Wonder if anyone else watched BBC QUESTION TIME last night? It lived up to its reputation for unending leftist bias of course and none more so than when the question came about whether the Typhoon in the Philippines that has caused such tragic loss of life was caused by …yes, global warming.
What struck me about the ensuing debate was the zealotry of those on the panel who all proclaimed that it was most likely the case that global warming (or climate change, as they subtly switch narrative when it suits them) was to blame and that it was indisputable that global warming WAS STILL HAPPENING! Poor old Nigel Lawson did his best to put forth a reasoned case to suggest that what was being proclaimed as fact by the panel was in fact at variance with reality but he was shouted down. We also had someone proclaim that banning carrier bags might help end Hurricanes and of course we have to fully embrace “renewables” and all the “free new deal” jobs they bring (none) Lawson was attacked on all fronts and the audience was also seemingly stacked with climate fantasists. You wonder how this can be when poll after poll shows the UK population increasingly sceptical of the AGW agenda. However the BBC is a key driver of the watermelon agenda and last night showed that when it comes to conducting a rational debate on the science of the matter, the BBC aren’t remotely interested. You see it is a matter of faith for these Gaia worshippers…
DV
I rarely watch QT (or listen to Any Questions) since the time a reasoned discussion on certain topics can be expected to take place on such shows is over. Accordingly, I’ll take your word for it that the QT audience/panel was stacked with members of the Church of Global Warming (morphing, as you say, into the Church of Climate Change).
However, and this doesn’t let the BBC off the hook of its transparent bias, the time for reasoned discussion of many topics dear to the heart of the lefty/greenie establishment is over. For instance, public discussion in universities concerning the effects of Moslem immigration is effectively impossible. The “debate” over fracking has been hijacked by panicked greens who assert their intolerance by staging sit-ins (curiously where fracking is not on the immediate agenda eg at Balcombe). Even paying tax bills strictly in accordance with the law is portrayed as an immoral act by politicians (from both opposition and government) and, again, the so-called taxation “debate” has been hijacked by those who (enabled by the BBC among others) deliberately lie and obfuscate the basic facts of the matter.
Thus are the well-springs of an informed democracy poisoned with the willing assistance of the state broadcaster. But the BBC is not alone here: the paper MSM does its bit by sheer bad and lazy journalism and, for example, allows itself to be willing accomplices in green quasi-criminality. The paper press, apart from the occasional disclosure of the more egregious items of green dishonesty, remains complicit in the whole green swindle. I don’t expect honesty from the usual suspects (Guardian, Independent etc) but why, for instance, does the Telegraph employ Geoffrey Lean as its main columnist on matters environmental?
And when can we expect the publication of the Mo cartoons? To ponder such questions is to realise that reasoned public debate in the UK is dying encouraged by the BBC. To comprehend the corruption at the heart of the BBC’s self-proclaimed “impartiality”, you don’t have to view QT or listen to Any Questions: simply listen to a week’s worth of the BBC flagship news/current affairs programme Today.
Also the fact that our emissions are a drop in the ocean when compared to India and China seemed to go right over the audiences head. I agreed with Lawsons point on the fact that the cheapest form of energy and therefore the best way out of poverty is the use of fossil fuels. Also I believe he said that in time answers would be found through science(not the windmill madness that we currently have) like nuclear fusion for example. He was right in saying that all we are doing by following the current policy is paupering the nation and any other that tries it. In my opinion the green jobs boom is a myth.
By all means continue to look at efficiency savings and research into other forms of energy BUT for now continue to create wealth with the use of our fossil fuel assets.
The tragedy for Marxists, communists, socialists, or leftists in general, is that they believe in the doctrine of Marx. They believe in it no matter that it has been refuted in the philosophic and economic domains. More important Marxist ideology has shown itself be to totalitarian, as the believers believe in its absolute truth, and will force it on everyone – the force dependent on what is available to them.
To such people. who have swallowed Marx, to swallow yet another social engineering ideology such as AGW, is relatively easy. Marxism and AGW are testable. But unlike physicists, who will dump a theory if it fails the test, the faith of Leftists in their ideology increases, no matter which way the evidence goes.
Of course, this should come as no surprise, as BBC journos are scientifically illiterate.
Well worth an expose on just how ecoloonery became fashionable…and now the leading Orthodoxy of our age.
It has denatured science into state funded madness and propaganda as well.
Again, it started with Nazi Gerrmany-Socialist Democratic Workers fantasies of Himmler and his Aryan Knights of Teuton etc…very wicca, very pagan, very eco frienldy New Age stuff except for the CO2 emissions from their laager chimneys.
