The BBC have, in their wisdom, decreed that climate change is occurring, it is man-made and that it is resulting in ever more extreme, or weird, weather.
They have established between themselves that because the science is settled there need be no debate about that science…all that is left to do is to convince us, the Public, that the measures that are being taken to lessen the impact of climate change, or rather to reduce climate change itself, are urgently needed.
They no longer debate the science but now indulge in promoting doomsday scenarios dramatising the effects of that supposed extremely weird weather in order to scare us into accepting highly expensive and inconvenient measures whilst also producing programmes and articles reporting the inordinate success of the green technology in producing electricity and reducing carbon emissions.
One latest example could be this as highlighted by Bishop Hill in which the BBC lazily, or all too readily, accepted a press release from the Scottish government and from the WWF, both of course highly pleased with the closure of a coal power station….whilst no other voice, for instance asking where was all the power going to come from if they keep closing down reliable and cheap methods of power generation, was heard.
All that is left is to decide how many wind turbines we need.
To help us the BBC, whilst no longer allowing debate about the actual science, promotes the success of wind farms and the urgency that the reduction in fossil fuel use requires to save the planet….never mind the Chinese et al building hundreds of coal fired power stations as we close down our own very cheap and reliable ones.
However it seems possible that the BBC are back pedalling on the ‘science is settled’ dogma.
Recent events have highlighted the uncertainties about the science….even the IPCC has admitted that there has been no warming for 17 years…not only that but many reports are surfacing that say the planet is not as sensitive to temperature change as they predicted. Along with that numerous climate change lobby claims about the ‘science’ have proven to be wrong….as well as much of the propaganda such as Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’, which indicated there was no Medieval Warm Period, was proven to be wrong, the IPCC models have proven to be wrong.
And recently we had a similar ‘Hockey Stick’ graph released which they claimed backed up Mann.
This latest effort has been thoroughly examined and found wanting…there are numerous, large discrepancies that indicate that the graph does not correspond with the actual data it was supposedly based upon…some suggest the figures have been deliberately manipulated to give the ‘right’ result.
What is interesting is that the BBC seem to have completely ignored this new report despite it being in Science magazine and headlined across numerous journals and newspapers. I haven’t been able to find any sign of it on their website nor on their twitter accounts.
There might be numerous reasons for that…one being that as the science is settled they no longer want to stir up debate again….or that because of the controversy over Mann’s Hockey Stick they decided to wait it out and see what was said about this new one by other scientists or indeed bloggers.
Or…possibly, just possibly, it could be that the BBC have seen the light….that at the moment nature and the science seem to be pointing to a far less intense warming than predicted…and the BBC are sitting on the fence whilst not admitting both their own science and their ‘no sceptics allowed’ policies are wrong.
The new, dodgy, hockey stick graph shows precisely why Sceptics are vital for the health of science… without them and the questions they raise just how much dodgy science would get approved upon which disastrous political decisions would be based with enormous economic and social consequences?
The BBC has done this country a huge disservice by banning the sceptical voice….we have only had the pleasure of hearing the sound of one hand clapping as some scientists applaud their own genius.
But as I said it seems that the BBC have had second thoughts, at least to a certain degree…..not leaping on ‘research’ that says the 20th century is the hottest for 11,000 years, Richard Black would have been all over it, and Roger Harrabin has linked to a report about the failure of electric cars in Norway….
roger harrabin @RHarrabin Electric cars are wobbling – even on Norway’s roads via Reuters http://planetark.org/wen/68152
and this morning on ‘What the papers say’ we were informed of the Daly Mail’s story about the complete failure of the global warming narrative….and of course Harrabin actually reporting the slow down much to the annoyance of the Met. Office.
It looks as if the BBC may be hedging its bets and sitting tight until something conclusive turns up…or at least until there is an upturn in the temperature trend….one year of warm weather and we will be off again, the sceptics proven wrong and an ever more urgent demands for more wind farms.
The question is just how long will they wait? If the standstill in global warming continues when will the BBC start to a question the ‘science’? When will they allow sceptics to have their say…whether it is to question the science…is global warming even happening, if so is it CO2 that causes it, is it beneficial or not for the planet, or to ask are the measures taken either way the correct ones to deal with the situation?
The two websites below provide information that will help you judge the truth, not about climate change, but about the value of wind farms and similar remedies and just how much power they generate…and thereby also judge the BBC’s reporting…is it a true picture or an exaggeration of the benefits of wind turbines for example.
bmreports……gives real time data on the generation of power by different means.
