Naomi Klein is female, left wing, anti-capitalist and now it seems, fully onboard the climate change bandwagon enlightening us all with her scientific expertise and sense of moral outrage….what’s not to like for the BBC?
Indeed the BBC has leapt aboard the Naomi Klein bandwagon on the grand occassion of her latest publication being released into the wild (all monies going to a good cause no doubt).
Klein is once again berating Capitalism, this time as the cause of climate change, at war with the environment, in her new book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate…., The Guardian, The New York Times and little Owen Jones are drooling over it…as is the BBC.
Klein pretty much gets a free run at putting her case…Jenni Murray only interrupting to suggest that there might be some sceptics out there…or as Murray put it….’There are of course climate change deniers’ …so quite clear how she thinks about climate change and anyone who dares raise doubts about some of the science.
Klein dismisses all ‘deniers’ as rightwing free market ideologues who realise that if man-made climate change is real Capitalism is finished…according to Klein’s own ideology….though still no proof that it is ‘man-made’…but let’s not let the facts spoil a good read.
Klein says that we shouldn’t debate whether there is a climate crisis or not with such people because she knows that there is one…whether she knows what the cause’s climate change is debatable….er….
She is of course talking to the converted at the BBC….whilst Klein has absolutely no scientific credentials to her name she is allowed to lecture us courtesy of the BBC platform she has been granted almost unchallenged….and the reason she is allowed to do this? Because she supports the BBC’s own view that the ‘science is settled’ and is in line with the supposed 97% of all scientists who are said to also back that view.
If, like Nigel Lawson, you raise awkward questions that throw doubt upon the whole charade you are about as welcome at the BBC as a reborn Jimmy Savile, or Jeremy Clarkson…which must seem a curious way to run a news and current affairs media empire that is charged with entertaining, informing and educating us…..only bring people the news and information that the BBC agrees with….all very Big Brother.
And speaking of which, the Royal Society, another BBC favoured climate change champion, gets a blast from professor Michael Kelly..
Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world’s leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows
Reading his take down of the Society’s approach to climate change you can readily see a comparison with how the BBC has decided to report climate change….
The implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’.
The Society has become more, not less dogmatic. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise, but since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all.
This flies in the face of the confident predictions made by nearly all the climate computer models that the temperature would continue to rise as it did from 1975 to 1998. More than 60 different explanations have been proposed to explain why this ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has happened, and their sheer number is the clearest evidence that the system that climate scientists are seeking to model is irreducibly complex. Human-sourced carbon dioxide is at best one of many factors in causing climate change, and humility in front of this complexity is the appropriate stance.
Yet the Society continues to produce a stream of reports which reveal little sign of this.
Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.
Cue some Marxist twerp claiming that Professor Kelly is ‘in the pay of big oil’ or similar nonsense.
The whole issue should eventually fall apart with the paper (Unified Theory of Climate, Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller, 2011) becoming the solution to all the problems in Computer models.
At the moment, the implications seem to be known only to Piers Corbyn of Weatheraction and these people who provide the idea for how things are about to turn out in the future:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/Culture,%20Media%20and%20Sport/Future%20of%20the%20BBC/written/8338.html
I am not sure how many of the Royal Society Fellows understand the consequences for the future of the Society, or whether they even understand what Piers Corbyn is talking about.
But as for female morons like Naomi Klein, at least Donna Lafamboise has held up the integrity of women who provide good investigative Journalism.
Concerning BBC Science reporting. Five research papers that revolutionised health
I couldn’t help notice that the five chosen has something in common. All were Anglos. Three British, one Australian and one Canadian. It is impossible to speculate whether the greatest health research paper ever written, Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.was ignored because the writer was Jewish or because he was Hungarian or equally likely, because the writer was lazy.
Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) discovered the health benefits of surgeons and other medical practitioners washing hands before touching patients. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal, with mortality at 10%–35%. Washing hands lowered mortality to below 1%.
How many billions of lives have been saved, worldwide by this simple discovery?
