You have to admire the fact that the BBC can keep a straight face when pushing the wild exaggerations from the UN on climate change (formerly known as “global warming before the globe started cooling).
The unrestricted use of fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100 if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, a UN-backed expert panel says. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in a stark report that most of the world’s electricity can – and must – be produced from low-carbon sources by 2050. If not, the world faces “severe, pervasive and irreversible” damage. The UN said inaction would cost “much more” than taking the necessary action.
As ever, the BBC is keen to push the alarmism and avoid the facts. The IPCC has been so wrong, so often, that it is remarkable how the BBC still pushes this garbage.
AGW morphed to Climate Change when the scam could no longer be pushed. Now Climate Change is referred as Climate Justice.
Climate Justice is nearer the truth, as it requires shoveling vast amounts of our money to Third World despots, so they can buy the latest Mercs and Lear jets.
Bang on the nail DP111
Got a link to climate justice. Its all the fault of capitalism and global corporations and we have to transfer money to dictators in the developing world. Market are not the solution to climate catastrophe – hey, how about a look at some of the great environmental disasters of the Soviet Union.
http://globaljusticeecology.org/climate-justice/
Thanks for the link. I liked the link to the American Chestnut Foundation – a picture of hard working squirrels, maintaining a sustainable lifestyle, sprang to mind.
There is potentially a real problem here; the public does not believe the Climate doom-mongers anymore. And there lies a problem
1. Our government funded Climate “scientists” are so committed to a fallacy, for govt tax policy purposes, that they will be blindsighted to a real threat
2. And if they wake up later, the public will not believe them.
This is what happens when you cry “wolf” too often, when there is none, and then get attacked by a bear.
Is that ‘climate justice’ link a joke? It has to be, I don’t think I’ve ever read anything so blatantly filled with every liberal/lefty slogan in one article…chukka ‘obama’ ummuna came close on his ITV appearance last night though! Even the beebs finest would have struggled to pen the piece.
It really reads like comedy gold, and what a revelation that the people who would be hit hardest by climate change/justice/indifference/ will be in the poorest areas of the world, wow, even mother nature is now a liberal lefty socialist!! Of course we’ll all have to give even more money away to help them, erm..hold back nature??
Yea, ‘Justice’.
Another weaselly lefty beeboid word, like ‘Fairness’.
That was so overused and debased during the Scotref campaign, and will be so again next spring from Labour and the Lib Dims.
Fairness is always lazily and I believe deliberately equated with equality. The truth is that sometimes they are the same and often they are not. The same for ‘justice’ and equality.
Except life is not fair. And the freaks at the BBC and Limp Dims who are always rabbiting on about fairness are the least fair people you will ever find in their policies and daily lives.
I would dearly like to employ the fairness principle to Beeboids.
Fair? What’s “fair” about redistributing the rewards of hard work risk and enterprise to the workshy talentless non-contributors? It buys their votes, Labour knows you know. Worked for Obama, Hollande, Blair. Give to the undeserving always a winning strategy for Socialism.
IPCC recycles global doom and wants a small part of everything you own
Gullible journalists are swooning today with more and glorious prophesies of disaster.
This from the team that relies on simulations that not only fail on global scales1, but they can’t predict regional2, local3, short term, continental, or polar effects4 either. They are also wrong about humidity5, rainfall6a,6b,6c, drought7 and clouds8, as well as the all-important upper tropospheric patterns too.9, 10
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/ipcc-recycles-global-doom-and-wants-a-small-part-of-everything-you-own/
Man-made global warming is basically giving money we don’t have, to a body that we did not elect, to spend it on a problem that doesn’t exist. Trying to convince an alarmist of this is like trying to tell the pope that God doesn’t exist. It’s now a religion to them
Yes Watts-Up-With-That pointed out who the real climate change deniers are, and it’s not you and me.
The IPCC gang is a subset of the UN gang. Once our idiot politicians, ie mainly the Western world, agrees that we have to pay to breathe, then the money they take out of our pockets will not go to the poor, but to the UN.
