Wind farms and solar power….a waste of time…

Professor Mike Hulme has never been too enthusiastic about climate science…or rather with having to get it right…as long as it can be made to support your social and political agenda that’s good enough.

As one of the putative flag wavers for man made climate change, Mike Hulme, until recently head of the Tyndall Centre at the UEA, gave the game away in his book “Why We DisAgree About Climate Change”
The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
……
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…….
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
…….
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’.

He has now left the UEA and works as ‘Professor of Climate and Culture in the Department of Geography in the School of Social Science & Public Policy at King’s College London where I am a member of the Environment, Politics and Development Group. ‘

He tells us that the emphasis on science distracts from resolving political challenges arising from different interests, values and attitudes to risk.

Yeah….that old science just gets in the way of the politics…..the politics of making policies based on the …erm…science of climate change.

So essentially what Hulme is saying is that Policy should be made now based upon…what?…the same methods applied to the Bible?  The Earth was created by a God in 7 days, Adam and Eve, the Garden of Paradise…etc etc?

In other words making it up to suit yourself and your own vested interests.

Hulme makes some revealing comments in this recent podcast (abridged) which attack the IPCC and the use of windfarms and solar panels as the solution to climate change:

These are deeply political challenges…the IPCC has not proved a successful policy framework and the new report will not provide a helpful way to untangle those obstacles and barriers.

My argument is to call for a different framework, one not dependent on science…not on getting the numbers right or the precision correct…a policy of climate pragmatism….recognising a different number of environmental goals rather than reach the ‘great deal’ as the UN tries to achieve by getting 193 countries to agree….the emphasis should be on improving society’s resilience to climate risk, improving air quality…not just CO2,  and the CO2 challenge…away from fossil fuels by using massive public led innovation in renewable technologies to replace fossil fuels…windmills and solar tiles on people’s roofs…it’s not going to get you there.

Presumably, he doesn’t elaborate, Hulme means going nuclear….or perhaps Shale gas…still, not exactly supportive of the government’s( and Ed Miliband’s) windmill and solar policy.

Not sure how Harrabin and Co could ignore such a damning statement from such a prominent player in the climate change debate, such as it is….especially as he had such a close working relationship with him…the Tyndall Centre giving Harrabin £15,000 for his CMEP propaganda project at the BBC.

I can confirm that there has been a ‘Pause’…a pause in BBC journalism for at least 15 years….investigative reporting, intelligent analysis and comment, rigorous questioning of  claimed ‘facts’ have been set aside and in place of which, the new ‘Priesthood’ that is the BBC, has promoted the new ‘Faith’ of Man Made Climate Change…..blasphemers will be ex-communicated or at least shown the door at BBC studios.

On Friday we had the IPCC’s Summary For Policy Makers which was the trigger for an avalanch of pro-AGW propaganda from the BBC…a BBC which doesn’t report or investigate but merely acts as a channel for pro-AGW politicians and green activists to spread their Green Gospel.

On Friday the BBC announced it would broadcast on Tuesday on R4 at 15:30 a ‘Costing The Earth’ programme trailed as a look at climate scepticism….clearly the BBC had this ready to go long before the IPCC released its report…part of a carefully orchestrated campaign and not just thrown together.

This is what Nicky Campbell said about the IPCC’s latest effort….‘This is a hugely, hugely important subject for the planet…this is key… they say it is extremely certain that climate change is due to man.’

I’m guessing Campbell is safely on board the AGW bandwagon.

Roger Harrabin (08:35) on the Today programme (What are his scientific qualifications?) told us:

‘I don’t think there are many climate change sceptics in the scientific world, for instance we’ve been trying in the UK to find a climate sceptic who is a working scientist in this field and we can’t find even one.’

The IPCC says that the ocean is the major heat store…the pause is caused by heat being absorbed by the oceans.

 And this rather odd final interpretation of things where he told us that we are looking at warming even if the graphs don’t show any…that’s the IPCC’s message.

