone noticing. This is nothing at all to do with genuine environmental protection – saving forests, protecting habitats and endangered species – this is wholesale criminal deception and financial fraud on global scale – a massive heist in progress in Durban. A scene of crime.
Dont forget that as a huge multinational ‘big charity’ industry OXFAM stands to gain hundreds of millions in revenue directed through them from the government.
When you look at the millions they stand to gain to add to their balance sheet, the extra staff they can put on the payroll, the money they can siphon off in luxurious offices in tax havens, generous salaries and pensions and all the travel they could ever want all paid.
Now consider that OXFAM has a voracious appetite for money, the bigger they get the more they need, the chuggers on the street accosting passers by bring in chicken feed barely enough for their fleet of luxury cars, no the big money comes from the taxpayers and the more they get the bigger they become and more like the corporate giants they claim to hate.
OXFAM stands to gain a great deal of money, it is money that drives the charity industry just as it drives the CAGW fraud.
Black’s article refers to yet another bloody tax the Warmists are trying to frame, a £25 billion tax on shipping. The proposals seems to be making some progress at Durban. So many tentacles to this Warmist monster.
Check out the 2 false-charity creeps on video in the WhatsUpWithThat piece :
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/7/oxfam-trying-to-create-famine.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/06/wwf-and-oxfam-pushing-for-a-shipping-tax-at-durban-cop17-since-when-do-ngos-get-to-write-tax-laws/
This is a major new tax that these NGO creeps are trying to write into the Durban statement. Has Black given us anything on this tax before – the campaign has obviously been building up for some time. He is normally like a puppet in printing NGO BS – has this one been flying under the radar ?
How to kill off the exporters of manufactured goods at a time when they are who we should be helping most to rebalance our economy.
How utterly stark raving bonkers are these eco-loons?
I will hazard a guess and predict that Mr Black will not cover Lui et al 2011, which is a proxy climate reconstruction in China which shows no hockey stick whatsoever, and alongside other similar reconstructions elsewhere, further discredits Mann’s hockey stick and also shows that the current moderate warming is not unusual, and there is NOTHING unprecedented about the rate or extent of current climate change.
In particular, that paper evidently shows that the Medieval Warming Period occurred in China – Mann et al have always argued that it was a local phenomenon limited to Europe.
I think the denial of the MWP was the first thing that made me smell a rat about Global Warming. I used to live in Wimbledon, where Vineyard Hill Road goes up the south slope of the hill towards the ancient Wimbledon Village. Just a small item of evidence of medieval warming, but part of a pattern of history that the Warmists try to deny or deflect.
Indeed, and there have been similar studies in South and North America which have also confirmed similar results.
In another stunning denial of reality, the BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16081214 reports that Polar bears engaging in canibalism is increasing because of global warming. I draw attention to the following extract:
“This type of intraspecific predation has always occurred to some extent. However, there are increasing numbers of observations of it occurring, particularly on land where polar bears are trapped ashore, completely food-deprived for extended periods of time due to the loss of sea ice as a result of climate change.”
So the fact that the number of polar bears increasing 5 fold since the 1940s added to the fact that there are a lot more people going up to the Arctic circle to research polar bears and the large increase in human population into Polar Bear summer teritories is wholly ignored as a relelvant factor in witnessing increasing polar bear “intraspecific predation”?
If you increase the number of Polar bears and the number of people in their teritory, I would expect to see an increase in the occasions of observable behaviours of Polar Bears.
As for the “land-locked” bears starving because of retreating ice? Another denial of reality. A) seals do come up onto land in those areas, as well as areas even further south. We see seals come up onto land all over the UK coast all year round. and B) Polar bears have a varied and diverse diet and can survive by eating plants too. Although not their favourite meal, they are capable of eating plants to survive and have done for millennia.
They have survived the multiple times since the end of the last ice age that have been much warmer than today, so they are NOT under threat today.
James Delingpole has written a glowing tribute to Booker’s report, as well as picking up on the BBC’s article on what it wants to be seen as the reasons for polar bear cannibalism.
