Category Archives: agw alarmism

I’m sure Biased BBC readers will be familiar with the shocking news concerning the fiddling and misrepresentation of statistics at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Naturally this represents a problem for the BBC which has been to the fore in promoting AGW. So this morning we had an item @ 7.35am on this issue debated by Lord Lawson and Prof Robert Watson and I felt that Watson was given much more time than was Lawson and his strident assertions contrasted with Lawson’s moderation. Given the last word, Watson asserted that there is “no uncertainty whatsoever” that humans have been responsible for climate change over the past fifty years! In what sense is fifty years an appropriate time period to come to such a conclusion and in what sense is there incontrovertible evidence for such an AGW claim. We’ll never know – the BBC did not pursue it!

I see the BBC leads the news this morning with Gordon Brown’s wild claims that we face climate catastrophe in the UK if he and his fellow AGW alarmists do not reach “agreement” at the Copenhagen in December. I also read Richard Black’s ringing defence of BBC neutrality on this issue here. I then listened to Roger Harrabin’s sympathetic item on the issue of the Chinese approach to “tackling climate change.” This is a big ticket agenda item for the BBC and as the Copenhagen summit approaches, I think it reasonable that the BBC should give as much prominence to those who cast doubt on the eco-alarmism as those, such as renowned climate scientist Gordon Brown, who shill for it.

Another day and another item on global warming alarmism. Here you can listen to Professor Peter Wadhams suggest the Arctic ocean could be ice free during the summer in as little as 10 years. If true, this would be great news for the global economy. Not sure the BBC see it in those terms thiugh! The global warming fetishists keep lowering the date by which the Arctic will be ice free in the summer and since this assists in the daily narrative, the BBC will keep pushing it down our throats.

Anyone watching the Green “debate” on Newsnight? Three panellists and all points of view so long so long as they are eco-wackists Emily Maitlis frames the question “How can we stop climate change” LOL – just super bias. Hey Emily – how can we stop the Earth from turning?

Here on B-BBC we regularly (and rightly) chastise the BBC for it’s assiduous cultivation of AGW, but by way of contrast, and in an attempt to be fair, this seems a decent item by Paul Hudson. Worth a read. However I wonder will this sense of better balance make it into the mainstream? Somehow, I doubt it. I feel that for too many in the BBC, the debate IS over.

You almost have to admire the brass-neck of it all. Listen to this item on Today this morning. “Science” Correspondent Tom Feilden explains that new research suggests that we could in for decades of global cooling but that does not mean the Earth is going to have unprecedented global warming. Just not yet. Feilden discusses research which suggests that the global climate is cooling and this is to do with the Earth’s natural oscillations. Humphyrs and Feilden discuss “the fear” that climate change sceptics may use this to undermine the AGW hysteria – surely not? Do these alarmists ever take the time to reflect on their sheer unscientific quality of their “debates”?

Having spent yesterday availing myself of the convenience of modern air travel, I tune in the BBC this morning to hear an all out attack on this necessity of everyday life. Just after 7am, there was someone on to claim that we should stop ALL domestic flights, this was balanced by further interviews with those who suggested that taxes on domestic and business would have to be scaled up IF we want to continue with flight. Naturally the prospect of a (much needed) third runway at Heathrow was damned. All of this to save the planet, of course. Curiously, the BBC could not find anyone to oppose the central contention that AGW is responsible for this pesky global warming. The science is settled. For good measure, and for the devout, Thought for the Day invoked Jesus encouraging recycling. Great to be back here and listening to the State Global Warming Alarmist.

Excellent article by Chris Booker here.

BBC viewers were treated last week to the bizarre spectacle of Mr
Ban Ki-moon standing on an Arctic ice-floe making a series of statements so laughable that it was hard to believe such a man can be Secretary-General of
the UN. Thanks to global warming, he claimed, “100 billion tons” of polar
ice are melting each year, so that within 30 years the Arctic could be “ice-free”. This
was supported by a WWF claim that the ice is melting so fast that, by 2100, sea-levels could rise by 1.2 metres (four feet), which would lead to “floods affecting a quarter of the world”.

Everything about this oft-repeated item was propaganda of the silliest kind. Standing 700 miles from the Pole, as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go, Mr Ban seemed unaware that, although some 10 million square kilometres (3.8 million square miles) of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. And the extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km (190,000 sq m) greater than it was this time last year – which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see the Cryosphere Today website). By April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km (5.4 million sq m) or more.

Wonder why the BBC can’t provide this balance of facts? Simple – it has concluded that the “science is settled” and it acts as an echo-chamber for global warming alarmists . Not just biased, but dangerous.