You have to hand it to the BBC, they are determined to push the global warming meme even when it is..erm, cooling!
The levels of gases in the atmosphere that drive global warming increased to a record high in 2012. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), atmospheric CO2 grew more rapidly last year than its average rise over the past decade. Concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide also broke previous records Thanks to carbon dioxide and these other gases, the WMO says the warming effect on our climate has increased by almost a third since 1990.
Let’s stop at the first line and weigh up the sort of contrary scientific opinion the BBC does not like to find safe for. Why does the BBC feel such a compunction to continually present scientific OPINION as scientific FACT?
It was only last week the BBC’s Teletext news had an item about LESS CO2 being found in the Earth’s atmosphere. They quoted a study by one of the favoured climate organisations that found there was less CO2 in the atmosphere than ten years ago. Of course they balanced it with quoting someone who said that the reduction was due to the rise of renewable energy production.
Now one week after they push this garbage! They obviously don’t know what headline they are pushing from one week to the next.
MiniTruth must be working overtime to replace one fact with another as quickly as this.
Loved the headline referring to CO2 as the “warming gas” – an assertion based on no substantive proof of CO2 as the primary cause of global warming – something contradicted by temperature records of the last seventeen years.
The BBC pretend not to notice the contradiction. They ignore it and carry on as usual hoping we wont notice. Of course, you can trust the BBC. Would they lie to us, just to save themselves being found out as liars in the pockets of Big Green?
Of course they would. Think of what would be lost: the path to one world government and global redistribution of the world’s wealth. Isn’t that worth lying for?
decaying national broadcaster
declining national broadcaster
despised national broadcaster
broadcaster that’s losing credibility
– @LC anyone can play at leading headlines & framing rhetoric
they treat us public as if we are a bunch of thickos and dumbos,for centurys there has been global warming and global cooling,the climate is always changing backwards and forwards,its called the jet stream.notice how the climate change and global warming fanatics have kept kind of quiet this year at the lack of predicted superstorms in the usa and in fact not even 1 hurricane has hit the states this year,can they explain why that is.but then again,some of the worst storms and loss of life due to them in the uk was in fact 200 and 300 years ago,thats a fact,the global warming and climate change zealots have lost the argument,simple as that,case closed.
The BBC could easily prove that the coming mini-ice age is going to be Global and not Regional. Paul Hudson could phone up his colleagues in New Zealand, or google Kiwigate. It is as simple as that.
Sadly, a large proportion of the public in the Former UK ARE a bunch of thickos – or they don’t care.
Why would anyone want to know about the Jet Stream, or CO2, or global warming, so long as they can watch strictlycomemastercehfbakeoff, wander down to the burger/pizza bar and/or pub, get stoned/and or drunk, and have their heads wrapped around their i-phones, merrily tweeting and making/breaking “friends” on facebook?
So their energy bills go up? So what? – the Cahncil will pay, they always have…
The warming gas with a 15 year cooling-off period.
On the BBC’s *Bitsize* GCSE page “Science”, you will find this:
The atmosphere has not always been the same. It has been much the same, but nevertheless now contains more nitrogen and oxygen, and less carbon dioxide, than it did when the earth first formed. Recently, the addition of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels has lead to global warming.
It is difficult to predict, even by using computer models, exactly what the mean temperature of the Earth will be in the future. However it seems sensible to limit global warming and protect the environment, through sustainable development and by reducing waste, wherever possible
How to brainwash the kids ‘eh BBC?
Only the first and last lines are mine, the rest is the BBC’s.
the rest is the BBC’s
Including the mis-spelling of “led”. BBC standards, in everything, forever slide downwards.
I’m no expert on any of this (who is?) but… but… isn’t that a total contradiction there?
“The atmosphere has not always been the same. It has been much the same, but nevertheless now contains more nitrogen and oxygen, and less carbon dioxide, than it did when the earth first formed. Recently, the addition of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels has lead to global warming.”
I’ve bolded the bits which are confusing me.
Which is it? Is there less carbon dioxide now or more?
We actually have historically low carbon dioxide levels compared to both when the Earth formed and millions of years ago.
Seriously guys – reread what you’ve written. If you can’t understand basic GCSE Science (and there’s no contradiction in the ‘Bitesize’ piece above – just read it slowly and it will sink in, even to your brains!) then how on earth can you then criticise the WMO statement?
So what is it – do you find GCSE Science challenging or all you all scientific geniuses who know far more than those pesky scientists with their years of study and research?!!
those pesky scientists ah Steve, some of them cant make up their minds about anything
http://iceagenow.info/2013/10/real-risk-ice-age-leading-scientist/
http://iceagenow.info/2013/11/global-cooling-consensus/
http://iceagenow.info/2013/11/global-cooling-consensus/
What’s a (good) boy to do when the priests start singing from different hymn sheets.
Steve Collins, I bet the first bit is extracted from a 1970’s CSE General Science paper, which I must admit is vastly superior science to the dogmatic final bit.