If the BBC had been around then they’d have reported that Semmelweis was on the pay-role of Big Soap, and so should be ignored.
If you can’t dispute the science discredit the man.
Beware! So called ‘ Climate Change’ that is supposedly caused by mankind, and that most of us know is a downright lie. This is a ‘ Trojan Horse’ that the left is going to try and take total control over all of our lives.
There are also many that have jumped on the climate change bandwagon that takes them to the gravy train.
Thankfully there are some scientists that are well qualified to speak some sense on this subject. But unfortunately we never get to hear their side of the argument as their voices are suppressed by the media, bbc in particular.
People are starting to see through this climate change lie, and the media, and political establishment are becoming more, and more desperate to try and get the people to believe their lies eg, the ridiculous story that climate change had caused the civil war in Syria. I would expect the drip, drip of climate change propaganda to crank up more and more in the near future.
Settled science, in all its glory:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
Then, of course, there is this:
http://climatechangepredictions.org/
‘Kids at a nursery were shocked when they stumbled across a three-headed, six legged croaking frog! Staff at the Green Umbrella nursery thought it was just three frogs close together. Expert Mike Dilger thinks the frog could have been caused by pollution or climate change. ‘
Life imitating art or science imitating Monty Python?
A great link to keep in your ‘climate change absurdities’ favourite Owen. But did you see this at the top of the page?
‘”Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science. It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don’t all change our ways.” [BBC]
I followed the link which took me to this on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm
‘The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week’s weather with any accuracy.
The real question then is not whether climate and sea level changes are occurring and are good or bad things; they have been occurring naturally for billions of years. Nor is the question whether these changes are actually taking place; a moot point at best, as there are conflicting data, but the question is utterly dependent on the time frame. ‘
Whoever is doing the Winston Smith job on ‘climate change’ at the BBC is in for a bit of a bollocking. You there, Roger?
Ok so he says he cant understand whats going on.Big question is why are you quoting him.
On the issue of temperature growth over the so called hiatus (yet again) the article referred to doesnt distinguish between AIR temperature and SEA temperature. Because it doesnt do this the whole article is discredited.
The average Cod ,who used to live in the North Sea,knows this because they no longer live in the north sea.
If these people really want to question the validity of the science then they really need to get away from ‘its all a bit complicated’ , there’s conflicting data’ ,’its cosmic rays’, ‘it was cold this morning when I got up’ to writing a peer reviewed paper that everyone can read and judge on the merits of the work.
I have seen nothing to refute the fact that the sun continues to heat the Earth (albeit less so over the recent past due to decline in luminosity). CO2 is a proven ‘green house’ gas due to its ability to absorb IR and we increasingly stick more of the stuff into the air.
It is also true that the SEAS absorb more heat than the AIR and if something is continually being heated it will get hotter unless it can reradiate. If it snows outside your house it doesnt mean global cooling has set in.
If you dont understand these very basic concepts you will not understand the discussion.
Today, this morning (16th March), as predicted, the latest cyclone which has laid waste to the south Pacific archipelago, has allegedly been caused by climate change.
They wheeled on a professor to say so, and tell us all about the models. John Humphrys tried a weak, and limp-wristed attempt at suggesting that “some” climate models were a ‘bit suspect’, when he should have laid into this professor, or at least interviewed someone with a balancing argument. But this was the BBC – it ain’t gonna happen, is it?
The third item in Old Goat’s link in his 9.16 post above seems to cover the matter.
If sea level is rising the land area of atolls should decline, unless that pesky coral is keeping up or growing faster because of climate change !
They way I understand it, is that the coral will keep growing as sea level rises. Once above that level erosion in the form of wind, sea,& man- made activities keep it at the same level.
Problem is the sea is heating which apart from anything will change the entire ecosystem.
Well no it isnt gonna happen in the same way that no one is gonna walk in to the Today studio and discuss the merits of phlogiston theory.