It went nowhere except for US socialist liberal types…but this is where the martyrs like Rachel Carson, the activists like Ralph Nader, Alinskys and Chomskys got going in the 60s and early 70s.
But nothing actively opposed to the Russians and Communist efforts to destroy their lands for jobs and primary materials such as timbers and furs…secondary like chemicals and steel…for Brezhnev could only be right.
THe late 70s brought the Commie/Green Alliances in West Germany-Petra Kelly, Rudolf Bahro etc…and these useful martyrs funded by the East did pretty well in creating much of what we have today…the brown sludge of Red Green Axis thinking…Miliband and Lucas would agree on all of it, near enough.
Sadly, the flaccid, unscientific fools are BBC hacks as well-if it`s anti-US, anti-Israel pro-Greenpeace and a nod at Highgate Cemetery…it`ll run in the news.
Hence the disembowelling of science teaching and training, letting a snail sexing prof be the BBCs Jimmy McCririck consciousness raising guide in all things eco.
Would Adam Curtis do it for me…or is it all best not documented and put together?
Need I ask…let Jim-Jiminy Savile be their guide more like.
Eco warrior Number 1…let the train take the strain(don`t ask will you?) and ran nearly everywhere in the pursuit of youth promotion as an ishoo.
Didn`t even cremate him did we?..let`s see if any other current Beeboid will be as kind to Mother Gaia as was our Jim.
No kids either…which scotches Porritt eh?
I lay the blame for this shift firmly at the feet of 2 bald men with glasses: Gorbachev and de Clerk.
Gorby brought about reforms in the Soviet Bloc that eventually led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the failed Communist experiment. De Clerk brought about eh release of Mandela and the end of Apartheid, the scourge of white liberals who conveniently ignored human rights abuses in places such as the Soviet Bloc, Cuba, Burma etc.
So the bien-pensant classes had nowhere to vent their self-righteousness and moral superiority whan along came the Greens and whispered in their ears;
“Psst wanna buy some global warming?”
What’s that?”
“Man-made CO2 is going to cook the planet”
“What do we do about it?”
“Stop burning fossil fuels”
“Great – so it’s anti industrial?”
“Yes”
“Anti-globalisation?”
“Yes”
“Anti-American?”
“Yes – do you want to know the science behind it?”
“No, I don’t care–just sign me up”
“Plus, the BBC is on our side”
“Nirvana!”
And the vacuum of moral consciousness unwittingly caused by the 2 bald men with glasses was filled.
Thankfully, another bald man with glasses, John Howard, has started to put things right.
Ignoring scientific evidence isn’t much of a strategy is it? Denying the causal link between human activity and global warming by pretending that it is not supported by evidence isn’t really an intelligent alternative to engaging in the scientific process.
What qualifies you to disagree with trained scientists on scientific matters John?
Look out everyone we’ve got a live one here!
It’s a bit hard to believe anything they say after all the scandals like climategate and the IPCC report errors, the famous hockey-stick chart and the disappearing of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
OK then, let’s all live in the world of Sarah Palin Science. Corran, I’ll repeat my question, ‘What qualifies YOU to disagree with the majority of scientists on a question of science?’
What qualifies you to agree with the scientists? Or do you just swallow their “evidence” because it’s your confirmation bias?
Have you ever heard of Occam’a razor? it fits this situation beautifully.
So if I was to say solar activity drives the climate, by your reasoning and suggested use of Occam’s razor, I would be correct, because it’s the most logical theory right?
I mean all you watermelons seem to forget that big bright orange thing in the sky.
And what about the Maunder Minimum and the mini Ice Age as this graph of sunspot activity show’s.
This figure summarizes sunspot number observations. Since c. 1749, continuous monthly averages of sunspot activity have been available and are shown here as reported by the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, World Data Center for the Sunspot Index, at the Royal Observatory of Belgium. These figures are based on an average of measurements from many different observatories around the world. Prior to 1749, sporadic observations of sunspots are available. These were compiled and placed on consistent monthly framework by Hoyt & Schatten (1998a, 1998b).
The most prominent feature of this graph is the c. 11 year solar magnetic cycle which is associated with the natural waxing and waning of solar activity.