Harrabin it seems would like to airbrush from history all the sceptics and their probing, inconvenient questions about the ‘science’.

Harrabin is clearly on the attack against the climate sceptics…trying to dismiss them as ignorant, unscientific ‘bloggers’ …but as I said…what are his scientific qualifications…isn’t he just a well paid blogger…isn’t that all journalists are after all?

Curious how anyone at all, regardless of qualification, scientist or not, can claim to accept man made climate change whilst if you question the IPCC’s claims you have to have an expert qualifcation…as a ‘climate scientist’…what ever that is.

As for not finding a single sceptical, working scientist in this field in the UK…well that pretty much narrows the field conveniently…why are US or Canadian or Australian or Russian sceptical scientists irrelevant?

And what of ‘in this field’?  What does that mean?  Just how many IPCC scientists are actually specifically ‘climate change’ scientists?

The head of the IPCC is a railway engineer, the famous Lord Stern an economist.

Harrbain is blatantly telling a lie.

Nic Lewis, a mathematician and physicist specialising now in climate has been quoted endlessly recently…on well known blogs and in the press…and yet Harrabin couldn’t find him?

And look…Nic Lewis was an accredited IPCC expert reviewer…..who better to ask about scepticism and climate?

There is a massive amount of scientific doubt about climate change and Harrabin knows that…but seeks to hide it.

In Canada a study indicated that 68% thought the science was not ‘settled’

Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.

The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.

A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”

Of course many scientists who have doubts may not feel free to disclose them…it could well be professional suicide and the fact that they are certain to recieve enormous amounts of abuse and threatening messages must also be considered.

Even Harrabin’s old mate at the CRU is scared….and he’s one of the bullies:

Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

and here he is doing that very thing himself, trying to block publication of sceptical science:

‘Phil Jones, director of the CRU, writing to Michael Mann, creator (le mot juste) of the now discredited “hockey stick” graph, about two academics who disagree with him:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Professor Mann on an academic journal foolish enough to publish dissenting views:
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Professor Jones’s reply:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
And you’ll be glad to hear they did!’

Shame Harrabin doesn’t find time to investigate the sceptics claims in the first place and secondly rather than trying to discover why the BBC’s carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign has failed to make the public pro-AGW maybe he should be asking some questions about the tactics and ethics of the Alarmist camp when attacking Sceptics…often demanding they face ‘war crime’ trials or even execution..

Here are a few websites and comments that illustrate the virulent and violent reactions to anyone who expresses scepticism:

This one from a recent article by David Rose in the Daily Mail:

‘Children of MoS reporter should murder him’: vile abuse on Guardian site’

And how about this little troll comment reacting to sceptic comments on a recent article by the world’s least inquiring mind, Geoffrey Lean:

ematter 5 minutes ago

Any more UKIP trolls can “F” OFF!

SITTING on the side-line is NOW tantamount to contributing in killing people!

YOU are just as guilty, if you STAND AND WATCH out planet being RAPED

And more in a similar vein:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865DBE39-802A-23AD-4949-EE9098538277

http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s ‘should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them “not a threat, but a prediction.”

After today’s highly politicised, one sided broadcasting by the BBC now might be the time to consider legal action against the BBC, individual journalists, Tony Hall and the BBC Trust for a blatant breach of its charter obligations…obligations enshrined in law.

The IPCC released its summary of the Fifth Assessment Report on climate change.

The BBC released a torrent of  ‘on message’ propaganda on behalf of the IPCC in what could be one of the most shameless abuses of power and betrayal of its ethos that the BBC has so far indulged itself in.

This wasn’t reporting, there was no debate, there was no critical analysis, just blanket coverage and acceptance of everything the IPCC said.  We had scientist after scientist brought in to push the same line…the BBC presenters were there merely to keep the flow going without pause and to applaud when necessary.

During the day I know of only two sceptics who were brought in…one was Andrew Montford, aka Bishop HIll who was given a couple of minutes on Sheila Fogarty’s show and then Professor Bob Carter on 5Live Drive (17:45)….but just listen to the tone of the presenter in contrast to the obsequious, deferential treatment pro-AGW scientists or advocates received.