And the National Grid ‘Future Energy Scenario’ which gives various scenarios for the generation of power.
There is also Gridwatch which gives data for power generation.
Facts and Figures
The current capacity of wind power connected to the transmission system that we forecast for is 5.5GW (Jan 2013). This capacity is expected to continue to increase during 2013/14 and could reach 32GW of wind generation capacity by 2020.
The Climate Change Act 2008 and the Renewable Energy Directive 2009, introduced by the brothers Miliband demand that we generate 15% of our power by renewables by 2020, 80% by 2050 using 1990 as a baseline.
Air/water heat pumps are the answer to heating our homes and reducing power use…installed in 1.5million homes by 2015, 2.5m homes by 2020 and 9m homes by 2030.
Loft and cavity wall insulation is also of great benefit…paying for itself within 5 years.
All new build homes will be zero carbon by 2016.
Lighting is 10% of domestic demand….low energy bulbs have reduced demand by 25% since 2005.
All electrical appliances are now more efficient and reduce power use.
Smart meters with time use tariffs will be introduced to all homes by 2019…..only useful if they are based on price tariffs and have appliances which automatically switch off on peak power say….may mean a 4% reduction in demand.
Electric vehicles are a key component of the carbon reduction plan…judging by Norway’s experience that isn’t going to work.
Much of the coal power generation capacity will be closed by 2023, nuclear will not be built until a similar time whilst gas will be providing 39Gw by 2030.
Wind will provide 32Gw by 2020 and 55 by 2030…..2009 we had 2GW installed, 280Mw built in 2012 and 2Gw looking for consent and 2.9Gw in planning.
Other renewables are of negligible value.
Here are some actual generation figures for wind:
Peak power delivered by wind at 0300 am and 1100 pm, very useful…wind provides 5% of our electricity, coal 44%, nuclear 22% and gas 24%….so just how many more wind turbines do we need to replace coal?
This graph is from the National Grid’s ‘Future Energy Scenario’ (page 55), sorry about the quality…it is the middle ‘gone green’ scenario and shows that demand could be met by conventional means even in 2030….so presumably we will be paying not only for the same conventional generating sources as now plus all the renewables as well…no wonder our bills are soaring ever upwards….
This is of interest from the head of the IPCC:
‘I would like to start by saying that I am not deaf to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
Nor, indeed, to those who do not agree with the findings – or, in some cases, the existence – of the IPCC.
Such scepticism is inevitable, and has been the case with every area of new knowledge that has burst into human consciousness.
We who are on the side of the consensus must remind ourselves that the evolution of knowledge thrives on debate.’
The BBC hasn’t reported this yet…it seems to have greatly disturbed the green lobbyists as their capturing of young and impressionable minds is put at risk……..
Climate debate cut from national curriculum for children up to 14
Exclusive: New draft guidelines for key stages 1 to 3 criticised by scientists for ‘abdicating duty to future generations’
The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue.
Roger Harrabin’s mate, Dr Joe Smith is also less than impressed.
I’ve posted this IPCC admission before, but just in case some people missed it –
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
Scientists such as Ed Fix and Nicola Scafetta use the Planetary movements to predict the length of the Solar Cycle, so that view is outdated and no longer true if you then look at the work of Friis-Christensen, Lassen and David Archibald on the correlation of Solar Cycle Length and Climate Change.
I do love how the left (looking at you bBC) love to promote energy saving as actually cheaper in the long run for all and you get to save the planet as well. Here is the latest from the pen of the bBC:
Car drivers ‘will save cash thanks to CO2 rules’
Drivers will save £3,300 (€3,800) over the lifetime of their cars if the EU imposes strict new standards on manufacturers, a report claims.
Just like how the left parroted that switching to a windbased power generating system would save everybody in the Uk money, they now try to blindside you with dearer cars will mean cheaper travel costs in the future.
Now before any ethical latte drinker decides to question my post. I have lived in Germany for a lot of my life. From there I picked up a green ideology. For example I was the first person around here to switch all my light bulbs to energy saving. Only to find out I was finding it hard to read, presuming my eyesight was failing I had my eyes tested and informed that actually there is nothing wrong with my eyes.