On longer time scales, the sun has shown considerable variability, including the long Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were observed, the less severe Dalton Minimum, and increased sunspot activity during the last fifty years, known as the Modern Maximum. The causes for these variations are not well understood, but because sunspots and associated faculae affect the brightness of the sun, solar luminosity is lower during periods of low sunspot activity. It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum may be among the principal causes of the Little Ice Age. For example, during the 70-year period from 1645 to 1715, few, if any, sunspots were seen, even during expected sunspot maximums. Western Europe entered a climate period known as the “Maunder Minimum” or “Little Ice Age.” Temperatures dropped by 1.8 to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
Then if we look at this graph showing the levels of carbon-14 (14C) in the atmosphere.
Changes in the 14C record, which are primarily caused by changes in solar activity. (Note that “before present” is used in the context of radiocarbon dating, where the “present” has been fixed at 1950).
Now if we combine the two we can clearly see a correlation with solar activity and 14C.
Correlations between 14C and sunspot activity. (Note that the 14C record since 1950 has been distorted by nuclear testing).
As mentioned above, the effect has nuclear testing has had on 14C is never mentioned, it’s always about what my car is producing or what the power stations are producing, but I guess it’s hard for a government to tax the pants off a nuclear test, but oh so easy to do to that old lady around the corner that can’t keep the heating on anymore as it get’s colder in the winter.
Quoting Michael Snyder in no way proves your point. He is not qualified. Please direct me to peer reviewed material in scientific journals.
Barry – did you know 30% of the literature used in the IPCC’s report is non-peer reviewed? Did you know that the IPCC is not made up of ‘the worlds’ top climate scientists’ but also environmentalists and postgraduates, some of whom are given leading roles in the report’s production?
And where do you get your ‘majority of scientists’ from? Even if true, since when were scientific theories proven by a majority vote? – ‘nullium in verba’ and all that, old bean.
Apart from 34 years on the planet and a bucket of common sense?
When you say “the majority of scientists” are you talking all the sciences or just Physics, Astrophysics, Climatology, Meteorology, Oceanography, Geology et al?
As far as I know not every scientist agrees, but I suspect you’re talking of something along the lines of what the IPCC did when they said that and it turned out that they were including anyone that had some part in the report in their total of agreeing scientists.
Do I need qualifications to disagree? If I do, then surely you need qualifications to agree?
Yes you do. I’m following the weight of scientific opinion. The burden of proof is on you. Don’t you realise that?
right on Bazza
climate change is real, its here, its happening now and we need to act now if we’re going to have any chance of halting this catastrophic runaway global warming
death to capitalism!!!
Science is about evidence, not opinion. Opinion is subjective. Evidence is not.
That’s a peculiar thing to say if you wish to deny that global warming is caused by anthropomorphic activity, which is a widely accepted evidence based fact among scientists. Have you thought this through?
I think you mean “Anthropogenic”
Nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit.
That;s a great way of avoiding the question!
Barry, history over the past thirty years have proven all those “climate scientists” who made alarming predictions as being totally wrong. Remember the Met Office a few years ago telling us to plant tropical pants in our gardens as we will never see a cold winter again? That prediction went well didn’t it? What happened to the fast melting ice at both Poles? This year has seen the biggest spread of ice at both poles in years. All previous “melts” have been seen to be of average duration and quickly replaced during the cold season. Then there’s the infamous inversion of the laws of physics when the alarmist scientists claimed that the oceans were absorbing heat beneath the surface i.e. that heat SANK beneath the waves.
Sorry Barry but I cannot trust a scientific “consensus” that uses abuse, threats, name calling, and pure intimidation to silence those questioning their wisdom.
I was always taught that science is about the pursuit of truth. Scientific theory is never settled. Questions have even been asked about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity by other scientists without being subjected to the hysterical backlash and threats to employment and research grants that warmists visit upon their critics.
Until the warmists choose to openly debate their theories with sceptics of equal academic qualifications – which up until now they have always declined to do – they will not convince me their theories and claims are genuine.
Thank you, Student Grant. Back to DS for you.
“That;s a great way of avoiding the question!”
OK, I’ll answer your original question.: the answer is:
Yes.
“Yes you do. I’m following the weight of scientific opinion. The burden of proof is on you. Don’t you realise that?”
—-
Following your efforts so far, you have offered nothing tangible at all, much less proof of anything as you demand.
Further, having realised that the weight of science you follow has managed to confuse you on matters of basic terminology, and been gently corrected, you have inevitably defaulted to classic dissembling already.
That’s one very shot bolt already.
‘Yes you do. I’m following the weight of scientific opinion.’
There are an estimated 6-7 million million research scientists on this planet. How and when was the vote conducted which has obviously convinced you?
