We’re going to look at the BBC Trust’s politically driven decision to censure, silence, Quentin Letts and his programme about the Met. Office.  In light of that here’s a warm up with some questions about the Met. Office’s conclusions drawn from the ‘science’……

This is the key paragraph in a Met. Office report on climate change….

In UKCIP02 we showed results from experiments (Stott et al., 2000) which indicated clearly that recent temperature rises could not be explained by natural causes. In that paper, the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model was driven over the period 1860-2000 firstly with only changes in natural agents (solar output, volcanic aerosol); the modelled temperature rise was in poor agreement with that actually observed, especially over the last few decades. Only when changes in forcing from human activities (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols) were added could the temperature rise over the last few decades be replicated by the climate model.

It explains that any global warming after 1970 or so is due in the main to man-made causes and not fom the likes of soalr output or volvanic activity.  It is the essential ingredient in the IPCC’s case for global warming and the attribution of that to man-made causes.

Not sure how they come to that conclusion as the rate of warming post 1970 is the same as in previous periods……something even the CRU’s top boffin and climate alarmist, Phil Jones, admits to Harrabin….not the answer Harrabin was looking for methinks…

RH – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

PJ – In answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

So if the rates were similar how is it that the most recent period is attributed to man-made causes?  The Met. Office says solar output and volcanic activity have decreased…..if they were the same plus man-made warming the warming would be even higher than it is…however it’s the same as those other two periods.

You can see and compare the periods here……

Here’s CO2…..note not the same path…CO2 rising in 1880 but temperatures dropped for decades….

As for solar and volcanic activity dropping…hmmm…doesn’t look like it and the infamous sunspots seem to have a good correlation with temperature…….at least as much as CO2’s correlation…..

This graph of solar irradiance seems to follow temperature patterns as well…..

I’m pretty sure this graph shows volcanic activity has risen and again has quite a correlation with temperature….

So is the Met. Office wrong to claim that there is little to no natural agency in recent warming?  Looks like it is as the rate is the same as those previous periods…..you may conclude actually thinking about it that CO2 stops warming….if solar and volcanic activity have increased it should be warming at a higher rate than those other two periods…it’s not.  Why not?  What else has gone up?  CO2.  Must be a connection with cooling!  Just joking.  LOL.

Curious that no one mentions the obvious thought when during ‘Storm Desmond’ a waterfall burst into life….the first time in maybe 200 years or longer…….the obvious thought being there must have been ‘unprecedented’ rainfall back then….how is such an ‘extreme’ explained away 200 years ago?  What trick do they use to hide the decline in credibility of claims of unprecedented rainfall?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WCiLzOWBy4

It is odd how the BBC et al trumpet ‘extremes’ in the UK and either insinuate or blatantly claim the cause is climate change regardless of whatever else is happening worldwide but when they don’t happen in the UK and the weather is average then somewhere else in the world is having extremes and the warming trend continues….

Is it to do with climate change?

We can’t say for certain that this spell of warm weather is directly linked to global warming, although it could well be a factor, BBC Weather’s Steve Cleaton says.

“Although we have seen a particularly mild spell of weather, the UK spring and summer of 2015 were relatively cool, meaning that for the UK in isolation 2015 is likely to end up being a fairly average year in terms of temperature, rainfall and sunshine statistics.”

However, on a global scale, 2015 is set to be the warmest year on record, consistent with current thinking on climate change, he says.

Warm weather a consequence of climate change?  ‘can’t say for sure…could be a factor.’   Really?   Thought the science was settled and the rise in temperature since 1950 0r so was definitely man-made.

The BBC and fellow alarmists have to play it safe due to El Nino….just how much warming is really attributable to that phenomenon?

Tropical air from the Azores and beyond is blowing in from the south west.

As is often the case in meteorology, no one specific factor can explain what has caused this influx of warm air – but this year’s strong El Nino weather phenomenon is thought to play a part.

The event occurs when the waters of the Pacific become exceptionally warm and distort weather patterns around the world.

This almost continual warm stream has also been the source of all the moisture and strong winds that brought such devastation to parts of the UK with Storm Desmond.