Since then I have switched every bulb with low energy daylight bulbs. Now these bulbs came in at £12 a head, until Christmas they were £10 a head and now they sell for around £8 ahead. So tell me somebody how does spending over £100 on lightbulbs save me money, when I find that actually these bulbs last no longer than the 100W bulbs we used to use. Currently I am looking at LCD light bulbs however they are much more expensive Philips come in at £40 each for something that is around 40w
Then there’s my security light, next doors cats (And my own) like to use the fence as a motorway, thus kicking in the security light, noticing that my cheap security light ate electricty I swapped it for a German LED one . £260 yes it only uses 9 watts of power, but are you telling me, the average person on the street is going to purchase one.
How about my TV, I replaced my 3 year old LCD pansonic for a LED one last year. It now only uses 38 Watts , however it cost me nearly £700 to do so. The same applies to nearly everything in my house which burns electricity.
In my loft I not only had it boarded , but I had German insulation installed (It is solid blocks of foam) on top of that I have laid the rolls you can purchase from B and Q. Now with all that in place my electricity bill is usually £30 a quarter. This last one was £60 and I used less than this time last year. Yes its not a lot to pay, however for the doubling of my bill I have shelled out thousands. (New composite door £1000, New Sash window (Bygone) £1200) I have done every (and more) which the so called experts say I should be doing yet I am spending more simply to make the greens feel like they are doing something for the planet.
Meanwhile in China………
The bBC, the traitors within our Midst
As always, the comments can be interesting.
The current highest rated, by SausageSandwich, suggesting what the BBC says, and folk believe, are not as in harmony as the BBC likes to think, and advise.
The BBC’s ‘Editor’s Picks’ in pounce’s link tells you all you need to know about the BBC and its bias towards EU nutjob schemes for ‘saving’ the planet.
It will be scant reward to us all that when the money finally does run out the BBC and its high priests of country-wrecking environmentalism will be the first to be left high and dry.
People like al-beeb, who deny the virtual non-evidence of man-made climate change are troglodytes. But one thing that will help us keep warm as toast in winter, and cut down on our fuel bills is to build houses with proper, useable basements. They do in other countries. What’s wrong with us? Besides anything else, it’s a better use of expensive land! That’s the kind of thing our state propagandist should be promoting.
And anyway, where’s the EVIDENCE THAT CARBON IS BAD FOR THE PLANET? There have been natural warming periods over millions of years changing coastlines and continents. Is that a bad thing? It’s certainly beyond the control of even the mighty bbc!
Carbon (and CO2) are ESSENTIAL for the planet – we produce a measly percentage of that which is present in the atmosphere, and it really has no bearing on climate, whatsoever. the very fact that CO2 levels are slowly rising, and temperatures are flat, knocks such an obvious hole in the warmists’ original argument, that I’m surprised anyone with a scrap of common sense even bothers to mention CO2 any more, let alone use emission figures to sell products like electricity, and cars.
Ice core evidence has already suggested that CO2 content lags behind temperature by about 800 years, if there’s any connection at all. If the alarmists REALLY believe that increased CO2 increases temperature (which it clearly doesn’t), one would have thought that they’d welcome an increase, in view of the direction that global temperatures are likely go in the near future – i.e., downwards.
The atmosphere is largely controlled by extraterrestrial criteria, of which solar radiation is the main component. We are living in times of an inexplicably (and unexpectedly) quiet sun – the last time this scenario played out was at the time of the Little Ice Age. There just needs to a be Pinatubo scale volcanic eruption, and we are buggered – and it is believed that a quiet sun also affects us geologically, so seismic and volcanic activity may be expected. Piers Corbyn seems to have a handle on this, and his forecasts are largely correct, and issued in relation to solar activity.
The earthquakes-sun thing is the reason Dr. David Gregory says Corbyn is worthless. I’ve asked him several times about this, and he stands by it. Earthquakes happen all over the planet every day anyway, with or without CMEs, so it’s probably impossible to prove some correlation. At best they might cause a fraction of a percent of earthquakes, which is meaningless.
The sun’s quite period ended already, I believe, and it’s currently heading towards peak activity again, with CMEs happening regularly. We’ve already had a couple of lucky misses over the last year or so, and a medium-sized one hit yesterday. No real problems caused, fortunately.
The people in Mensa did an explanatory article about Weather from Space which supported Piers Corbyn’s work, but there was nothing about earthquakes.
The solar cycle 24 maximum is predicted to peak in May 2013. Solar Cycle 24 is calculated/estimated to be 17 years long, ending in 2026. This is due to the slowing down of the speed of plasma in the Sun, producing a long weak solar cycle.