Carter was told that he possessed a ‘dangerous state of mind’ ….and asked ‘Don’t you worry about the future’.

From that you can see that the presenter was not there to listen and weigh up information, he had already made up his own mind…the world is in danger….and sceptics are ‘deniers’.

Consider a scenario…one where Roger Harrabin admits he is a convinced socialist and member of the Labour Party.  He admits he has tried for years to convince people that Labour  policies are the only viable course available for the country.

Imagine he succeeds in persuading the BBC to agree that he is correct and that he can set up an organisation that runs seminars designed to persuade fellow journalists that Labour policies are credible and that not only should they shape their programmes to reflect those policies in a positive light but that they should deny other political parties any airtime to debate their policies.

You don’t have to imagine that…because that is precisley how the BBC has proceeded to ‘report’ on climate change.

And Roger Harrabin has been at the centre of that ‘fix’.

If it had been a political party which had been ‘adopted’ by Harrabin and its policies openly and relentlessly promoted by the BBC you might imagine the outcry.

And yet the very same abuse of the BBC’s dominant position in broadcasting and on the web has gone almost unnoticed, at least by the people who have the power to do something about it.

But of course many of them also have vested interests in promoting climate change.

Which is why the only recourse is legal action against the BBC for breaching its legal obligations.

Perhaps the GWPF would step up and take the BBC on?

And another one for you to complete! This time, it’s on time! Bias bothering you?

Reference…Woman’s Hour (10:11)   Woman’s Hour discusses how scientists overblow their research with dramatic claims and how science  journalists often don’t understand the science they are reporting on.

The Great Global Warming Swindle continues…broadcast every week on the BBC at varying times on every channel and medium.

The BBC are picking up the pace in pushing the man made global warming angle.

We are getting puff pieces that continue the alarmist scare mongering as well as subtly trying to undermine the sceptics and the perception, the very real perception, that global warming has stopped.

Matt McGrath is stepping successfully into Richard Black’s rather dodgy shoes with this attack on sceptics:

Climate sceptics claim warming pause backs their view

With quotes like these given prominence you know exactly what McGrath’s intentions are:

Some of what the sceptics are saying is either wishful thinking or totally dishonest”   Prof Jean-Pascal van Ypersele IPCC

 

Bart Verheggen is an atmospheric scientist and blogger who supports the mainstream view of global warming. He said that sceptics have discouraged an open scientific debate.

“When scientists start to notice that their science is being distorted in public by these people who say they are the champions of the scientific method, that could make mainstream researchers more defensive.

“Scientists probably think twice now about writing things down. They probably think twice about how this could be twisted by contrarians.”

McGrath tells us that ‘There are many different shades of opinion in the sceptical orbit.’

But he doesn’t give any of them any credence….and he doesn’t ask similar questions of the supporters of AGW….for instance those who don’t care about the science but see it purely as an opportunity to push for more Socialism and State control….as well as handing out billions to third world countries.  McGrath isn’t interested in the vested interests of those, including the scientists and politicians, who have a great deal at stake in having AGW ‘confirmed’.

David Shukman follows on faithfully on the same path… this morning on the Today programme (08:41) when a sleight of hand was played with the evidence…or lack of evidence for global warming and the causes of the ‘pause’.

We hear that in the last 100 years the temperature of the oceans has been increasing….according to the Clams as scientists have recently discovered.

Helpful coincidence…the IPCC is trying to explain away the ‘pause’ in global warming..and can’t…but they have come up with a guess that they have all agreed to agree on…to present a common front, a consensus….that the oceans are absorbing the heat and causing a ‘slowdown’ in temperature rises…..and in a timely intervention, miraculously the Clams ‘prove’ it.

Great how Shukman feeds questions to his scientist stooge, knowing the answers already….

Do scientists exaggerate?  No! Climate scientists don’t exaggerate…they are just very, very concerned about the climate….and that concern is for the future…you may be cold now…but…you’re going to fry in 50 years time….act now!

