Lord Stern is an ardent climate change proponent, never happier than when painting the doomiest, blackest, most alarming scenarios when predicting the future due to climate change…all so that we are ‘encouraged’ to jump aboard his band wagon and back the rush to renewables and the end of fossil fuels.
Stern is paid for his troubles by hedge funder Jeremy Grantham, who set up the Grantham Institute and is intent on combating all that sceptical climate misinformation defeating their efforts to save the world……though ironically he tells us that nothing is more important than the oil that funds his climate institute….
Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.
Stern is in a double act with the Institute’s media ‘communicator’ Bob Ward, who isn’t a scientist, and yet gets lots of time on the BBC…and was responsible for the attacks against Lord Lawson after his appearance on the Today programme.
So by no stretch of the imagination could Stern be called a climate sceptic.
Which was why I was somewhat surprised to hear Evan Davis describe him as ‘remaining pessimistic about the science of climate change’ when introducing him this morning on the Today show. (08:51)
Several issues with that….there is no way anyone at the BBC could come to that opinion that Stern was a climate sceptic, certainly not one of the BBC’s ‘top’ current affairs journalists on the BBC’s ‘prestige’ news programme. You might conclude that the labelling of Stern in such a way might be deliberate in order to make the audience think..‘Well if such an eminent man is sceptical about the science and yet he thinks we should deal with it anyway…perhaps I should too.’
Call me cynical.
Another issue is that Stern is not a scientist, he deals with the economics just as Lord Lawson does…which is why Lawson’s think tank is called ‘The Global warming Policy Foundation’. Therefore why is Lawson persona non grata whilst Stern gets a privileged place at the microphone?
Then there is the issue of Stern’s association with Jeremy Grantham and his institute which went unmentioned by Davis. Grantham isn’t just supportive of the idea of climate change, he is yet another fanatic and one who puts his money, millions of it, where his mouth is…funding attacks on climate change sceptics, such as Lawson, with the intent to shut them up…which, courtesy of the BBC, is what has happened and Lawson is in effect banned from the BBC’s airwaves.
And curiously that turns out to have been a probable motivation behind getting Stern onto the programme, his job to counter comments by Bjørn Lomberg, once a green guru but now more sceptical….an ‘old foe’ of Stern’s as described by Davis…whom, he ‘suspects’, Stern doesn’t much respect, a curiously second hand insult there from Davis.
Lomberg said countries with high GDP growth have high emissions of CO2…cutting that CO2 will cut GDP and stop the lifting of millions out of poverty….China’s growth is based on coal.
Davis interprets…‘He’s saying the richer countries pollute more and produce more CO2…’
No, he didn’t say that. He said those countries with high GDP growth…meaning those countries with developing economies with high GDP growth, because they are growing…that is not the same as talking about established economies like those in the ‘West’ or Japan, Korea etc….China high GDP but per capita it is very poor….the government is rich, the people still poor.
Stern tells us that, well, Lomberg is not an economist (A good thing I’d suggest), and anyway he’s wrong about China.
Except he’s not. China’s growth was based on enormous expansion of its coal fired power generation. It’s famous for that, you don’t need to be an economist to know that….as the BBC told us in 2007…and China isn’t described as ‘rich’ then but growing…..
China is now building about two power stations every week…. Rich nations had to set an example of low-carbon development for China to follow
It’s not just semantics…the developing nations charge for growth is more polluting than established economies trundling along at a steady pace..having already polluted to get there…but the way Davis phrases things it seems the ‘guilt’ is being firmly placed on those established economies…the ‘rich’ ones….China is of course still ‘developing’ but already the world’s biggest polluter…and now quite rich as a nation but, as said, per capita very poor….and so under Davis’ interpretation it is not rich and therefore not a ‘polluter’. If you call CO2 pollution that is.
Some double standards from the BBC when it comes to who it lets onto its programmes to discuss climate change and an Orwellian approach to interpretation of many aspects from Davis.
Everyone should be sceptical of the Arrhenius method, which does not work, but that and the alternative thermodynamics/pressure/laps rate method, which does work, seem to be censored by the BBC. But I doubt Bob Ward, Jeremy Grantham and Nicholas Stern would know anything about the core basics of calibrating carbon dioxide warming. But then Piers Corbyn is the only well known British scientist who would know anything about that, so like those BBC “best scientific experts”. The scientific ignorance of the arts and drama lefties who advise the BBC on climate science grows and grows as the censorship of science, scientists and scientific debate grows and grows.
The Evan Davis interview on ‘Today’ (~ 08:50>) told me little of value when I heard it this a.m., so I listened again and … no, I still don’t get it.
Why don’t presenters ask some simple questions on behalf of those who pay the BBC Poll Tax:
(1) How can there be a ‘pause’ in global warming, if it really is caused by increasing CO2 emissions/levels which are not disputed?