Short strong Solar Cycles produce Global warming and long weak Solar cycles produce Global cooling.
No one seems able to change the climate, nor change the BBC’s fraudulent reporting of it. Seems they have something in common after all.
strange that because I’m sure angela merkel is on record as saying she aimed to reduce the temperature of the planet by 3 degrees.
Mad Gordon McRuin of course had to trump her and promised 4 degrees.
How’s that 4 degrees looking, Gordy?
Mad Ange now aims to reduce the temperature by building more coal-fired power stations.
Is there any way that Cameron can be persuaded that not all the BBC says about climate change is true?
Perhaps BBC Chairman Patten (Conservative) could earn has salary for just one minute and advise the Prime Minister (Conservative) …ah, I’ve just spotted a flaw in the plan. Neither are Conservative. Cameron is an rudderless unprincipled spiv …as is Patten.
No, vote UKIP.
‘Recent events have highlighted the uncertainties about the science….even the IPCC has admitted that there has been no warming for 17 years…not only that but many reports are surfacing that say the planet is not as sensitive to temperature change as they predicted’.
The warmists’ climate models were always predicated on positive feedback which provided them with the outlandish predictions of 6 deg C plus of warming by the end of this century. For a summary of the sceptics’ view of ‘the science’ generally, and positive feedback in particular, see here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/
‘The first theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (approximately what we might see under the more extreme emission assumptions for the next century) will lead to about a degree Celsius of warming. Though some quibble over the number – it might be a half degree, it might be a degree and a half – most skeptics, alarmists and even the UN’s IPCC are roughly in agreement on this fact.
But one degree due to the all the CO2 emissions we might see over the next century is hardly a catastrophe. The catastrophe, then, comes from the second theory, that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks (basically acceleration factors) that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold. Thus one degree of warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 might be multiplied to five or eight or even more degrees’.
…and so on.
The sceptics have been challenging this assumption for years, not that you’d know it listening to the BBC. Thanks to the internet, sheer persistence and real world evidence, it is beginning to look like some are starting to listen to the other side of the debate.
As for connections with ‘extreme weather’, or even if there is such a recent phenomenon, there is this from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:
http://www.thegwpf.org/new-paper-finds-little-evidence-of-changes-in-extreme-weather-events/
‘The authors, most of whom are from NOAA, find no significant trends in severe thunderstorms, overall ice storms, or change in the percentage of the contiguous US impacted by extreme snowfall. According to the authors, trends in tropical cyclones are controversial and indeterminate, although other authors find global cyclone activity is at a historical low. The authors state, “attribution of trends to anthropogenic forcing [man-made global warming] remains controversial.”
Good work keeping the BBC’s unscientific, lying, biased approach on AGW to the forefront, Alan, I’m still of the view those behind it are the biggest political, economic and sociological threat facing the planet. Little wonder the BBC are betting the farm on it, the proposed ‘mitigating actions’ tick all their ideological boxes.
I abandoned the religion of feedback years ago, for these reasons.
(1) Any feedback was already in the calculations.
(2) Feedback was always an assumption, created to fill in the difference between facts.
And finally.
(3) An attempt to produce a formula for positive feedback, established that the feedback was negative.
In other words, put any notion of feedback in the bin.
The comical thing is, if you asked most environmentalists/warmists what they thought about the lack of real-world evidence for the positive feedback factored into the climate ‘models’ they’d just give you a blank look.
There is an excellent Android app called Grid Carbon from the Play store which shows up to date generation figures.
Nice one Old Goat — the only thing wrong with it is that I didn’t write it.
This was shared recently:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/12/7/huppert-on-28gate.html?
I found it, and the experiences shared, a gripping read.
Especially given what was said at the time, asked, but then it appears sent down memory holes by the very collection of people being talked about still in place.
Any familiar with CECUTT’s SOP will recognise, and maybe be concerned at those who are sharing the exact same cookie-cutter dismissals and platitudes that the BBC issues.
But these are from Government Departments and MPs.
This does not suggest a healthy situation in checks and balances, as these are already being eroded on the hour elsewhere.
I am still waiting, but it seems as though most investigations by MP’s have involved asking the BBC Trust if the BBC is in breach of its charter, the reply being NO.
But this may be only cover for ongoing investigations, that is why the usual people such as Booker are silent.
I was told not to expect much before May.
If and when this goes Nuclear, it could end the BBC.