Some of us are Astronomer geniuses who know far more than those pesky climate scientists with their lesser years of study and research than Astronomers.
Steve, what will you call yourself tomorrow?
Steve, you’re out of your depth, luv.
Or didn’t you know the IPCC isn’t actually made up of ‘the world’s top climate scientists’?
Or maybe you’re unaware of the farce of the final stage of the IPCC report process where the politicians and the scientists/environmentalists meet so the politicians can tell them what ‘the science says’?
And that’s before we get on to the real world evidence and the complete failure of the climate ‘models’.
You are either naïve, ignorant, or part of the problem. I would guess the last of those.
The priest class at the BBC told him AGW is revealed truth and that anyone that said different was a heretic.
That’s good enough for Stevie, he gulps it all down
There is a quarter of a million times more CO2 on Venus and 18 times more CO2 on Mars.
The Earth had at least twice as much atmosphere as it has now, 50 million years ago.
So if memory serves me well, the equilibrium between the 1000pm CO2 in the atmosphere and the Oceans would produce an atmospheric pressure 50 million years ago, of about 2.5 bar.
That means although there is a greater ratio of Nitrogen and Oxygen today, there was twice as much Oxygen and Nitrogen in the past.
The last bit is pure dogma, which has changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” and probably to “Global Cooling” in the future.
Funny how ‘climate weirding’ never really caught on.
The BBC did try though
The whole GCSE curriculum is riddled with PC notions such as climate change.
actually not as bad as I expected. Just wait untll climatescare porongrapher Harrabin gets hold of it.
CO2 Levels are about 400pm, but the IPCC seems to get its data from a monopoly source called Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Other sources are ignored. In fact chemical methods used in the past have shown that levels go up and down. In fact a paper by Ernst-Georg Beck shows that levels reached 440pm in 1941. But then the whole dogma was destroyed by Tom Segalstad in 1997, when he showed evidence that only a maximum of 4 percent (16 percent of the 100pm increase) of CO2 could be man-made. But then the correlations show that CO2 was expected to rise 800 years after the medieval warm period.
Anyway, before my old Laptop packed in, I think I showed that a theory based on thermodynamics called the “Unified Theory of Climate” which explains the warming of the CO2 atmospheres of Venus and Mars, shows that man-made CO2 warming can only be a maximum of 0.003 Kelvin. I have also been informed that a group of scientist think they can differentiate man-made CO2 from volcanic CO2, so that will reduce the influence of mankind even further by eliminating the final assumption. But then climate science has abandoned the scientific method for the dogma of the left-wing morons who prefer assumptions to facts, so look to astronomy for the truth.
Harrabin was on this morning saying that some countries were reducing their out put of gases and graph showed falling levels in countries China and the US. He said this would reduce this risk of ‘famine, floods and starvation’ in the future.
It struck me at the time that it might not be long before he and the BBC start claiming that temperatures have stabilised precisely because of the success of curbing output of gases. They won’t mention the overall total.
In other words the warmists have been right all along.
“might not be long before he and the BBC start claiming that temperatures have stabilised precisely because of the success of curbing output of gases”
—-
If so, another odd connection to try and make, given the occasions when cause and effect have not tallied well to suit the narrative.
Rather a BBC specialty of course, so entirely possible.
The thing is, if as has been suggested by the warmist Mr Harrabin, that the reduction in CO2 has created a *cooling* effect, when do we stop reducing the CO2 emissions to stop the cooling effect? If we don’t stop or reduce our CO2 emissions then by Harrabins own deduction(s) his mantra will send us all into an ice age. To keep warm we will have to find ways of producing heat, which will probably mean burning fossil fuels or some other such like which in turn will probably mean a rise in CO2 levels and henceforth *warming*. Yay! We will all be saved by increasing the CO2 levels. Oh, hang on a minute?
Not that there is any proof that Chinese emissions could do fuck all to the climate, other than proof that it would have to be a thousand times what the IPCC pseudo-scientific politicians assume. But are there not a thousand coal fuelled power stations in the pipe line, and are not the Chinese embarrassing Katie Melua by abandoning millions of bikes for millions of cars.
Maybe the Chinese authorities are just giving the morons the news that the morons want to hear, I have heard that the Chinese academies have teamed up with the only uncorrupted scientific body in the west, the Heartland Institute.
So we have the governments of Canada, Australia, China and India investigating the scientific integrity of the IPCC, and wondering if this is a Nazi inspired committee, set up to hammer the science into a pre-determined political dogma.
Answer: YES
On second thoughts, could this just be a fall in natural levels of CO2, similar to what happened after 1941? A temporary short-term response to a cooling of the surface of the Oceans relative to the past 100 years.
Just as a footnote to our climate, I have a business associate in the Phillipines and he sent an email last night saying that the islands are going to get hit by a super typhoon. This is the news report on it:
A ferocious typhoon in the western Pacific Ocean is taking aim at the fragile islands of the Philippines.