The reason he wouldnt be able to come up with a ‘balancing argument’ is that there isnt one.
If you know of one write it up here and lets read it.
Is there any analysis anywhere to link the increasing bias of the BBC with climate change? If there was, that would surely absolve them!
P.S. Never write that you are a “climate change denier” and always challenge those who say there are such people.
Climate change since the earth began is undeniable.
What is debatable is whether the activities of man are affecting a continuing natural evolution. Always remember the scientific phrase “correlation is not necessarily causation”. We may have had a remarkably short period (in earth history terms) of global warming which scientists managed to correlate with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, but the “pause” is year by year increasing the doubt on causation that has been ascribed to it.
The hypothesis/climate models – aka ‘settled science’ – were unambiguous: as CO2 levels rose in the atmosphere so would temperatures.
The models have been proven wrong.
The hypothesis has failed.
In any other science it would be back to the drawing board, not ‘Let’s come up with some other hypothesis to explain why the first one didn’t work’.
Where have the models been proven wrong? Which models?
how have they been proven wrong? Where’s the work showing the proofs.
Your last sentence clearly shows you do not understand how science works.
PS Temperatures are rising.Its just you dont understand whats going on.
You could look at:
Click to access The_phase_relations_among_atmospheric_CO2_content_temperature_and_global_ice_volume_over_the_past_420_ka.pdf
And then remember that the Medieval Warm period peaked about 800 years ago. And also that isotopic analysis of the Atmospheric CO2 content implies that at least 84 percent of the added 100ppm of CO2 in the last 200 years must be Natural CO2.
But a more comprehensive analyses of the last 180 years of Atmospheric CO2 content, see:
Click to access CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf
Therefore, any correlation with CO2 seems to be cherry picked from 60 year trends, while Global temperatures have always correlated with the length of the Solar cycle. A correlation that would not be found if CO2 drove the Climate.
The medieval warm period was not Global.
If you are trying to relate Milankovitch cycles with current global warming you seriously are barking up the wrong tree.
No serious scientist will tell you the the warmth of a planet is entirely due to gaseous content of its atmosphere. The Milankovitch cycles do cause changes as do volcanoes and other phenomenon. Furthermore La Nina and El Nino events will alter where solar energy is deposited,in the air or sea. But the Milankovitch cycles are irrelevant to current warming, volcanoes can have a temporary cooling effect and solar,cosmic rays etc have negligible effects.
On a personal level why do you write what you write?
Do you associate weather forecasting with Marxism or do you have shares or a business interest in a fossil fuel company? Is it simply you dont understand the science and feel over awed by the changes which the data guggests is taking place?
the “pause” is year by year increasing the doubt on causation that has been ascribed to it.
There is no pause and you are wise to stick your reference to it
in quotes.
Temperature is a measure of energy. What you are advocating is that somehow the earth has been able to reradiate the energy out in the last few years or the sun has suddenly turned the heat down.
If that’s what you think then lets see some evidence.
Perhaps you are not aware of the substantial investment of sections of the gutter (and other) press in the oil business.
They are hardly likely to have an open scientific discussion about the merits or otherwise of climate models given they havent got the first clue about them and its not in their financial interest to do so.
The only way to understand this subject is to look at the available papers on the net and elsewhere
Before you start reading your restricted “..available papers on the net and elsewhere …” such as the references I gave you a couple of weeks ago including from (at your request) scientists from the NASA stable, you ought go on a basic “Laws of Thermodynamics” module and understand what ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed’ means in reality. It will help you understand the content of what you choose to read, though, not much, without a grounding in studies of the chemistry of the carbon cycle, fluctuations in orbital patterns in the solar system, quantitative analysis, human error, chaos theory, radiative properties of gases… I could go on.
Take your Warmon religion elsewhere. You’ll be denying the moon landings next!
Please do go on. Maybe be you could start with thermodynamics. I studied a 1st degree in chemistry/physics and maths so you can talk science if you want.