But it does look as though it would produce two factions, one faction insisting that the BBC has not breached its Charter, and the other saying that it has.
In the mean time, everyone should vote UKIP, unless you live in the constituencies of MP’s Graham Stringer, David Davis etc.
Good post Guest. Where are the minutes of the meeting?
‘Where are the minutes of the meeting?’
Don’t know, Fred.
One of the glories of our new Royal Charter-based media politico-media world is you don’t get to see such things, from who was invited to what they said. And you certainly are not allowed to ask for them or, soon, hold any to account as to why they are all secret.
A bit like the Leveson deal, where some are now asking who invited (and who they were) four mystery HackedOff overseers but no one from the media industry all this was/is to be imposed upon cooperatively.
I have written to my MP to ask my government, because the BBC skewing policy by who it invites on as guest or edits in as ‘public feedback’ is one thing, but getting backroom deals cut in Her Majesty’s disloyal opposition party’s foyer directly is quite another, and I’d like to know how this came about, who set it up (in all senses), who was there and why.
Wasn’t the meeting held under Chatham House Rules so they’re not obliged to disclose what was discussed?
‘Wasn’t the meeting held under Chatham House Rules so they’re not obliged to disclose what was discussed?
It was indeed under said ‘rules’, but as with the BBC and any ‘rules’ the second part does not necessarily follow as a consequence.
From the 28Gate ‘Shssshhhh, you can’t know who’ back alley gathering to what appears 99% of all market rate board level forgettable corridor meetings to ex-BBC staff monitored government/opposition ‘nudge-nudge’ law-enshrined Royal Charter horse trades, a transparent democracy is hardly served when the public paying them is forbidden from knowing who has been invited to a meeting, who turned up and who said what.
Especially when the outcome of such meetings seems pretty key to what were are educated and informed about.
If I am expected to abide by decisions made, taking it all on Trust after all we now know can and does happen, is a step too far.
Great OP, Alan, and some useful comments in answer, too. I’d just sound a note of caution: the BBC, as Alan suggests, are not only politically unwilling to abandon their Holy Consensus, they will jump at any chance to use new dodgy climate science to bolster their CAGW manifesto. We must all hope that that nature keeps right on doing her thing and not only maintains this proven 16 year-long lack of warming, but also provides no perfectly natural anomalies that increasingly desperate climate trolls in the BBC will jump on to use as ‘new evidence’ of ‘dangerous warming’.
It sounds silly, but in this context (and however unlikely) a particularly warm summer in the year ahead might be all that the BBC require to ratchet up their climate hysteria once again. Not that they haven’t really stopped at the moment: I couldn’t help but notice the sly references to ‘extreme weather’ (not extreme at all) peppering yesterday evening’s Countryfile (one the BBC’s flagship climate alarmism vehicles) as they continue to squeeze as much climate propaganda as possible out of recent flooding in the UK.
So good to see this place take a strong, consistently critical stand against the BBC’s on-going misinformation and sleight-of-hand regarding the CAGW panic. The fact they still refuse to host climate critical voices speaks volumes about just how intellectually and scientifically devalued their claims to ‘fairness’ and ‘impartiality’ really are.
I realise Phil is right that the BBC would just love a warm summer as evidence of global warming…..but please give a thought to us farmers and our crops which would love a bit of warm dry weather.
I see the bBC green machine is now promulgating the view that owning your own washing machine is bad for the environment and that with scarce resources we would all be better off leasing washing machines (no doubt from a toffu eating prick who just happens to a few hanging around or as promoted from the article from a bloke who owns a launderette )
Should we be owning our washing machines?
Is the privately owned washing machine heading for the scrap heap of history?It may sound absurd as more of us each year aspire to own a metal box that cleans their clothes.
But think-tanks looking to the future economy are suggesting that maybe we should not be buying our washing machines – we should be leasing them. Here is the logic: Nick, the owner of my local launderette, reckons his washing machines are 40 years old and still going strong. Domestic washing machines die much younger than Nick’s; more than a third don’t make it to the age of five. For the think-tanks, this doesn’t make sense in a world hungry for resources.
Here is what the bBC article doesn’t tell you about Iron the so called scarce element. It is the most abundant element on the planet and lets be honest here, iron has been getting recycled for thousands of years. Maybe that is why we have metal scrap merchants. Not only that but washing machines are small fry when compared to say: Scrapped planes,Tanks (Well the bBC did run an article on the subject the other day) Ships and lets not forget Cars.