I’m no biologist, but I know there are many species where the male will kill the infants of a female it wants to mate with. That this photojournalist, as well as the BBC science correspondent make no mention of this as a factor in order to pursue this CC garbage, shows not only the lack of impartiality and balance, but how the BBC fails to educate and inform in pursuit of its own agenda.
Since it completely contravenes its charter, it should be legally possible to not pay TVL. Why should we pay for something to betray us?
BBC: Olgastretet is a passage of water that divides the two main islands of Svalbard. Traditionally, it has been an area that has stayed ice-covered throughout the year.
Wiki: The climate of Svalbard is dominated by its high latitude, with the average summer temperature at 4 °C (39 °F) to 6 °C (43 °F) and January averages at −16 °C (3 °F) to −12 °C (10 °F).[94] The North Atlantic Current moderates Svalbard’s temperatures, particularly during winter, giving it up to 20 °C (36 °F) higher winter temperature than similar latitudes in Russia and Canada. This keeps the surrounding waters open and navigable most of the year.
I’m going with Wiki on this.
Brilliant 🙂
Here’s an article from The National Geographic Explorer from a year ago, in the same Olgastretet as the BBC article, but where they saw not only plenty of polar bears, but walrus, seals, etc. too. Sounds like a lovely place. This is how the BBC article might have been written, if first they had their facts straight, and if they weren’t so keen to convince their subjects about the evils of climate change.
Arctic Cruise Report: Olgastretet, off Edgeøya
In the animal kingdom cannabalism is not taboo. The BBc seem to instill human qualities to animals.
“Many other species generally try to avoid eating their own kin-but feed nonetheless on members of their own species. In some cases, it’s simply for food; male polar bears, for example, have been witnessed hunting and eating unrelated cubs when resources are scarce, and komodo dragons will feed on smaller conspecifics. Large crocodiles feed on smaller crocs to keep down the population size and preserve their food supply. This same behavior–large individuals eating small ones–occurs among many other animal species. Meanwhile, the males of other species, such as lions, grizzly bears, many rodents, and chimpanzees, will kill–and sometimes consume–infants to force their mothers into estrus, so they can sire the next litter.”
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/sharkland/animal-cannibalism/1946/
Lets not forget that the the lberal media are not averse to lying. Especially when they think they will not be found out by the “unwashed” public, who spend their time watching the XFactor.
To certain ‘professional’ (A)GW protagonists out and about, especially those ‘meeting’ and ‘reporting’, I commend today’s Dilbert: http://dilbert.com/strips/
“I can’t see anything spectacularly new in it”
True, but 1. it can’t be said often enough and 2. it’s said in a large circulation member of the MSM
Speaking of a not such large circulation member of the MSM, and fellow travellers with Aunty, I just had this email (kindly duplicated as a link) as Durban chugs along:
http://view.mail.guardian.co.uk/?j=ff291678716c&m=fe8a1570706c0d7a72&ls=fe92127275630d7d70&l=ff60157970&s=ff3411757565&jb=ffce15&ju=fec81575716c007c&CMP=&r=0
Guessing that the exclusive membership will only include those with the best of reasons to span the globe, er, in jets, rakcing up 5* bills.
I don’t think the offer is designed for the 99% although I’m sure much of the talk on these holidays will be be Polly Toynbee-like chin music.
You guys just don’t get it. As Dilbert notes, these people are trying to save the planet, they are “heroes”. They are part of the solution, so their travel miles don’t count towards the problem. Only families going on holiday count or bankers just breathing.
I’ve noticed that on the BBBC website, messages that seem in agreement with the journalist’s viewpoint are often attributed to un-named participants, eg ‘senior delegates’ saying that the talks lack urgency.
I’d like to see unattributed commentary banned, but that will probably have to wait until the swamp of BBBC ‘news’ reporting is drained.