(2) How do we know it is a ‘pause’ rather than a more permanent halt (or even the prelude to a reversal)?
(3) By what mechanism does atmospheric CO2 lock in heat? And why doesn’t the same CO2 block out heat from solar rays on their way in?
Excuse my ignorance if you all know the answers already!
I think most of us know some of the answers, and so do the BBC. But of course, to give the answers would rather mean back-pedalling on their chosen ideology, which they must support at all costs, and ceaselessly broadcast to the paying public.
(1) How can there be a ‘pause’ in global warming, if it really is caused by increasing CO2 emissions/levels which are not disputed?
The correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels only exists with an 800 year deep oceanic thermal lag producing an increase in CO2 levels about 800 years after the medieval warm period. Isotopic evidence shows that 84 percent of the increase was natural, proving that the medieval warm period as the main cause, and a maximum 16 percent of the increase was man-made and volcanic, but there is no evidence that carbon dioxide can cause an increase in temperature other than by increasing the mass of the atmosphere. From this the calibration of carbon dioxide warming for the 20th century is estimated to be about 0.007 Kelvin for the 100ppm or 0.1 millibar increase in CO2, using the Unified Theory of Climate which solves the problem of explaining the temperatures in all parts of the atmospheres of all the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth and the carbon dioxide atmospheres of Venus and Mars.
(2) How do we know it is a ‘pause’ rather than a more permanent halt (or even the prelude to a reversal)?
Two hundred years ago, William Herschel proved that here was a correlation with Sun spot numbers and Climate Change, and in 1991, Eigil Friis-Christensen found a correlation with the length of the solar cycle and Climate Change. The answer to the reasons for these correlations has been found to be caused by the speed of plasma on the Sun which is caused by the Orbits and masses of the planets. This regulates the Suns magnetic field which links with Henrik Svensmarks cosmic ray induces cloud albedo and Piers Corbyns Solar magnetic induced weather. Scientists such as Ed Fix, Carlo Tosti, Nicola Scafetta, Paul Vaughan and Ian Wilson use the Planetary movements to predict the length of future Solar Cycles, and therefore future Climate Change, which predicts a cooling that will be noticeable from 2018.
(3) By what mechanism does atmospheric CO2 lock in heat? And why doesn’t the same CO2 block out heat from solar rays on their way in?
I suppose a better example to explain that would be to look at the almost pure carbon dioxide atmosphere of Venus, with a quarter of a million times more carbon dioxide than the Earth. A description of that would be to say that as the increase in pressure reduces the speed of transfer of heat, the increase in heat maintains the equilibrium with the input of heat from the Sun, as more heat is transferred but at a slower rate, maintaining the equilibrium. But on Earth, that means that Nitrogen is the main Greenhouse gas, and absorption lines in Nitrogen, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are irrelevant, as there is no proof that the missing radiation has increased infra red radiation. The glass jar or atmospheric chamber experiments are of no use, as the glass, steel or concrete walls trap the heat in, unlike five of the dimensions of the atmosphere of the Earth or Venus.
But that is all censored by the BBC.
Thanks, Richard, this is most interesting, in particular your comments in the middle of your/my question “(2)” about the orbits & masses of the planets affecting solar plasma. I had never heard this before, and believed that with the Sun being 97.5% of the mass of the Solar System and Jupiter accounting for most of the rest, the other planets would be insignificant.
I think the reason for that is that the barycentre or centre of gravity of the Solar System, bounces around and in and out of the surface of the Sun. In a way, this has come just after Sir Patrick Moore has died, because this proves that Astrology must have started out as science, before being embellished by the inclusion of Stars, and turned into a pseudo-science, before giving birth to Astronomy. Sir Patrick would have been intrigued by this possible origin of Astrology and Astronomy.
‘Bob Ward is not a scientist’, no he’s not. He’s a sciolist.
Excellent lecture on the politicization of science.
Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
http://vladtepesblog.com/2014/09/22/excellent-lecture-on-the-politicization-of-science/
I agree with John – although I had to google meaning of sciolist first
Here’s some information from Wikipedia on the largesse of the Grantham Institute (presumably pronounced “Grant them”): “Jeremy, together with Hannelore Grantham, established the Grantham Foundation For the Protection of the Environment in 1997. Substantial commitments have been made to both Imperial College London and London School of Economics to establish the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, respectively, which will enable both institutions to build on their extensive expertise in climate change research.[11] The 2011 tax filing for the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment shows the Foundation donated $1 million to both the Sierra Club and to Nature Conservancy, and $2 million to the Environmental Defense Fund that year. The Foundation has also provided support to Greenpeace, the WWF and the Smithsonian. Until 2012 Grantham funded a $80,000 prize for environmental reporting.” The WWF referred to at the end are the watermelon marxists with the panda bear logo, not the World Wrestling Federation.