But hey the greens are trying to force you to do their bidding becasue as allah knows only they know best.
Don’t know what am we going to do about our Miele Washing Machine we picked and bought it as they last around 25 years. And I won’t mention the fact that they use cast iron as the ballast and not concrete. (That’s why those machines that use concrete as ballast start to shake as they get older, the concrete starts crumbling and the machine loses weight balance integrity .Didn’t know that did you Mr Harrabin )
The bBC, the traitors within our midst
Harrabin and his green chums really need to think this through. Assuming that everyone in the UK was prepared to spend 20 – 30 hours a week down at their ‘local’ launderette, how many new launderettes would need to be built in order to handle the capacity ? How many new launderette style washer/dryers would be needed ? How much electricty would they use, taking into account that, as well as the power for the washer/dryers, the launderettes need lighting and heating etc. Assuming that the launderette washer/dryers are going to be working flat out, are they really going to last any longer than domestic washer/dryers. I doubt it. Oh. And finally. Unless they are going to build a launderette every few hundred yards, how many people will drive to their ‘local’ launderette, creating even more ‘evil’ C02 ? Harrabin. What a tit.
The prick is getting slated on his twitter feed regards this story.. Something about the average washing machine does not contains 40 kg of steel. Most of the weight is concrete.
I suspect harribins enthusiasm for comunal wash houses
(for thee but not for me) has more to do with a love of social-engineering than his unquestioning faith in AGW
Some bourgeois fantasy about making people come together,a new version of busing
Hah!
Communal wash houses owned by the state. Who will then control who washes their clothes and when.
Soon to be followed by a law and/or tax on being stinky in public …
I stumbled across this glamorous, obviously well-funded site, whilst looking for something else yesterday.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/climate.html
It seems there is no doubt in these guys minds that Climate Change is definite. They are convinced and what is more they underline their conclusions (not arguments) with lovely graphs, pictures of polar bears with only tiny bits of ice to sit on, pretty coral that will of course disappear because of you horrible Jeremy Clarkson types, cartoon pictures of the planet showing how hot it is at the equator and of course a dried up patch of dirt, which proves that we are turning the planet into deserts. Oh yes, there was also a picture of squiggly lines that prove the gulf stream is about to stop and we will all drown because of melting sea ice. It really is a site that is prophesying the end of the world for us all. I did notice however the date (for the end of the world) is being pushed back fairly regularly as the predictions fail to materialise quickly enough. Anyway, there is no hope, we are all doomed!
This site is promoting itself as being suitable for schools of course and as it is so professional and the scientists are so learned and speak with such grandeur and authority. And they use big words that obviously impress little children and people from the BBC/Labour/Liberal & Tory Party.
This leads me to conclude two things:
1. This site desperately need a bit more glamour and pretty coloured pictures. You know the sort, lots of fluffy animals happily cavorting in summer fields of wild flowers, some nice graphs showing global temperatures not going up and down like a naughty ladies knickers. Pictures of children playing on the beach at Bournemouth not drowning in rising sea levels. Also, you know the sort of thing, lots of big red and yellow text and slabs of colour on the site, it always seems to sell things they say, and it just cheer us up a bit.
2. Then of course we needs a few scientists who have a different religion and beliefs to that of the Global Warming or Climate Change alarmist folks. Or whatever they will call it next when both of those expressions fail. Perhaps we could call it the Fight United Crap Kingdom & English Mystery party. (You can sort out the acronym for yourselves.) These rebel scientists must have long hair, lots of tattoos, look like pop stars, use bad language and say “init” a lot They will of course break up hotel rooms, use drugs and get caught in the back of cars with divine ladies. Oops that’s been done! Only then will we get away from this crusty old men image that only upsets Dez and his alter egos.
Anyway Alan, I think you get the idea and I look forward to seeing the changes.
Here is a great video for sceptics, and even more for people who believe in AGW!
“BBC producer faces fine over stunt in documentary The Polar Bear Family And Me”
http://metro.co.uk/2013/03/19/bbc-documentary-producer-faces-6000-fine-over-polar-bear-stunt-3549002/?
And who will end up paying this fine?
Gordon Buchanan? He looks more like an Earnest Twatt.
“UK inflation rate nudged up to 2.8% by rising fuel costs”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21842585
Don’t Beeboids want energy prices (and inflation) to rise even more, on their ‘green’ altar?
The future is bleak. the future is COLD. (Says the sun).
http://climaterealists.com/?id=11347