El Nino ‘thought to play a part’.  Talk about dodging the issue.  Here the BBC hypes not actual temperatures for 2016 but guesstimates from models and statistics……and whilst hyping climate change still tries to give the impression of considered reasoning so that you don’t think they are just scaremongering…

Met office says 2016 ‘very likely’ to be warmest on record

A new global temperature forecast from the UK’s Met Office says that 2016 is likely to be even warmer than 2015.

This year has already been provisionally declared the warmest on record thanks to a combination of global warming and a strong El Nino.

The new forecast, a combination of computer models and statistical methods, says that the global average temperature for the next 12 months is likely to be 0.84C above the 1961-1990 average.

However check this final bit of butt-covering…

The Met Office says that the rise in temperature predicted for next year may not continue indefinitely – and may slip back under 1 degree over the coming years.

But they argue that the growing warming signal can combine in unpredictable ways with smaller natural fluctuations leading to “unprecedented events”.

‘Temperatures may slip back under 1 degree over the coming years’..Really?….What?  The warmth may not continue?  Why not if it is due to man made causes?  Things may cool? Surely a cooling would indicate the warming was due almost entirely to El Nino?  Still, get the scaremongering in whilst you can making as many associations with man-made causes as possible and then retract those in later years when the alarmist propaganda has already done its work.

Here’s a curious statement from the Met. Office….

Annual mean precipitation over England and Wales has not changed significantly since records began in 1766. Seasonal rainfall is highly variable, but appears to have decreased in summer and increased in winter, although with little change in the latter over the last 50 years.

So we’re actually getting no more rain than is usual over a year…since 1766….winter rain may possibly have increased and summer decreased….but not in the last 50 years.

Hang on…not in the last 50 years?  Ermm…isn’t the last 50 years when the effects of man-made global warming were supposed to be arising…such as dry summers and wetter winters?  Didn’t happen though did it?

And what to make of this…

Severe windstorms around the UK have become more frequent in the past few decades, though not above that seen in the 1920s.

So windstorms are no more frequent than in the 1920’s and yet we are always told that every gusty bit of weather is due to climate change.  So we had the same climate change in th 1920’s?

Some ‘official’ graphs of rainfall and temperature....some just for December….looks like little to no change to the mean in either over a century…..

Bishop Hill mentions this book: Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

He tells us…

Specialists are considerably worse at making predictions than generalists – is now quite well known, although less so among the general public and media than it should be.

The generalist forecasters were better than the experts because…’ It was more about independence of mind, the ability to constantly recalibrate and to question assumptions, the ability to think in terms of probabilities rather than in black and white terms.’

A comment on Amazon for the book summed it up…..

If you want to understand what will happen in the future, do you ask a distinguished tv pundit, or do you go to a chimp throwing darts at a board? Philip Tetlock’s very readable book explains that you’d be better off with the chimp. Sadly talking heads are mostly good at telling you what is going to happen, and then explaining afterwards why it didn’t – or insisting against all the evidence, that actually, it did.

Harrabin a ‘distinguished tv pundit’ or a climate lobby flunky?

Bishop Hill also notes….

The opposition have called a debate on the Cumbria floods tomorrow, and so the House of Commons Library has issued a briefing paper to MPs. There’s lot to amuse. For example, I read with interest that:

…there is a general understanding that climate change is likely to be linked to increased winter rain in the UK.

I think it’s fair to say that this is complete drivel.

Interestingly, the “Further Reading” section also includes, among other things, a suggestion that MPs might like to take a look at a paper entitled “Floods, Climate Change and Flood Defence Investment”, published by Friends of the Earth.

Which is odd, because the first-named author of the briefing – one Sara Priestley – turns out to have worked at Friends of the Earth before moving to the House of Commons.

What makes me think that MPs’ briefings have something of a bias?

To be fair she only worked there for two months….but it could I suppose indicate where her heart lies….

• Legal

  Friends of the Earth

  September 2013 – October 2013 (2 months)

Guess David is still a bit Daeshed and confused after his Xmas bash so I’ll do the honours….a new open thread….

A teacher in France has been stabbed but survived the attack….the BBC’s report is for once open about the culprit…though the BBC is still being ‘PC’ in the title…….

Teacher in France stabbed by man ‘shouting Islamic State’

A teacher has been attacked in a preschool class in Aubervilliers, a suburb of the French capital, Paris, by a man citing so-called Islamic State.