Jeremy Grantham is a billionaire hedge fund speculator who is trying to rig the market in energy by vilifying reliable energy in favour of renewable energy that depends for its’ survival on subsidy from Government, whose energy policies are based on the fraudulent propaganda from the likes of the LSE’s Grantham Institute, from Grantham-paid mouthpiece Bob Ward, who the BBC ingenuously describe as a “climate scientist” , conveniently overlooking his end-employer.
The LSE I once heard described as The London School of Comics. They are much more harmful to Britain than that. They are the Alma Mater of a lot of the British Left Wing elite, ensuring a steady supply of traitors to infiltrate our supposed democracy.
The Left love to peddle the lie that climate sceptics are funded by big business and the recipients of money from oil companies. In reality, it’s the complete reverse: the climate change (sic) lobby are funded by the large pool of left wing billionaires and government money (i.e. the taxpayer). Depending on the source of information, the AGW fantasists receive around 100 times the funding of the sceptics, plus receive endless free publicity courtesy of the BBC.
No doubt we will be told in the next few months that Britain has had it’s hottest year in the last million years, well OK, perhaps they won’t go quite that far but it will certainly be for some panic inducing period of time. Well there is a UN Indoctrination Meeting, sorry Climate Change Convention happening at the moment.
One small detail which will be conveniently overlooked by the Met Office and other Alarmists is that there have been snowfields lasting from last winter in the Mountains of Scotland and, seeing it is now already Autumn, there is no doubt that those snowfields will still be there until they are added to by this Winter’s snowfalls.
This is not unusual even though it does not happen all the time but what is rather inconvenient for the Global Warming Fanatics is that over a decade ago they, aided gleefully by the BBC, were insisting that skiing and other snow pastimes were a thing of the past, never to be seen again. and that children born from the millennium onwards would grow up never seeing snow.
That’s right, yet another blatant lie told by the Warmists in order to try and panic people into doing their bidding without question. In the last few years Snow Sports in the Scottish Highlands have been booming and have enjoyed some of their best years ever.
Alan/DV
I admire your principles in not censoring comments. However, surely it’s possible to remove rapidly and promptly – or even prevent altogether – spam (usually commercial spam) on the comment threads. The above 2 comments at 6:52 am and 9:00 am are examples of what I’m referring to.
We all know the BBC Climate change debate is political fix up and the very idea that Carbon Dioxide is a toxic gas is laughable (Trees and plants are very well suited) – that only one World socialism is the ‘only’ cure for societies ills. Link that with UN recent projections or ‘projected’ population growth says more about ‘survivability’ of politically correct overseas ‘aid’ which is then usually applied to (EU) contraception, abortion, euthanasia, disease control and the rights of homosexuals to practice (increasing the disease rate) and by absurd logic reducing the population..
If we were serious about climate change the Scientific answer would be to plant a lot more Trees. At one time England was self sufficient in timber and now we ‘importing’ whilst local Labour authorities think a ‘Tree’ is a public health hazard and should only exist in pots as decoration. If the Trees go so do we…. At the moment Trees are absorbing CO2 as its what they do. We should ban imports from the loggers and home grow what we need as a proper industry with home grown varieties suited to the job. Here is one example:
http://titantrees.com/tree-facts/
http://titantrees.com/tree-facts/
http://titantrees.com/tree-facts/
CO2 is plant food so the higher the levels of atmospheric CO2 the faster the trees will grow.
Therefore people who like trees should be releasing as much CO2 as possible.
On topic:
I have come to the view that ‘global warming-ism’ / ‘climate change’ / ‘environmentalism’ have become the same as anti-capitalism / marxism / communism / socialism / national socialism. They’re all one.
So it is unsurprising that the BBC is devoted to the cause with its fellow socialist workers.
They had no right to co-opt Science into their propaganda though because when it all falls apart they will damage the reputation of Science and Scientists in all fields. A bad thing for humanity in general. Not to mention the BBC itself, but that’s self-inflicted so that’ll just be natural justice.
5:00 o clokck news:
‘It is expected that David Cameron will be formerly asked by Iraq today to provide air attacks on ISIS……..and now let’s hear from Caroline Lucas, the green party mp, what she thinks.
FFS, what planet are these cretins on. Why the f**k do they believe that anybody would take any opinion she may have on something so essential to wipe this scum of the face of the earth as of any relevance ?
By the way, she thinks that bombing them back to the stone age is wrong and that everyone involved should get around a table….please don’t laugh or she might think people will believe that global warming is a load of be also.
“Fossil Free UK: divesting from reality”
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/fossil-free-uk-divesting-from-reality/15810#.VCMVspRdW9Y