Now the UN has to survive in cities like New York and Geneva – and who can complain, that as they are forced to live in such cities, it costs. Then there is the administrative charge that will have to applied to all that money coming in. I estimate anything between 10% to 40% will end up in the UN. The remaining 60% will be given to member nations in Africa, in effect to the leaders. The leaders of these countries have multiple wives, with shopping trips to Paris and Milan to consider. Plus the Lear jet to carry the home the loot. Plus all the rest of the family, then tribe, then the army. I would be surprised, nay astonished, if even 10% of our money ends up where it should.
Giving any money to the UN, is subsidising the rich in New York or Geneva, and increasing oppression in Africa. That includes any money doled out to the UN for Ebola.
I donate money for the victims of Ebola, and Christians and Yazidis in Iraq, through small charities.
PS
Small charities have limited budgets. When they get donations they acknowledge it with genuine gratitude. They also tell you how they spent the money. In addition, they provide you with yearly statement. The figures are not large, so one can relate to the amount, and question them.
The UN does nothing of the sort. In any case, the budget is so large that the ordinary person cannot relate to it. A few billions missing is petty cash for them.Its the same problem with the EU. No one has any idea where the money goes. Billions get lost in the cracks of the sofa cushions, and no one cares.
It’s all part of the left wing strategy of peddling fear propaganda to make everyone more dependent on them, state control of every part of our lives. Zealots on a par with isis.
Well, it sure is getting cold over there in the Southern USA:
100 Year Snow Records broken across the South Eastern US on October 31st and November 01st. It was the earliest and heaviest snow in several places since records have been kept dating as far back as 1880. Reduced sunspot count shows Solar hibernation is occurring along with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) showing a cooling Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) Atlantic Ocean temperature is predicted to fall by 2020, which screams of cooling events to take place globally.
Hello BBC, hello, anyone at home?
Yes, that is exactly why they don’t call it Global Warming anymore – see, if the weather gets hotter, or if it gets colder, or if it stays the same, we still call it Climate Change.
The IPCC is like the BBC, it censors the science, scientists and scientific debate, the people who do the censorship are Environmental Activists, Journalists and Politicians not Scientists, unless they are prepared to sell their integrity for money.
“The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert“. A book by Donna Laframboise, shows the failure of Journalism to do Journalism, as uncovered by the only Journalist who actually does the Journalism. Otherwise, scientists feel they now have to do their own Journalism, but are thwarted by the International Journalism Unions who order their members to censor the scientific community and its findings, which then do not get published in Science magazines such as New Scientist, which I no longer bother to buy, since the editor was sacked for refusing to censor the new findings in Climate Science from Astronomy. The findings that demolish the loony pagan man-made religion.
Its quite bonkers, because the magazine always headlines with some unobtainable science fiction dream, but not the findings that would demolish the multi-million pound Cancer charity industry or the multi-million pound taxpayer funded Environmentalist fraud.
I wonder why, a billion pounds (penny) for your thoughts?
Its all about power and patronage, whether here in the West, or anywhere else really.
I think that even basic journalistic curiosity, from a moderately intelligent non-specialist at the BBC, would be enough at least to raise interesting questions if not doubts.
For instance, I recall Roger The Dodger Harrabin telling the Gargantuan intellect Humphrys, on Today some time ago that, while ‘the science was settled’ re global warming, they weren’t yet sure how to explain the ‘pause’ [sic] in temperature rises but that it was something to do with oceans storing heat (heat which, presumably, would be released with delayed but harmful effect at some later point).
Someone here who knows more than me can explain Deep Oceanic Thermal Lag; but there is an obvious, pre-GCSE-level objection to this claim from The Dodger: IF we are being spared the worst of global warming for now, because the oceans are absorbing, THEN how can he be so sure that previous periods of rising temperatures (e.g. 1976-96) were not themselves caused by delayed release of heat from earlier warm spells and thus unrelated to the coincidental rising CO2 levels?
Needless to say, Humphrys was too stupid (or dishonest) to ask.
A temperature lag is a delay between an action and its effect, so the pause is a peak, and the oceans are still warm because of a delay in cooling caused by the Oceans which are 270 times the mass of the Atmosphere. I understand that the BBC needs to keep Oceanographers under censorship, because of the hidden heat Nino Nina bullshit.
As you say, there is nothing in the Historical records about this making the Global temperature record random. William Herschel would not have found a correlation with the sunspot numbers, Two-hundred years ago. So its just settled science bullshit from the BBC’s Environmental activists, posing as the best scientific experts.