Yes I have often wondered why a spokesman for a particuler cause has to be reffered to as “a delegate”. The BBC are aware of the problem:
“Granting anonymity is not ideal for programme makers or for our audiences. Sources and contributors should speak on the record whenever practicable and their identities and credentials made known to the audience so that they can judge the source’s credibility, reliability and whether or not they are in a position to have sufficient knowledge of the subject or events. It should also be remembered that the methods by which we disguise identities can sometimes compromise the content we publish visually and/or aurally through blurring the image or distorting the sound, for example.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-anonymity
But as with all activism disguised as journalism, the BBC staff choose to ignore them when it may undermine its main ojectives.
I would just like to say that the whole of this BBC monstrosity is as corrupt an organisation as any I’ve heard of, and they should ALL be fucked with the rough end of a pineapple.
On second thoughts, some of ’em might enjoy that…
Reminds me of the quip that anybody who thinks that onions are the only vegetable to make your eyes water hasn’t tried a corn cob up the backside 😉
As our colleagues have reported about a tree ring proxy from China, its real and its genuine unlike the BBC pimped Mann made one tree fraud.
It shows a very different picture to the hockey stick furiously pimped by the BBC, they will never show this of course.
Take a look, its stunning.
The full report has now been released.
Click to access booker-bbc.pdf
I wonder if the “impartial” (ho-ho) BBC will cough, or either obfuscate or brush it all under the carpet?
Bet your life it won’t be a “hands up, you caught us banged to rights, sorry” plea.
I don’t think I’ll EVER trust this bunch of slimy halfwits again, and I doubt that anyone else will, either. They should be tarred and feathered and made to walk naked down a (retreating?) glacier.
Charlatans, and they know it…
Richard NORTH at ‘EU Referendum’:
[Excerpt]:
“The report, running to 74 pages, analyses this dereliction in clinical and devastating detail, to the extent that no honest person, reading the report, could ever look at the BBC in the same way – much less trust it with anything more than the disposal of cat litter.
“In a dynamic society, where we had politicians who actually represented the interests of the people, this report would be seized upon as powerful evidence of where the BBC has gone so badly wrong that it is beyond redemption. No broadcasting organisation which has conducted itself in such a manner should be let near the airwaves again.
“Inevitably, though, the warmist tendency in government and beyond (and especially in the BBC), will ignore Booker’s work – their only possible response, as it is otherwise an unanswerable indictment of a failed organisation. But, for the rest of us, it provides powerful and factual evidence of why we should not trust the BBC – on anything – to those, at least, who did not know that already.”
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/triple-betrayal.html
We are right not to trust BBC-NUJ on anything.
One of the most telling conclusions which Christopher BOOKER makes is that it’s not just about ‘greenie’ BBC’s deceit on climate: it’s about BBC-NUJ’s deceit on virtually everything. There’s a pattern; and modus operandi.
And as we see on the climate case, the way the BBC system of misinformation operates is not to back off when it makes its mistakes, but to become even more entrenched and hostile to its critics.
And BBC-NUJ does the same in these areas, of course:-
Pro-Obama/Democrat; anti-Republican.
pro-Labour Party; anti-Tories.
pro-E.U.; anti-British national sovereignty..
pro-Islam; anti-Israel/anti-victims of jihad and sharia.
At least Black isn’t blaming the US Founding Fathers and the political system they created like he did when the Copenhagen Synod failed:
Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government.
Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs.
Viewed internationally, the US effectively has two governments, each with power of veto over the other.
Doubtless the founding fathers had their reasons. But it makes the US a nation apart in these processes, often unable to state what its position is or to move that position – a nightmare for other countries’ negotiators.
Sorry we’re not as autocratic as you’d like, Dick.
and in his own way, although he has absolutely no clue, he shows exactly WHY the US has two seperate branches and the benefits thereof.
Mailman
All power to your elbow Robin!
A delight to see real science discussed, and the BBC reduced to splutterings from Black, Harrabin and all the other little helpers of Gaia.
Prancing around turbines in full woad, and summoning up the spirit of the Great Elk…so religious affairs gets covered at one and the same time!