The idea that energy cant be destroyed is exactly a point I made earlier. In support of the ‘hiatus’, deniers need to show where the energy has gone ; reradiated out then how. If less energy is getting in then hows that happening? Sun suddenly cooled down meebe. Dont think so somehow.
Having been extensively involved in designing and developing continuous simulation models I can tell you that these things are complicated and take account of a hugh number of variables.
The idea that a climate scientist hasnt measured the output of the sun or indeed is unaware of the Milankovitch cycles is frankly laughable.
I’m sure they really dont need the input from some hairy arsed hack from the sun whoose boss has extensive investment in the oil trade.
my grandson knows more about science than you, and my son hasnt even met his future kids mother yet. work that one out einstein
so you got a 1st eh? post a pic of your certificate if you dont want us all to think your talking poo
Sadly not. It was my first degree.
As for posting stuff I havent a clue where my certificates are. It was a long time ago. I am retired now.
As to your grandson good for him.Before we go down the route of ‘my brothers bigger than your brother’ it might be a prescient moment to step back and realise your quarrel is with 97% of the scientific community however.
If you have got a congent response to them then I’d love to see it.
“… the “pause” is year by year increasing the doubt on causation that has been ascribed to it.”
Manon – as a science degree holder with plenty of time on his hands select global temperature outurns from three sources you respect for the last fifteen years, calculate the line of best fit and advise the formula, which will indicate that the line of best fit is., I believe, at best flat if not slightly negative.
Then do the same for CO2 emissions over the same period. Taking the first year of your figures as “zero” for all the lines, write back and advise if the CO2 and temperature lines are diverging or not.
Doing that might show you have made your own mind up rather than quoting others. I have carried out the exercise and am quite happy that the global temperature trend line is down, slightly, while the CO2 emissions continues merrily upward. Your “scientists” told us 15 – 20 years ago with 95% certainty that there was a direct and undeniable link between man made CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures, did they not?
You may be about to prove them wrong.
Go to it!
97% ? ‘scientific communiteh?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
I don’t think so.
And there’s many many more. And how is Michael Mann’s litigation going with respect to his Hockey stick? And who are lining up in support of him?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/10/the-drawn-out-mann-lawsuit-science-is-not-taking-a-stand-for-michael-mann/
The scam is imploding. I wish you well in your further investigations.
Seems like (c) A. Newsroom Tealady has been joined by (c) A. Poly Labtech BSc.(DisHons, lost in the mists).
Studying stuff is nice ‘n all, but if you still have no ability that will ultimately get reflected in how well you explain yourself in your claimed discipline. Or not.
so far he’s had degrees in journalism, law, making cups of tea and now a triple 1st in chemistry, physics and maths
while im sure his tea making skills have come in very useful during his working life, by using the “97% of scientists agree”, that’s convinced me he’s a scientific genius. Who can argue with science when its explained in such a simple way as that
There used to be 22 miles of ice above my head from where i’m sitting now. Of course the climate changes.
To think that us as humans can stop that is Canute-esque.
This is communism. This is about redistribution of wealth. This is about Agenda 21.
AGW is about giving money we don’t have, to people we didn’t elect for something that doesn’t exist.
What would it take for these alarmists to realise that human production of plant foot is not causing these changes in the main.
What temperature would they like to set the thermostat to?
“To think that us as humans can stop that is Canute-esque”.
Canute tends to get a bad press as a fool who thought he could command the tide, but I believe he was actually demonstrating to others that even their king was not as powerful as nature.
No my friend, your post is more about you than anything to do with Global warming. Communism I dont think is included in the current Global Warming model as far as I am aware.
As to AGW is giving money we dont have tell that to the people of Sommerset or Surrey. Owen Patterson didnt want to spend money
on forecasted flood risk and see where that got him.