Anyway, as a starter for ten in your education, here’s the global cooling theory (yes, despite CO2 levels increasing over the same period):
‘Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/
“What qualifies you to disagree with trained scientists on scientific matters John?”
—
To avoid any appearance of unidirectional dogma over genuine desire to debate BBC bias, if you are going to cite this rather ancient line of reasoning, it would be helpful if you’d also share your challenge to the BBC on the compositions and qualifications of the participants and audience to the 28gate meeting. And their response.
This meeting seemed designed purely to agree on reporting of climatic matters, with the added, less than scientific notions of #foi exclusion, secrecy and redactions.
Hence the qualifications of those making such decisions on behalf of the public are surely open to equal scrutiny and challenge.
So if this did not trouble you, why?
I dont know what scientific evidence is.
There is emperical evidence. This can be a restricted set of measurements. Temperature readings is such a set. Very simple, and anyone can do it.
However, the nature of the experiments – how, where, and when, have to be subject to criticism.
If the experimental data can be relied on, and there is not even a hint of tampering, it is then up to anyone, including scientists, to form a theory that explains that set of measurements. More importantly, the theory makes a set of predictions on a range experiments never even undertaken before.
Chris H
Terrific post. I learned a lot.
The Jimmy Savile Eco Awareness and treading lightly on the earth(and quiet creepings around the carpark and bunk beds too) Award goes to?…
Well no current BBC luvvie or Channel 4 dork does it?…any nominations…or does it have to stay as Stuart Hall in his cell for the minute?
Two different warmists on show.
1. St Ella of Creasey (our next Prime Minister dontchaknow) very much the Labour drone who regurgitates every party briefing note as gospel and believes whatever REd believes with all her Labour heart.
2. Ed Dopey – a true believer. He sat there with his eyes shining while I thought… ‘Is this guy even sane?’
Go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/ to see the ‘95%’ number mocked as being plucked out of thin air.
Plucked out of thin air and notwithstanding treated as utter gospel by the morons that pass for a political class (and a broadcasting class) these days.
Gawd help us.
Then lets see your evidence that contradicts those who are trained in science.
No need to get all that over here on BBBC: go to the website linked in that comment. They have years of archives and links to other similar sites with more than enough evidence from others trained in science – some even trained in ‘weather’ science.
Hey Span. Are you saying that there is easily available evidence that contradicts the widely held view among scientists that human activity contributes to global warming? If so, please spell it out in simple terms.
That white blur is the goalposts moving again…
Human activity is not the cause of global cooling, global warming or climate change. Of course it would contribute (maybe by even as much as 1%) but that isn’t the debate.
I’m pretty sure I’ve grasped that you don’t believe the scientists. I’ll repeat my my question. What evidence do you have?
Barry
Go away and read WattsUpWithThat. There is ample evidence that there was probably a mix of causes of any warming in the 20th century – not just human activity – plus stacks of evidence that “warming” was a temporary phenomenon that appears to have ceased, plus abundant evidence that many of the leading Climate Alarmists fiddle the statistics, plus umpteen demolition jobs on the credibility of the IPCC.
Go away and do some research.
Barry is just another tiresome little Warmist prick whose only argument is to repeat the ‘scientists say’ mantra, knowing full well that one helluva lot of scientists ‘don’t say’, as less than half an hour trawling Watts Up With That, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, Climate Depot, Climate Audit and a whole host of other websites will show.
In the fifties and early sixties old grannies used to blame the weather on all those TV arials that were springing up everywhere.
What is your point?
Hysteria.
What is your point, Barry, other than ‘scientists say’, which is patently false?
PS ‘Some’ scientists are now saying there has been a cooling since 2002, despite the continuing increase in atmospheric CO2. Horror of horrors – maybe we’re not all doomed after all! Now wouldn’t that be good news…. Waddya say, Barry?
I remember many people in the 1960s used to blame bad weather on all “those rockets they keep sending up in the atmosphere…”
I believe the BBC’s bias does serve a purpose. It exposes the unthinking zealotry of the AGW religion. Most Most rational people watching the BBC’s unbalanced output will spot the lack of objectivity in its output. Despite 100% support for the alarmist cause public opinion seems to be drawing the opposite conclusion
I just don’t understand how they get away week in, week out with totally Left-wing saturated audiences. Does no-one ever complain that the audiences are always full to the brim with the fair trade coffee-sipping brigade? It’s so biased it’s untrue and yet the BBC always deny it and get away with it… It’s high time the Tories did something about this socialist mafia behemoth.