Is there a pause in global warming?  No! You may be cold but someone somewhere is warm and getting warmer…oh yes you may get records that buck the trend for a few years but that doesn’t mean that the globe as a whole is not warming.

Really?  Didn’t the great IPCC itself admit that warming had stalled?

The IPCC has itself released a tricky bit of alarmist propaganda…designed not only to frighten us but to try to undermine any scepticism based on cooler temperatures.

IPCC report: Britain could cool if Gulf Stream slows

Britain’s climate could get cooler over the next 80 years, a major UN report on global warming is to suggest.

It’s a fantastic con trick….if temperatures go up they’ll say we were wrong on the time scale maybe…but we were right about global warming…

and if temperatures go down…they say…look, it’s caused by global warming.

It’s a win win for the IPCC what ever the temperature is.

Well, as the  IPCC Summary for Policymakers is prepared for release tomorrow to trumpeting from the hype merchants, the BBC can be relied upon to once again try to convince an increasingly cynical population that mankind IS driving global warming …sorry..I  mean climate change. By way of balance, may I commend this essay? Brace yourself for what lies in store tomorrow.

I was listening to Jeremy Al Bowen as he reported on the “charm offensive’ by the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the UN today. Couldn’t help but note the effusive tone in his commentary. If the Iranians were hoping the BBC would propagandise on their behalf, they were right.

Stephanie Flanders is off.  She leaves the BBC in November to work for….J.P Morgan Asset Management…..toxic bankers.

Shocked Labour’s hierarchy support each other and try to forget

Ed Miliband is already reaching for his Socialist’s Play Kit, digging out the airbrush so that apostate Flanders can be airbrushed from his history and from those photos of past indiscretions as any good Socialist would do…Ed Balls will no doubt be lugging his photo album over to Ed’s £1.5 million mansion for the same treatment.

What was rather worrying was that Flanders, working for the BBC with all the time in the world and huge resources behind her said this:

She said her new job, as chief market strategist for the UK and Europe, would afford her more time for research and developing a deeper understanding of the markets.

Hmmm….wasn’t that her job anyway at the BBC? 

But then again Gordon Brown, economic genius and guru admitted he hadn’t understood just how complicated the world is….which is why……we are where we are.

…courtesy of BBC World Service journalist Stephanie Hegarty:

There is something cuddly and teddy bear-ish about @drRouhani #Iran

— Stephanie Hegarty (@stephhegarty) September 26, 2013

The leader of a terrorist-exporting theocracy is one thing, but Fox News is something else entirely:

The world according to @FoxNews Gross. "Christians Under Attack in Kenya & Pakistan – Greg Gutfeld & Bob Beckel http://t.co/hJdNDTIlHv"

— Stephanie Hegarty (@stephhegarty) September 24, 2013

BBC newsroom mindset.

Trust High in Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews.

What…you didn’t get that impression listening to the BBC all day?

No nor did I.  In fact I didn’t hear those groups mentioned once….which is strange because you would think that the BBC would ‘celebrate’ that.

 Instead we had an entirely negative story…and a unique interpetation of it, an interpretation which absolved the guilty and passed the judgement instead on those who had critical views of the ‘guilty’s’ behaviour, views which the BBC found unacceptable…rather than condemning those who behaved in a way that the Public find unacceptable.

What we had was the BBC pandering to the usual Muslim grievance industry carpet baggers….the pan handlers who come up with a figure for ‘Islamophobia’ and stretch out a hand for government money to help ‘further research’.

What I heard was the BBC telling us that in its poll of 18 to 24 year olds they found out that Muslims were perceived in a negative fashion by 60% of the poll…this the BBC obviously thought was as a result not of Muslim actions, but due to ignorance and prejudice on the part of the British Public.

However the BBC could have told us that only 29% believed Asians as a group were viewed negatively……. what wasn’t emphasised was that 43% of those polled trusted Muslims, 55% trusted Asians and 62% trusted Christians.