A better title for Naomi Klein’s book might have been:
‘Agenda 21 In My Own Words’
These idiot scientists, supported by the BBC, are no help to mankind. This mania to restrict carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a red herring as to what scientifically threatens our future. Far more important is the bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the effects of the drugs we take (the Pill for one) as well as what we give our livestock getting into the environment via the sea, the general pollution of micro-particles from plastic as well getting into the oceans. Yes we must clean up our act, but to suggest we can halt natural alterations in the climate is foolish, stasis has never been the norm.
I’m glad I am in my early sixties as I will not be around when the shit hits the fan. When (through lack of serious investment in power production that will actually produce the electricity this planet needs) the lights go out & our wifi falters, everything we need to live as we have set things up will break down with serious consequencies; the chaos of this is a terrifying prospect. Along with that there will be a lack of food & water that will cause wars due to over-population. A major virus epidemic could strike, flu? These problems are what the scientists should be striving to solve if they could get the politicians off their backs (& the likes of the BBC). But then the politicians should be addressing the social unrest that a clash of cultures in the world that just maybe be more life-threatening to everyone alive in fifty to a hundred years time. Yes I’m glad I will not be around when all this happens. The future is bleak!
Dont worry so much. The water tables of many densly populated areas are drying up rapidly so in 20 years, with a couple billion less, there wont be so many people to clash with.
Parts of Africa are now uninhabitable along with Texas and indeed
many of the lower states are all suffering from water stress .
I am intrigued by who you mean when you say ‘idiot scientists’.
Who are you refering to?
Naomi Klein takes idiocy to new depths when she writes about climate science. In a world where common sense prevailed, she would be universally ridiculed.
Seems the most generous interpretation is that the BBC (via Humphrys) made a valiant stab at accuracy and honesty, but in the end ineptitude prevailed anyway…
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/bbc-tim-palmer-cyclone-pam/
‘Humphrys seemed to suspect that he was being lied to, but was so poorly briefed that he was unable to effectively challenge Palmer.’
What is without doubt is this latest cyclone did impose mightily, in human and infrastructure terms.
Hence I have stood ready, and am not averse, to respond to pleas for help.
Oddly, most I have heard so far seem more concerned with the macro issue of climate change than the simple matter of a natural disaster leaving human misery in its wake. From the island’s President to bonkers scientists to at best credulous media.
Weird. I have no problem sending aid to assist disaster efforts. But no interest in sticking tinpot pols, NGO execs or media remoras on planes to nice venues to have a chit-chat.
So the dosh remains, after days, not dispatched as the message focus has been totally skewed.
Off now to see if there is a credible direct aid campaign worth supporting.
This may take some time.
Entering ‘Cyclone Pam, Relief’ gets one to a wealth of options, but few at first glance attractive. In fact so many I wonder what the wastes through failures to cooordinate and amortise logistics mean in terms of donation going anywhere but where needed.
The BBC does swing in high on the rankings too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-31917913
‘People living on a remote island in the north-west of Vanuatu are having to drink harmful saltwater following last week’s cyclone, the BBC has discovered.’
Eh? harmful? The BBC has discovered?
Oh, what’s this… JonDon is on the case. Time to find out what is really going on. If his lips are moving… check. And getting his sorry body and crew there denied about 200 litres of drinking water that would seem to be in short supply.
Quite what got him there and no officials is unclear, but maybe he’d be better tracking down those responsible to organise necessary relief triage?
Seems the best thing to get there, PDQ, is a means to distill salt water. The raw materials to work with this seems readily available and given water is a need measured in days I’d say a priority over food and certainly washing clothes.
I watched that bBC exclusive where intrepid explorer JonDon braved the elements in which to find people in need. I loved the headline :
Cyclone Pam: Vanuatu islanders forced to drink saltwater
People living on a remote island in the north-west of Vanuatu are having to drink harmful saltwater following last week’s cyclone, the BBC has discovered. Residents of Moso say they are still waiting for outside help to arrive. Aid agencies have begun trying to access the country’s small outer islands, but flooding has stopped their planes from landing in some areas.