The problem of the Question Time audience is something discussed here for a long time. Like most BBC shows, it’s technically produced by a third party, and they have an allegedly scrupulous approach to creating a balanced audience. There is an open path to bias in their scheme (they admit to inviting partisan groups when they feel the right balance hasn’t been achieved, and their analysis of the local demographics can be capricious), but everyone insists it’s not possible.
For an interesting perspective, listen to this podcast from James Delingpole (who says QT is balanced), Tim Stanley, and a BBC arts correspondent.
It’s probably worth a full post, but this should start the debate.
Thanks for that, David. Will have a listen.
The accusation that the BBC’s QT is biased because it leans toward ‘The Left’ presumes that there is something wrong with this stance. The audience is self selecting and appears to represent educated, well meaning people. Are you saying that there should be more racist idiots like David Vance in the audience?
Has David ever been in the audience?
There you go again … using THAT word to describe Vance (and thus confirming you’re one of the lefty loonies that occasionally infest this site). You do realise that the more you use it (especially when totally out of context, this is a debate about ‘climate change’ ffs) the less it means.
‘..appears to represent educated, well meaning people’
Appears?
Seems you are now cool with your own view without much of that evidence you profess to require, but substituting a truck load of BBC belief.
Rings a bell.
Oh dear, Barry, such a cheap shot from one who can so masterfully brief himself on the complex science of climate!
Sorry, that should have read ‘Briefly masturbate himself…’
Barry, you are one of our regular trolls posting under another “name for today”. If you want to pretend to be someone else, you’ll have to change your style of writing. You obsession with David Vance, who you have insulted in previous guises, is also telling.
Racists are entitled to have an opinion as much as your ilk pal and yes that is what I am saying.
I don’t know enough about the science of “global warming” to pass comment on the bigger picture. However, I do realise that a (relatively) pint sized nation like ours can’t make much impact when mega countries like China, India and Brazil are pumping out zillions of carbon particles into the atmosphere and building new power stations every week. These eco zealots are determined to make life as unpleasant as possible for people living here and to hell with the elderly and vulnerable. It will be older, poor people who suffer, not Jeremy and Cecily from Hampstead for their self righteousness.
You should consider the emissions per person of the UK compared to the countries you have mentioned. They are way behind. The responsibility primarily lies with the richest countries.
You should consider not liking your own posts, I shows a neediness for acceptance that isn’t healthy.
That’s a great point well made.
Barry – luv – please pay attention.
Atmospheric CO2 has risen almost 10% since 1997.
The IPCC, Al Gore et al have been telling us for nearly 3 decades that as CO2 levels rise so will temperatures because, y’ know, the science is settled an’ all that.
Temperatures have stayed flat over the same period and some scientists (yes, scientists! how inconvenient) are claiming a cooling since 2002.
Now go away like a good little boy and when you’ve drawn some sensible conclusions, report back.
some aren’t buying it
http://www.cfact.org/2013/11/12/cfact-rallies-50000-poles-against-climate-treaty/
Cooks 97% scientist agreement paper has been shown to be a total lie http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/.
So with the actual vast majority of scientists not believing in “Global warming ” and now most of the public not believing it either , the Eco Wackos are now getting desperate their propoganda .
The first evidence I saw that undermined any blind belief in the Warmist Alarmist cause was that the Warmists fiddle the figures and can’t understand how to do proper statistical analyses. Indeed many of their analyses are downright fraudulent.
Scientists who fiddle the figures are not true scientists.
The only figures that matter right now are the temperature readings showing no statistically-significant warming for 17 years. This contradicts all the Alarmist computer models. Models are models – Garbage In, Garbage Out. Facts are facts. And science needs to be based in facts.
John – your first para was exactly what Climategate proved, which is why the BBC steered clear of any meaningful debate on it.
Barry – heard of Climategate, have you?
Yes, ClimateGate was the eye-opener for many of us.
Here is the excellent Matt Ridley pouring scorn on all the alarmist ideas of recent decades – and giving a very positive message for the future. But first we need to dump the junk “science” and all the absurdly expensive policies that have flown from them. Quite a long piece, but it is a comprehensive summary of the misconceptions the BBC pushes at us :
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/11/16/matt-ridley-in-oz.html
Final postscript for Barry:
‘Many scientists in recent years have noted the recent global cooling and predicted many years to decades to centuries of more global cooling. Below is a sampling of scientists and studies on global cooling.’
Go on, Barry, bite hard on your dummy and have a read. They’re only scientists you know – they won’t hurt you!
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/