The attacker shouted: “This is for Daesh [Islamic State]. It’s a warning”, stabbing the teacher with a box cutter or scissors before fleeing.

The life of the teacher, 45, who was alone in the room, is not in danger.

‘Daesh’ does indeed mean in essence ‘Islamic State’ but when Cameron and his cronies all decided to take up the Muslim lobbyists’ call to hide the fact that the ‘Islamic State’ were Islamic and instead call them Daesh the BBC insisted in calling them ‘Islamic State’…good for the BBC, and somewhat of a surprise….though still calling terrorists militants.

However the BBC’s reason for continuing to use ‘Islamic State’ said it all…it didn’t want to upset supporters of the Islamic State….

BBC rejects MPs’ calls to refer to Islamic State as Daesh

The head of the BBC rejected the demands, saying that using Daesh would not preserve the BBC’s impartiality as it risked giving an impression of support for the group’s opponents, the Times reports. He is said to claim that the term is used pejoratively by its enemies.

Instead, it is reported, Hall said the BBC would use terms such as the “Islamic State group” to distinguish it from a true state, and continue to use descriptions such as extremist or militant for its members.

Got to be confusing when the Islamic State uses Daesh itself.  What’s Cameron going to do?  What’s the BBC going  to do?

Guess that’s what happens when you try to manufacture perceptions and not just go with  the truth and deal with the real problems rather than pandering to Muslim lobbyists.

Update:  Fun and games daeshed.…..#youain’tnoknifemanbruv

The BBC reported this story straight, the victim said the attacker used the name Daesh …..should have known something was wrong….apparently the herbert managed to stab himself accidentally.  Shame all ISIS/Daesh wannabe martyrs don’t try the same thing instead of the cliched suicide vest.

No expert on statistics but looking at this I would say the 97% claimed stat for scientific consensus on global warming is a crock….

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

So hang on……66.4% expressed no position on the causes of global warming…

but……32.6% endorsed the alarmist position.

And the 97%?

The 97% is 97% of that 32.6%, or least of ‘those who expressed a position’, which definitely counts out the 66.4% who expressed no position and is even more definitely not 97% of  ‘all scientists’…by my reading of that explanation.

So maybe around 33% of the literature openly supports the man-made climate change theory.

I’m sure someone will  put me right.

NB…Not as if the author of the study isn’t a climate change campaigner himself…

Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change

An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper I co-authored in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers.  [Really?…see above]

So there is still much work to do. Several decades of casting doubt on the consensus has contributed to maintaining the consensus gap. This is why communication experts urge scientists to communicate the 97% consensus. This approach is based on a growing body of evidence underscoring the important role of perceived consensus and the necessity of consensus messaging.

Amusing to see this from our old mate Richard Black in 2007..

Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them.

“The research itself is biased,” as one recent blog entry put it.

“Scientists are quick to find what they’re looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government.”

That particular posting gave no evidence to support its claim of bias. I have seen none that did, which made me wonder whether there was any evidence.

Naturally Black couldn’t find any convincing evidence of that….but the above surely is where “Scientists are quick to find what they’re looking for.”  97%?  That’ll do nicely.

We have already had a look at Roger Harrabin’s latest exercise in climate change promotion via the Open University and the below just confirms absolutely what the intention of that promotion is in a report from the same event in 2014…

Report on TippingPoint Oxford 2014: Stories of Change

Sustainability has a reasonable foothold in UK discourse. It features as part of Government policy with, for example, Government Departments being obliged to report on their sustainability achievements, for example.

It is much less clear, however, that it has a genuine and deep purchase on the national
psyche. Outside select groups in the research and NGO sector, and a general, casual and
relatively inconsequential popular acknowledgement of it, particularly among the urban
middle classes, it can reasonably be said that it has made rather little tangible impact on
the way people live their lives.

TippingPoint is one of a handful of small British organisations that have been championing the concept of artistic intervention in this field.
The rationale for this is best summed up in our strapline ‘energising the creative response
to climate change’. Our conviction is that without deep engagement in the subject by the
cultural sector we will not achieve the breakthroughs in public understanding that are
necessary.

We were extremely fortunate to form a partnership with the newly created, and substantial, Stories of Change project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. This project has aims that are almost exactly aligned with those of TippingPoint, and both felt that it was well worth combining forces – and budgets – to achieve a greater impact.