Super Typhoon Haiyan has top sustained winds of 175 mph, which is equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane, according to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. It is heading northwest toward the Philippines, with landfall likely early Friday local time (Thursday night in the USA).
A typhoon becomes a super typhoon when its winds reach 150 mph, the Weather Channel reported.
Haiyan is probably the most powerful storm on the Earth this year, according to meteorologist Ryan Maue of WeatherBell.
Haiyan should weaken slightly as it moves west, with winds of about 155 mph expected when it hits land. This would make it a strong Category 4 hurricane. (A Category 4 has wind speeds of up to 156 mph, while a Category 5 has winds of at least 157 mph.)
And yes I did spell Philippines wrong in the above post but I hit the enter button instead of the backspace button when trying to correct it!
It also looks like the reduction in the CO2 that Mr Harrabin has so triumphantly informed us, has also shifted the emphasis on storm cells in the Southern Hemisphere. No Hurricanes this year, but plenty of Typhoons. Well done Mr Harrabin. I’m sure that all those in the paths of these super Typhoons really appreciate the *good* work you and your like are doing for them. You can’t have it both ways Mr Harrabin.
mph? what are you, some kind of nationalistic, Eurosceptic, Little englander? (sic)
Am I missing something? No, but the point of your post was what exactly? [sic]
I think a bit of sarcasm or irony – who knows which? – because you didn’t use kph like a good European.
As an aside, I wonder if Beeboids are constantly converting into kilometres as they drive along in their Piousmobiles, to stop themselves from being contaminated by Ye Olde English Customes.
I feel the need for a reply, as I was cut and pasting a news reported (as stated in my original post) that had come from the USA who still use imperial measure, and as such MPH. Obviously, amimissingsomething doesn’t understand English, oh the irony in that! 😎
yes, sorry, I forgot to add ‘/sarc’!
and the small ‘e’ in englander (sic!) was deliberate, too!!
There’s a twitter thread forming on some BBC ‘reporting’ that may seem depressingly familiar..
Hope I copied the lead correctly, as it is worth following what happens next.
A bit of balance, though one wonders if there may be a whispered corridor conversation about such stories appearing too prominently if certain employees want certain careers to blossom…
One of the facts that the Political Establishment ignores is that the whole decarbonisation debate is focussed on the production of electricity. Caroline Flint did state recently that other uses are not really addressed at all by governmental policy – transport, fertilizers, plastics etc. The electricity target is possible because of the use of nuclear ( now belatedly seen as the saviour) the change in other aspects are far more problematic and unsuccessful,are addressed through recycling which is expensive and only 80% efficient at best. Efficiency is also the tactic here which is obviously a good thing.
I would like to see a graph differentiating between electricity decarbonisation and the other uses which will remain largely untouched by 2050. This rather changes the scenario and explains why politicians are so “gung ho” on this issue, if I’m kind. In actual fact they intend changing very little ( why not ban the internal combustion engine, chemical works and fertilisers) since they know it would amount to a descent to the stone age favoured by the Greens.
“Decarbonisation” and “Carbon Footprint” must be two of the daftest phrases in this, the Age of Stupid – rabidly promoted by your friendly, biased, pc BBC on a radio, television or computer near YOU.
If we “decarbonised” we’d all be gone – just like that. I think, maybe, that’s just what the misanthropic greenies are hoping for.
Update: A quick google search gave me the graph I was asking for, not surprisingly electricity amounts to only 25% of emissions. Carry on folks.
I think the only emissions that the BBC are really interested in, are nocturnal ones…
While leading the counter attack against Dave’s wobble on green levies, here’s something I didn’t learn from Roger Harrabin today. Did you know that
Domestic energy use accounts for typically 14-16% of the UK’s total CO2 output. Tax me please, I’m killing the planet.
If you reallocate to the domestic user some of the CO2 emissions created by the energy provider in providing that energy, you can up the domestic user’s share to 22-23%. Jesus, Gaia, I’m sorry. Tax me until I can either eat or heat.
Something I did learn from Roger. He is still pretending China’s ‘carbon intensity’ reduction targets are somehow equivalent to the absolute reductions required of us.
If, as has been suggested my Mr Harrabin, that an increase in CO2 levels will cause Global Warming, which in turn will increase sea levels (Yeah right), will a reduction in CO2 levels produce Global Cooling which in turn will cause sea levels to fall?
As an ancilliary point, since the last ice age sea levels have risen by about 100m iirc (which probably explains the ubiquity of flood myths across all cultures – the history of mankind from the stone age to the present has been one of being driven back from the rising sea).
Meanwhile, the AGW credulists are wringing their hands and tearing out their hair over a further 1-4m of sea level rises.
One other interesting factoid: if all the ice on the planet was to melt, sea levels would rise by another 70m or so; this represents the maximal sea level rise we could ever see. Ironically under this scenario, whilst we would lose some coastal land, overall habitable land actually increases from the present day because there is currently a lot of land that is under ice (e.g. the antarctic).