Anyone read this ecowacko drivel from Roger Harradin? Who would have thought that John Gummer would end lionised by the BBC? All he had to do was embrace his inner Greenie. If you read this lengthy report is takes the usual pro- Environmentalist line that Harradin predictably spouts.
ROGER AND OUT..
Bookmark the permalink.
If a pol from an unexpected quarter gains neutral reporting or praise from the BBC, it’s time to check your wallet.
Mr. Harrabin’s name on a ‘report’ is usually enough to pop up more red flags than a Tiananmen Square rally.
From an article in today’s Telegraph re Globe:
‘A shadowy lobby group which pushes the case that global warming is a real threat is being funded by the taxpayer and assisted by the BBC’
Current president is Lord Deben. Former/current members include Elliot Morley MP and Stephen Byers.
Current treasurer is Lord Oxburgh who chaired the internal (whitewash) enquiry into Climategate (but forgot to declare his membership of Globe).
Sorry my expertise dosn’t extend to posting links but the DT article is worth a read.
Here’s more on the whitewash:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/09/more-tricks-from-east-anglia/
…”emissions are still growing at a dangerous level (shame its not causing any warming. Connect the dots Harrabin!)
Same old, same old. Opinion is moving in favour of…. more action on… significant climate-related laws being passed (Does climate obey laws?) John Gummer says something
What a complete desperate load of cack.
Climate obeys the laws of Thermodynamics.
But we could try to stop the Climate from Changing by passing a law for the legalised sacrifice of BBC staff on top of a pyramid.
They tried that in Mexico once, but a bunch of Christian Creationists from Spain stopped that, the rotters.
Human Sacrifice? Roger Harrabin? Sounds worth a try. Perhaps we could throw Louise Grey, Richard Black, that Bad Science coward Ben Goldacre, and The Mooonbat for good measure. What’s the flash point of environmental correspondents again?
12mins 40.
apologies if you ve seen it before, but nothing else needs be said
The old Chinese cracker is wheeled out again.
“See the Chinese carbon intensity target of 45%, which requires policy effort. If you make the right assumptions about future UK economic growth, China’s target may well be stricter than the UK’s.”
The previous government committed us to reducing our CO2 output by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, a policy continued
by the present government. The Chinese have to reduce not actual CO2 output but ‘carbon intensity’. This means that if the Chinese economy grows at say 9% in a year and their C02 emissions grow 4%, they have achieved a 5% reduction in carbon intensity. So there you go. The Chinese will be saving the planet by producing more CO2 and this will be tougher on them than our reduction of 80% will be on us. #greenbollocks
Yes, Hampstead HARRABIN, ignoring Met Office’s backtrack on temperatures, pursues his one track propaganda with his non-event footnote of an ‘article’.
In the last sentence of his BBC piece, he expresses his dismay that people in the world are still using coal as a source of energy (and not depending on expensive, unreliable wind).
I
In the next decade India intends to double its energy output using, in the main, coal-fuelled power stations; the coal coming from Australia. Harrabin is urinating into the wind, if he can find any.
Another despicable missive from Comrade Harrabin from deep within the Politburo bunker. Really, this kind of idiot rambling ought to come with a health warning. Harrabin only understands one thing: The Great Climate Catastrophe (his word, not mine) must be propagandized at every available opportunity, and the BBC has a duty to promote the CAGW meme at all times.
Hmmm. Makes me think of something… Hang on:
“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
― George Orwell, 1984
That would be it.
For Orthodoxy read Consensus.
A consensus for the IPCC’s assumption, proven wrong by the facts.
A consensus of ignorance where the ignorant want to be seen as part of the consensus.
This censorship of science, scientists and scientific debate about atmospheric physics by the BBC is forcing these scientist to do their own Journalism.
hopefully this link will work – 12mins 40
At first I thought this was a popcorn job on par with the fun over at the Graun and sexuals…again.
However, having read this I now feel I must share on the basis of balance, as Aunty comes out OK.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/met-office-attacks-bbc-on-global-temperature-standstill/#more-10608
I will however just repeat the last quote:
Journalists have a duty to be correct, not to be liked or approved of.
Some still seem to manage none of these.
Sorry, missed one bit that may require a rethink…
‘It is inexplicable why their affiliations were not mentioned by the BBC but instead as “just some of the listeners who contacted me or tweeted @BBCR4Feedback to raise their concerns.”
Any BBBC regular will know that lack of mention of affiliations at the BBC is more than explicable, and ‘just some listeners’ seldom are.
Good link. Auntie comes out ok-ish, but still allows ‘callers’ (actually climate activists) to come on and spin their relentless crap:
‘My name is Ruth Jarman, I live in Hartley Wintney in Hampshire. Yeah, I think the headlines are so important, because some people that’s all they listen to. This one is not only not clear, I think it’s actually misleading. This is tosh – well, as near tosh as you can get to, on Radio 4. The research looks only up to 2017, and so may be useful for people who intend to be dead by then, but others of us may be interested in thinking a little longer-term. That slowdown in warming is just that – it’s still a warming. And I don’t think this was made very clear in the programme.’
This is Ruth Jarman, climate activist, quoting speculation as scientific fact, without any challenge whatsoever.
Were any calls from sceptics broadcast, I wonder?
Perhaps Harrabin might interview David Whitehouse, author of this piece on Tallbloke’s website, or some other well-qualified climate sceptic, sometime. But then again, pigs might fly.
Ms Jarman…”thinking a little longer-term”….
Attempted emotional blackmail. Think of your grandchildren drowning and frying. Why stop at 2017, or 2050? Why not 3000? or 4000? What about your grandchildren’s grandchildren, you selfish bitch.?
Thinking corrupted by Big Green. Nothing to do with science, just a communication device to permit exaggeration and spread fear.
I wonder if the Met Office research looks only up to 2017 because they have read the article below, from the Space Special Interest Group of Mensa Newsletter.
The solar cycle 24 maximum is predicted to peak in May 2013. Solar Cycle 24 will be 17 years long, ending in 2026. The decline from mid-2013 will be 1.2 Kelvin on average over the then remaining twelve and a half years of the cycle, but lags mean that the cooling is not due to be noticeable until the Winter of 2018-2019 at the earliest. Astronomers are not experts in Oceanic temperature lags, so scientists that can predict tides would be better at predicting Climate, than Astronomers who predict eclipses. Scientists such as Ed Fix and Nicola Scafetta use the Planetary movements to predict the length of the Solar Cycle, and David Archibald links the different scientific disciplines.
Sorry, the quote should have been this one:
‘“My name’s Hilary Gander. I thought this was rather strange, since I hadn’t heard it from other sources, so I listened to the actual news item. And what it turned out to be was that the Met Office was saying that natural cooling factors – such as ocean currents and things that happen naturally with the sun – were driving this cooling. And that after these changes had, kind of, run their course, temperatures would go up again. So, to preface it with that sort of introduction seems, well, confusing.’
To quote the notorious IPCC ‘scientist’ and star of Climategate Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’
And that remains the position.
Gander, Jarman, who cares, its the BBC open door to one point of view.