So the government sponsored climate alarmists who pay for Harrabin’s spiel, join forces with climate activists to contrive to produce climate propaganda via the Arts and Cultural sector...and their aims are exactly aligned.

Who can doubt this year’s Harrabin harangue isn’t also aligned with that aim.

The ‘People’ aren’t onboard with climate change so Harrabin and Co are out to make the case for climate alarmism.

A journalist or activist?

Not as if our Rog hasn’t been in the pay of the government before according to the Mail…

BBC’s six-year cover-up of secret ‘green propaganda’ training for top executives

Amused by the venomous BBC knifing of right-wing Tony Abbott…

Ex-Australia PM Tony Abbott says Islam must reform

Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has sparked criticism by saying Islam has a “massive problem” and needs to reform.

Writing in Australian media, Mr Abbott said “not all cultures are equal” and the West should stop apologising for defending its values.

The BBC gives Abbott a couple of lines to hang himself (they hope) and then they set the kangaroo court in motion with the first 1/3 of the article devoted to slagging Abbott off.

Abbott is then allowed to expand on his statement before the last 1/3 is given over to Muslims to give him a kicking.

Note there are no voices brought on to support Abbott’s views, just critics.

Boo Hiss

Laughably the BBC resorts to low insults and contrived counterpoints that are designed to supposedly undermine Abbott’s criticism of a religion, well, supposed religion….

Mr Abbott was removed as prime minister by a party vote in September amid poor poll ratings and is now a backbench MP. Before his political career he had trained to be a Catholic priest.

His letter, published in News Corps tabloids, cautioned against “demonising” Muslims, but said the West “can’t remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam”.

So a mere ex-PM with low ratings who is now a lowly backbencher (and yet they still love Ed Miliband) …and oh yes, he was a trainee priest, a catholic one….so  not only must he be intrinsically inclined to hate Islam he’s probably a bit ‘suspect’.

And get this…the real clincher…not only was his letter in a Murdoch paper, but in a tabloid Murdoch paper….how revoltingly populist can you get.  ‘Tory’ scum.

Doesn’t say who wrote this stitch-up but I’m guessing it was Hamas’ representative in OZ, Jon Donnison.

Love his idea of what constitutes ‘superb’ journalism….

• Jon Donnison ‏@jondonnisonbbc Dec 8

  superb.

   

  

  0:10

  Monty Moncrieff @MontyMoncrieff

  Oh well done @CliveMyrieBBC “You can not be a dickhead & win Sports Personality of the Year” @Tyson_Fury #SPOTY

 

 

A film from over a decade ago…how soon we forget…conveniently.

Birmingham a no go zone…for Blacks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUODVXIIKwQ

‘Think 20 years ahead…this’ll be Pakistan…they’re all shipping over..fake passports and that….’  A Paksitani youth

‘Somalis are vermin…dirty…it’s our job to clean up the dirt…they’re black but they’re not…they’re not like us.’  Black youth

‘The government should send them [Somalis] home…they’re animals’  Black woman

‘Is there a sense of threat from Islam?……There is an overpowering element to Islam..intimidating’ Darcus Howe

If a white person said anything approaching that…imagine the outrage.

In the previous post we had a quick thought that Shaker Aamer was gaming the non-Muslim population with a faux anti-extremism posture, a front in order to gain our confidence…entryism in other words.

What if a London Mayor candidate also plays such games and seeks to gain a position which he can use to silence critics of Islam?  Here Sadiq Khan positions himself as a humanitarian and equalities campaigner….

We must do more to challenge Islamophobia. As mayor of London, I’ll make tackling hate crimes – including Islamophobia, antisemitism and homophobia – a top priority for the Metropolitan police and ensure they get the resources they needs to make a real difference. I’ll work with the police and community organisations to improve the way we report and record Islamophobic crimes – so we have the best possible information to act on.

Nice that Labour’s Sadiq Khan thinks he can use the Met. Police as his own private police force to enforce an Islamic Inquisition….oh yes he’ll tackle anti-Semitism and homophobia (East London will be in lock down) but he had to say that didn’t he…just a bit too obvious what the agenda really might be if he hadn’t….though the title of his Guardian rant might just give the game away….

‘With Islamophobia on the rise I fear for my friends and family’