It will be a cold day in Hell before the BBC’S climate propagandists bring you any story that casts the slightest doubt on their fairy tales……so here’s a couple that must send a chill down the backs of Harrabin’s cabal of climate hacks, his ‘hacktivists’…
NASA study: Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses
Ice increasing and sea levels not so much…..
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.
Or how about doubts about the importance of CO2?…From WUWT…
Greenpeace founder delivers powerful annual lecture, praises carbon dioxide – full text
The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”.
But there is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet. Yet today our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees. Tonight I hope to turn this dangerous human-caused propaganda on its head. Tonight I will demonstrate that human emissions of CO2 have already saved life on our planet from a very untimely end. That in the absence of our emitting some of the carbon back into the atmosphere from whence it came in the first place, most or perhaps all life on Earth would begin to die less than two million years from today.
Or this on predicting future climate….
Over on Vox.com a few days ago, David Roberts wrote an essay about climate modeling uncertainty loops. In his Vox essay, Roberts noted that climate modeling didn’t really have any skill out to the year 2100::
Basically, it’s difficult to predict anything, especially regarding sprawling systems like the global economy and atmosphere, because everything depends on everything else. There’s no fixed point of reference.
Grappling with this kind of uncertainty turns out to be absolutely core to climate policymaking. Climate nerds have attempted to create models that include, at least in rudimentary form, all of these interacting economic and atmospheric systems.
Think about how insane it is to try to predict what’s going to happen in 2100.
Or this…
Russia’s official view appears to have changed little since 2003, when Putin told an international climate conference that warmer temperatures would mean Russians “spend less on fur coats” while “agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that”.
The president believes that “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia,” says Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and critic of Putin. “That is why this subject is not topical for the majority of the Russian mass media and society in general.”
Can’t say he is entirely wrong…climate change is more about politics than climate, especially the politics of ‘redistribution of riches from the industrial countries to the no hopers.
Don’t worry, the BBC is still confident that the Paris Climate Jamboree will see millions of taxpayers across Europe successfully forced to pay up for the IPCC’s ongoing search for proof of faeries and unicorns. Ain’t nothin’ gonna derail that gravy train!
But there is certainty beyond any doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and that without its presence in the global atmosphere at a sufficient concentration this would be a dead planet. Yet today our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees.
There are many crimes perpetrated in the name of ‘climate change’ by the global warming zealots, including abuse of basic scientific principles and ‘adjustment’ of historic temperature records, but poisoning the minds of the young and impressionable with their psychobabble propaganda – in the name of science – is by far the worst.
The fraud of man made climate change was founded very much on Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ model. A hockey stick that didn’t acknowledge the little ice age and the medieval warm period. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ model has been totally discredited by hundreds of scientists ( with phd’s ) around the globe, many that actually agree that man is causing AGW. Al Gores film based on this theory or bunkum to be more precise has been rammed down the throats of children across the globe.. a real act of evil if ever there was one.
I thoroughly recommend a book called ‘A disgrace to the profession’ by Mark Steyn for me probably the most astute journalist / speaker of the right there is today. This book is full of quotes, and articles from scientists tearing the ‘hockey stick’ joke apart so completely one wonders why such a feeble thing was used by the climate zealots in the first place.
I think the answer to your last question, Jerry, is ‘because they think they can treat us like idiots’. My sustaining hope is that the whole Club of Rome/UN Agenda 21 eco-socialist scam that is behind this mythical threat will one day be exposed for all to see, though with the likes of the BBC giving them worldwide support it’s difficult to see how it will actually happen.
Just for reference. Where I am at the moment, we remain shrouded in fog. It is currently 7 degrees c,, but feels colder.
One of he reasons that we have fog, the BBC tells us, is that we are in a high pressure system…and there is no wind in these anti-cyclones to waft the stuff away.
I think that the Beeboyd slipped up there, no wind to waft the stuff away, means that there is no wind to drive the BBC’s much loved windmills. As I type, ‘wind’ is producing just 1% of the country’s generated electricity – not that the BBC will report it, notice it or mention it – even in passing..
I don’t think Harrabin and his chums have thought this through
“…I don’t think Harrabin and his chums have thought this through…”
Well, they don’t need to, do they? As long as the free lolly keeps rolling in from the license fee they don’t have to be objective, self-critical or accountable. It’s a great life at the BBC! Real science is for losers!
My nephew did a PhD in Global Warming recently at one of leading universities, and every conference he attends (many a year) is in lovely holiday spots around the world, with lots of time off. The people who thought up modern physics went to conferences in dreary northern European universities. I know little about the topic, but these tax funded jollies are enough to tell me that it is a scam.
… And if they really believed that human emissions of CO2 were likely to destroy the planet, then there would be no way in hell that they would be flying all over the world, to attend conferences where these people with enormous carbon footprints lecture everyone else (people with small carbon footprints) about the evils of emitting CO2.
I fundamentally object to some tax-funded hypocrite with an enormous carbon footprint lecturing me about my tiny emissions, and expecting me to make do with less.
It is an anti-scientific scam. Nothing more.
It must be because the people in Astronomy have done the real work for terrestrial Climate science. So that these Global Warming hangers on have nothing to do. I am told that its the same with Cancer research and with those people twiddling their thumbs with that fusion doughnut outside Oxford. God help the people on that Cancer research junket, if they actually found a cure for Cancer. I heard that it was a funding problem, were the funding stops for those who find answers, while the funding continues for those who do not provide answers. Richard Lindzen told a Government Committee about this disastrously moronic method of funding science.
Most students doing a PhD in Evolution have heard of Charles Darwin, and most students doing a PhD in Physics have heard of Albert Einstein. But I would not be surprised if you nephew had not heard of Svante Arrhenius, the scientist who created that hypothesis for his PhD in Global Warming. This formula can be used without the need of a computer. All that is needed to disprove the hypothesis at the core of this global scientific fraud is to use the black body temperature and actual surface temperature of Mars and Venus. Adjust for the distance from the Sun, and the albedo of Venus. And then calibrate the atmospheric carbon dioxide warming on these two Planets using Log Tables until you get a figure that fits. You will find that the sum for calibrating carbon dioxide warming on these two planets is wildly different, and therefore this disproves the hypothesis. But do not worry, the hypothesis developed by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller solves all known problems, using the grey body temperature with pressure. Even solving all those problems with the dinosaurs by implying that the Earths Atmosphere must have been over twice as massive at two bar or over.