Watching the video I couldn’t help but wonder why people who live on a tiny pacific island miles from anywhere hadn’t a standby source of water. I mean the area is prone to cyclones and such so any natural spring would get contaminated on a regular basis. Watching the debris of the wooden shacks I couldn’t help but wonder why nobody had knocked out a basic still (48 gallon Drum, heat source underneath ,read that as a fire, or even the sun) a rubber tube and a container for the distilled water., hell a kettle will do) I also wondered how in a time of shortages a small boat with a small outboard could travel so far, so I got looking to see where the Island of Moso was. below is the google Map of exactly where the Island is . 35kms by road (and a small channel) from the captital city of the Island chain. It seems JonDons stint in Gaza has taught him how to lie really well .
Still, keeps him out of mischief, eh?
Sitting here in Taipei (Taiwan), one of the very few options on TV in English is the BBC World Service. The day before yesterday, reporting on the Vanuatu tragedy, after some quick shots of ruined shacks (which, it appeared, would have been lucky to withstand a reasonable bit of wind, never mind a cyclone) the BBC shifted to a few seconds of views of what looked like pretty minor damage to inner city buildings, before donating a few minutes’ worth of shots of some real damage…..lots of yachts and pleasure boats (note – not commercial fishing vessels) which had been battered by the winds, driven onshore, tipped over, etc.
In this day of rolling news broadcasts, someone at the BBC must have worked out that perhaps showing these clips perhaps might not get the ’emoting’ going that the BBC thrives on – so the yacht/pleasure boat segment seemed to go missing quite quickly, and didn’t re-appear.
Then, yesterday, a talking head in Singapore had Jon Donnison on, and made the point that the President of Vanuatu had specifically claimed that no less than 90% of all buildings in the capital city had been flattened, and that huge amounts of money were required to recover the situation. Donnison, quite clearly standing in the streets of the capital where little evidence of real damage existed, reluctantly had to basically denounce the Vanuatan President as a liar, stating that damage to city buildings, constructed with concrete, steel and brick, was pretty minimal, but that the real damage was in the countryside where insubstantial shacks had been blown over. Unfortunately, he then went on to claim that it could be years before the damage could be rectified. Years ? pull the other leg, you poverty pimps, the largest amount of time needed in rebuilding these would be spent in locating the correct metal sheets for each dwelling, since they had been blown about somewhat. That segment too, disappeared from the rolling news bulletins pretty swiftly.
None of the above should be taken as in any way denying or belittling the real tragedies that occurred in Vanuatu, but there really needs to be some perspective applied here, and the BBC seems to be forever jumping on any bandwagon which tries to re-distribute hard-won wealth around the world, especially to anywhere away from our own country. Manipulating the news now clearly happens on a world scale with the BBC, not just in the UK.
In reality the BBC is probably just reporting the news as it presents itself. These disasters will hardly lend themselves to objectivity at least initially. Who can say how much damage has occured unless all the Islands are systematically surveyed.
‘In reality the BBC is probably just reporting the news as it presents itself’
One to treasure. The notion of ‘probable reality’ at the BBC rings true. One to add to truthiness, and others.
Tx for that.
Glad to cheer you up. Bit to early for ontology though- need beer first!
‘Bit too early for ontology though – need beer first!’
There, fixed that for you. Try coffee. And maybe John Malkovich.
Thanks – needed that! I’ll read anything but Sartre again.
http://www.thegwpf.com/no-link-between-cyclone-pam-and-climate-change/
‘Interestingly the BBC creates a new category of tropical storm – the Super Cyclone!’
No time to check if this is the BBC creating it (which they really shouldn’t, but they have been enthusiastic embracers of weathergeddonabomb as much as the Daily Express, so not unlikely) or wheeling on someone they like to say things they like.
Either way, given the settled science, 28Gate, etc, suffice to say that if it’s via the BBC, I tend to seek other sources first.
In passing I wonder how JonDon’s Saltwater Islanders are faring, or has he returned to the comfort of Sydney having rowed about a bit ‘learning’ stuff?