Hold the frontpage! 

What else didn’t the BBC dwell on?

Who else is viewed negatively…almost to the same extent as Muslims at 53%….Roma/travellers and East Europeans…and teenagers at 56%….again no mention from the BBC on 5live.

Strange that all the BBC wanted to talk about  was Muslims.

 The poll was commissioned by Radio One and its webpage provides a fuller explanation of the findings…but still concentrates on the obvious:

Quarter of young British people ‘do not trust Muslims’

Listening to 5Live you would never have found out about the wider aspects of the poll.

What was the question asked that the BBC concentrated on?

‘Generally speaking do you think that each of the following groups of people have a positive or negative image among the British population at present.’

It should be noted that this poll was taken a couple of weeks after the death of Lee Rigby…something not mentioned on the radio….something which could well have had an effect on the outcome of the poll.

What’s wrong with that question?

The problem is that it means nothing on its own…so you find out that 60% of those polled think Muslims have a negative image in Britain….but then what? There’s no attempt to find out why that negative image is so prevalent….and bear in mind that the negative image might not be held by those polled..it is merely asking what they think other people think….odd when you think about that.

You could conclude that was the BBC’s thinking…not to investigate those reasons allows the BBC to speculate and interpret the data in its own way and to impose its own narrative on why Muslims are distrusted or ‘hated’.

The BBC brings in the usual ‘Muslim expert’ who spouts the usual drivel…racism, discrimination, the Media demonising Muslims, lack of understanding and failure of the majority to integrate and interact with Muslims.

We had one on Victoria Derbyshire’s show today discussing this…his solution….Muslims must interact with the population….er…by living their faith amongst us, bringing the knowledge to the unbeliever…showing us how wonderful Islam is.

In other words what we need is more Islam….once we get to know it we will love it.

Unfortunately most people know it all too well…and don’t like what they see.

What about racism or the Media, are they the cause of negative  views of Islam?

43% trust Muslims, 27% don’t.

40% don’t trust Roma/Travellers.

55% trust Asians, 16% don’t.

62% trust Christians, 12% don’t.

So Christians and Asians get almost the same trust rating….In other words…it can’t be race that drives the negative perceptions of Muslims.   What about the Media? 

Clearly the evidence points to the fact that how people are perceived, how much they are trusted, depends entirely on how they act.

The poll shows that Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews all have a very similar image and trust rating despite being as ‘foreign’ as Muslims….they all have around 16% negative ratings…far below the 60% for Muslims…and there is a reason for that.

Blow up things, terrorize people, cause untold trouble and you will appear in the newspapers and on the TV.

It is your own fault, nothing to do with skin colour.

For the BBC to adopt the narrative that critics of Islam are merely ignorant, prejudiced and full of hate is a complete reversal of the facts……just who is it that is prejudiced, ignorant and full of hate for ‘the other’?

The BBC tells us that A report submitted to the Leveson inquiry into press standards last year concluded there was “a serious and systemic problem of racist, anti-Muslim reporting within sections of the British media”.

But it was a Muslim group that supplied that ‘report’.  If you don’t want to be in the Media or on the front page don’t behave in a way that will get you there.

What Muslims seem to want is a complete blackout of any reporting of any Muslim behaviour that could be viewed negatively…perhaps Miliband will cap media coverage….and the BBC seem to be pushing that narrative.

What is really needed is new thinking…instead of tackling ‘Islamophobia’ the Great and the Good should be tackling Muslim attitudes, beliefs and values, closing down the Faith schools and madrassas that promote separation and hatred and investigating the Mosques that continue to allow the preaching of fundamentalist beliefs.

58% believed terrorism was the biggest threat to the UK.

At the end of the poll there was a section on immigration, the results were as you might suspect..and again ignored by the BBC.

66% believed immigration increased community tensions.

47% believed that such tension would lead to race riots.

57% wanted less immigration.

53% believed it led to higher unemployment.

47% says immigration leads to higher crime.