The likes of yourself and Booker will be thanked through the coming age…the BBC Chicken-lickers have put science back 100 years.
The scientists have no-one to blame but themselves…Al Gore, Mike Jones etc are all stuffed turkeys now and only the EU/UN and the soggy green liberal alliances will pay them any mind.
But pay them they will-so we need to choke the chickens as it were!…
Talking of turbines
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8943507/Parts-of-Britain-are-battered-by-gale-force-winds-and-storms.html
I LOVE Anthony Jay’s forward to the report. It bears reading by everyone
http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf
Yes, Jay hits the BBC hard – and not just on Global Warming.
I have skimmed the full report – one thing I find lacking is any comment to the effect that none of the key BBC people has any sort of science qualification. Maybe because Booker himself is not a scientist – although jhe seems to show much more understanding of the issues than Black and Harrabin.
Also, I do not think Booker makes enough of David Whitehouse’s point that a high proportion of the BBC’s output (especially Black) is just Churnalism, regurgitating press releases from Warmist NGOs.
But overall, Booker documents for fairly easy reading much of the year-by-year case against the BBC going back to the 1990s – just like Andrew Montford wrote up the detailed case (developed by others) against the Hockey Stick.
Anthony Jay: “Very few of the BBC producers and executives have any real experience of the business world, and as so often happens, this ignorance, far from giving rise to doubt, increases their certainty.”
Heh – David Gregory’s Dunning-Kruger effect if I’m not mistaken.
Jay: “We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side.”
Newsnight’s M.O.
It’s interesting that the method Jay describes is exactly the kind of thing people here have been complaining about for years. When BBC employees used to come here to debate, they ridiculed the notion, and defenders of the indefensible have also laughed at our complaints.
Yet there it is in black and white.
“Heh – David Gregory’s Dunning-Kruger effect if I’m not mistaken.”
Niiice, I like it 😀
Here is something to warm your hearts on a cold winter eve, take a look at the images below.
One caught fire and the other fell down =-O
It is a tribute to the windmill fraud is it not? These two pictures are a testament to the windmill fraud. Its kinda like justice served isnt it? All that remains of course is for the windmill profiteers to contract some sort of illness leading to an early visit to the mortuary.
ENJOY!
“unable to cope with gusts of up to 50mph” ROFL!!
Christopher Booker: “On one of the very rare occasions when I have been interviewed by the BBC, it was alongside the then-head of the European Commission in London, who had published a pamphlet attacking articles I had written on the damaging effectof EU directives on British businesses. After giving him a sympathetic few minutes to put his case, the interviewer’s firstquestion to me was ‘Christopher Booker, at what point does coverage like yours become just xenophobic and evil.”
Booker doesn’t say who the Beeboid interviewer was. Whoever it was, I hope Booker tore into him/her after that question.
Talking of which…
I didn’t hear it but I gather that today’s Nicky Campbell phone-in was about David Cameron’s problems with Eurosceptics. It seems that a number of people less than enthusiastic about the European project called the show, much to the disapproval of Guardian journalist Riazat Butt. She was lucky though – she didn’t have to talk to these uncouth monsters with their outrageous views; poor Nicky was exhausted having to deal with the common swine.
Whats xenophobic about wanting democracy? These labels really cheese me off, they are used by the ignorant who have no other line of argument.
Christopher Booker also has an article in the Spectator. That’s 2 weeks running that the Speccy has carried big articles attacking Warmism.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7459868/debate-denied.thtml
What I find amazing is the Telegraph (Louise Grey) holding to the Warmism propaganda line. The only way to force the BBC to change its approach – maybe – is to isolate it – to leave the BBC, the Guardian and the Indy all alone in pushing the Warmism nonsense. But this means Sky, ITN and the Telegraph and/or The Times changing their tune.
The only way this can happen is for the media to employ journalists. There are not many true journalists today, most are activists or churnalists.
‘the Telegraph (Louise Grey) holding to the Warmism propaganda line.’
Not enough for Newsnight roving rapporteur Prezza. He and she had a great twitter spat recently.