Germany is the most powerful nation in Europe, the most economically successful, the one with the most radical green programme…and one that is in the midst of an election.
You might have thought then that this would have been of interest to the BBC:
Germany industry in revolt as green dream causes cost spiral
Germany’s top economic adviser has called for a radical rethink of the country’s energy policies, warning that the green dream is going badly wrong as costs spiral out of control.
It seems not…I haven’t seen any recent mention of German problems with its drive to green the economy and energy sector….as it is seemingly having a massively damaging effect upon the economy and hence may be an election issue you could be persuaded of the case for a bit of news coverage by the BBC….especially as it reflects what is happening in our own economy and domestic fuel prices.
I’m certain the BBC environmental and political, and economic reporters are too busy elsewhere to report on the imploding of the biggest economy in Europe due to green policies….it couldn’t possibly be that they just don’t want you, the Public, to get the idea that all is not rosy in the Green garden.
The BBC does have time to report this outrage though:
Russia ‘seizes’ Greenpeace ship after Arctic rig protest
But if you are looking for a critical analysis of the IPCC’s leaked Fifth Assessment Report on climate change don’t ask the BBC or indeed the Guardian who have both launched pre-emptive strikes to try and stave off the critical sceptics:
This was from the BBC in 2012
IPCC critical of climate change report leak
Don’t you just love the BBC…not investigating what the leaks say, or what others say about the leaks, but the BBC rushes to tell us what the UN tells us about the ‘leak’ itself and to defend the IPCC’s report whilst undermining any critics.
And the BBC doesn’t do it once…but twice…this from two days ago:
Climate leaks are ‘misleading’ says IPCC ahead of major report
And don’t forget this little white lie:
‘…the so called Climategate affair, in which leaked emails purported to show leading scientists trying to manipulate their data to make the report more damning.
Ultimately, several investigations showed the accusations of manipulation to be false.‘
Well, only if you believe that those investigations were not a stitch up by the Establishment…which they were.
And then there is this classic from the Guardian:
Big business funds effort to discredit climate science, warns UN official
Climate change summit braced for counterblast from sceptics as report warns greenhouse gas emissions still increasing
Hardly a credible position to take when you consider the billions that are ploughed into the global warming scam by governments, big business and of course the BBC itself which provides extensive and priceless Media ‘cover’ for the corrupt politicians, fellow journalists and other cheerleaders for global warming.
“Long before his ‘two cultures’ lecture, C.P. Snow explained that science is a work in progress. The scientific mission is to take the best information available, ‘take some pointer readings, make a mental construction from them in order to predict some more’. If the prediction turns out to be right, he said, ‘the mental construction is, for the moment, a good one. If it is wrong, another mental construction has to be tried.’ So it is with climate change science. There is not much doubt that the planet is warming, and man is at least partially responsible. But the failure of the old prediction models make it clear that there is not a simple relationship between carbon emissions and global warming.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9027511/a-climate-glasnost/
It seems the watermelons are getting worried, I have heard several OpEds on planet beeb today talking about all these evil deniers.
We are not deniers – we just want to see some quantifiable, repeatable evidence.
As they say in academia – “Show me the reasoning behind your hypothesis?”.
Not “It must be true because we all think so”.
The hypothesis that gives 33 Kelvin for the greenhouse effect has multiple proofs of being wrong as regards using Venus and Mars, as proxies as well as the inability to use positive feedback to make it fit the Earth, due to the fact that feedback has been proven to be negative.
So this naturally drives you to the conclusion that the hypothesis using thermodynamics, of 133 Kelvin for the greenhouse effect must be correct, especially because of multiple proofs using different atmospheric pressures.
Unashamed filched from WUWT open thread:-
There are scientific methods for squeezing juice out of already-published science—methods such as systematic review and scientific meta-analysis—and then there’s the way IPCC does it: by getting a bunch of alarmist political attachés to look over the shoulders of a bunch of handpicked scientists and reaching an inane consensus. They call this “synthesis” but it conforms to no known scientific method. Everything about it—down to the way they express their confidence in their own prophecies—is non-scientific. And when a prediction fails, they don’t even pretend to follow Feynman’s law of science (“if your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong”). Clearly they’re playing to a scientifically-uneducated audience, and they know it.
Unless I’m missing something, it’s no more “scientific” than a conclave of cardinals, but in a tropical hotel.
” it’s no more “scientific” than a conclave of cardinals“
Exactly, it is an affirmation of religious faith
“if your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong”
Yes but for the morons, just as Dr Who is more believable than it was in my day, Computer models are more believable than the old methods used to predict tides.
True. Computer models are “gee whiz!” great at convincing the ignorant that something is or is not. Unfortunately, the politicians they beg grants from are not experts in computers.
When a simple accounting program can be rendered trash by a single misplaced “.”, in what reality does a complex model based upon suppositions that may or may not be right produce meaningful results? We do not actually KNOW the parameters needed to make the models perform the way they should. It is not possible for them to be right.
As always: GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
C.P.Snow not only advocated a one Party State (he supported the Hitler-Stalin pact and approved of putting dissidents into labour camps) he was also a mediocre scientist. If he was still around I am pretty sure he would have been an advocate of government intervention on the grounds of an appeal to “science”. In reality “science” is almost as subject to fads and financial/political corruption as any other area of life. I say “almost” (I agree with your essential point) but in my opinion C.P.Snow is not a good example to pick if you are an advocate of a free inquiry.
Well, they don’t talk about the core basics of the calibration of carbon dioxide warming using Mars and Venus as proxies at the IPCC.
Every scientist under the Sun, other than Atmospheric Physicists dealing with the core basics of the argument are included in the fifth assessment.
An obsession with temperature changes without using the scientific method to determine the causes must be Politics.
Latest results for the calibration of carbon dioxide warming for the 20th century is estimated to be about 0.003 Kelvin for the 100ppm increase in CO2.
Everyone on this blog will probably find this out in the Media in about ten years time, but not on the BBC.
From the 28 advisers of what the BBC called “the best scientific experts“, only three where climate scientists, and these three where only qualified in measuring the temperature, the seminar was made up of environmental activists without a single causational or attribution climate scientist present, not a single atmospheric physicist or solar scientist was present at that seminar.
This must prove my point that the people who run the BBC are morons, and I do not mean that as an insult, it is a genuine aspect of left-wing middle class people with arts and humanities degrees.
According to an article on the BBC website this morning (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504), the IPCC are meeting in Sweden to “thrash out a critical report on global warming”. Apparently “Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures. But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998”. The BBC has a classic doublespeak word for this – it’s merely a “pause”. First notice the abandonment of ambiguous language in the opening sentence; for the past decade or so the preferred phrase has been “climate change” as that can usefully mean anything. But now the BBC has reverted to the definitive and alarmist “global warming”. Secondly, the use of the word “pause” to describe the acknowledged fact that there has been no rise in global temperature for the past 15 years, despite all the predictions that here in the UK we’d be enjoying a meditterean-style climate by now. Presumably the terrorist attacks in Kenya and Pakistan are also just “pauses” in Islam’s peaceful progress, too.
A ‘pause’, in fact, that none of their models predicted, despite them having been built on ‘settled science’.
The BBC will be stepping up its pro-CAGW propaganda ahead of the release of the next IPCC report. All efforts will be made by the Corporation to shut out completely any chance of rational debate and most definitely to silence any sceptical criticism of the discredited government-funded IPCC.
Instead, this next report – despite all scientific evidence to the contrary – will again and again be trumpeted by the Corporation as a ‘definite’ proof of the ‘escalating climate catastrophe’ due (any moment, honest, guv). Prepare for the usual ‘five years to save the world’ meme which gets trotted out by IPCC apologists every, erm, five years or so.
The BBC will, no doubt, mobilise all the usual willing collaborators to publicly support its approved CAGW narrative, all of them eager to dismiss the failure of global temperatures to rise as predicted by the computer models as nothing more than a ‘pause’ in the warming.
Repeating the lie as often as possible is essential if the propaganda is to be effective in dispelling a growing public suspicion of CAGW as nothing more than an elaborate political scam.
Your license fee at work, people.
But AGW is merely on holiday, doncha know – it’ll be back with a vengeance, soon. The BBC tell us that the air and sea temperatures are still going to rise catastrophically, one day…
…and in the meantime, they don’t know why all their other AGW dreams refuse to play ball, and come true, despite the pleadings and threats of the IPCC et al for the climate to change THEIR way..
Temperatures are flat, and probably about to plunge – they don’t know why (so they say – I say it’s the sun, stupid, but what do I know?), and it’s a travesty that they don’t.
And it would be bloody funny, to boot, if it wasn’t for the fact that our common purpose leaders have all been taken it by it, or even “directed” to believe in it.
But AGW is merely on holiday
Not according to the New Scientist. That magazine is so determined to continually shout ‘we’re all doomed’ that it would seem it is edited by Fraser himself.
Mind you even that parsimonious sweatie would baulk at the usual given solution – more tax. ‘Cos that’s going to work isn’t it, making people poorer? Apparently the more money you cough up the less CO2 you expel or something similar.
“But AGW is merely on holiday”
indeed, apparently all the warming has been ‘lost behind the sofa’
or is it in the ‘deep dark oceans where unfortunately we cannot measure anything but we are sure that is where it must be’
or could it be that the entire scam’s time is up
BTW does anyone enjoy the ‘97%/98%/100%’ of scientists/experts agree’ (insert any random and unjustified number as applicable) statements – every time I read one I am drawn to think of the dubious adverts for hair/foundation/beauty treatment products and the accompanying 97% of women agree’ (survey of vanishingly small number of women who probably agree to everything)
I hope it didn’t fly there 😯
BTW does anyone enjoy the ’97%/98%/100%’ of scientists/experts agree’
No, but I understand 8 out of 10 cats also agree so …
“The BBC does have time to report this outrage though:
Russia ‘seizes’ Greenpeace ship after Arctic rig protest”
That’s because the BBC has a large Anti-Russian streak in it, probably because it’s the govts propaganda channel and the govt hates Russia. Just look at the typical stories on Russia: the Litvinenko affair, anti-Putin op-eds, the Georgian-Ossetian war etc, the BBC always takes a hostile attitude towards Russia.
Lets hope the Russians sink that Greenpeace ship asap.
There was a soundbite from Pachauri (chairman of the IPCC) in Harrabin’s piece this morning in which I’m sure he said (paraphrased) ‘I can reassure people that man-made global warming is happening’.
Funny, I’d be more reassured if it wasn’t happening.
But apologies if I misheard.
If Pachauri and Harrabin pissed in the sea, they could say ‘I can reassure people that man-made sea level rise is happening’