I am astonished at the lack of airtime given to the BBC’s 28Gate debacle. Once again Auntie has been caught peddling dubious information to the public and by the usual suspects – who have now ‘stepped aside’ for reasons other than pumping out biased reporting on Climate Science. What does it take to get the press interested in a story that contains accusations of media bias, waste of public funds and the gang of four caught up – yet again.
Come on Press Land give it some coverage. Where are you Sky News when we need you?
At 09.47 GMT this morning I received a ‘Global warming warning’ from New Scientist Weekly – I kid you not! With some trepidation I opened the e-mail to discover that ‘Five years ago, we were warned that the climate change outlook was bad. In this week’s cover feature, read the seven reasons why it’s even worse that we thought’ sic
I read a blog yesterday that expressed surprise that there was so little Global Warming Alarmism coming up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP18. Well better late than never. It always amazes me that the alarmists trot out the same old line – ‘it’s even worse than we thought’ but in their hurry to sound the alarm they couldn’t even get that right. (Spot the typo?)
So let’s go through the list – for the Nth time;
Arctic warming – ‘…If current trends continue…’ but they don’t the Earth’s climate runs in cycles.
Extreme Weather –‘…it’s becoming more extreme than anyone predicted..’ no it’s not. Tornado and Hurricane activity is declining. Even the IPCC have said that extreme weather events are nothing to do with Global Warming.
Food Production – ‘…food prices are soaring as the effects of extreme weather kick in.’ Please see previous line plus of course food prices are rising ‘cause the US is turning its corn into fuel. (See previous posts)
Sea Level – ‘Greenland’s rapid loss of ice mean we’re in for a rise of at least 1 metre by 2100, and possibly much more’ That Chestnut. Last year the world’s sea levels actually fell by 5mm. (See previous posts)
Planetary Feedbacks – ‘The planet currently absorbs half our CO2 emissions. All the signs are it won’t for much longer’. And what signs would those be?
This is tedious. Clearly the article is meant for the Global Warming Faithful and those yet to be converted.
As they say ‘A week day is a long time in politics the blogosphere’. On Tuesday I predicted that the failure of a court action against the BBC brought under the freedom of information act, to reveal the names of the gang of 28 grandees of Global Warming knowledge would be a short lived victory for the publicly funded corporation. Later that same day the list was released on the web by Guido Fawkes of the blogspot www.order-order.com but full honours go to Mauritzio Morabito for his impressive sleuthing.
Should the list prove to be correct (we are awaiting the BBC’s confirmation/denial with baited breath) ‘Auntie’ is going to have to clear a space on her, albumen splattered visage for even more egg. If this is what the BBC call a seminar of experts then I’m a warmist!
I have looked through the list. Where is the balance? Where is the counter argument from the sceptic side? There is none. The outcome of the seminar was preordained. The BBC picked a group of biased global warming activists so that they could justify their future bias. Their subterfuge is astounding.
I know your Mother told you not to look at the sun but maybe it is about time the IPCC set aside this maternal advice and began considering that variations in solar radiation may have something to do with the fluctuations in earth’s temperature.
It has long been the IPCC’s contention that while there have been minor fluctuations in the energy output from the sun this is more than compensated for by magnification of the so called ‘greenhouse effect’ by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by human activity.
A paper produced by the National Academy of Science has challenged that assertion. Using Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 isotopes (found in ice cores and tree rings) as proxies for Solar radiation, the academy has determined that Solar radiation at the end of the 20th Century is the highest it has been in the past 9,400 years.
But let us be careful. Just because we are seeing correlation with temperature rise does not mean we have causality, however this data surely merits serious consideration in the overall study of climate by the IPCC. Perhaps it’s the old cynic in me, but somehow I don’t think they will bother.
In July I bemoaned the lost credibility of the BBC in relation to its reporting on Global Warming. I concluded the blog with the question “If we can’t believe them on this, then why should we believe them on anything?” It would appear, in light of the recent resignation of their Director General over false reporting, that I am not the only one who thinks the veracity of the entire organisation should be called into question. Add to this the debacle that is the Jimmy Saville paedophile saga and serious questions need to be asked about how the BBC conduct themselves when it comes to editorial bias.
But it’s not all bad news for the BBC. They have recently won a court battle that allows them to keep secret from the public the basis on which they openly declare that they are within their rights to present a biased presentation of global warming. In Early 2006 the BBC held a seminar to which they invited 28 environmental grandees. It is their contention that the collective evidence of these experts convinced them that ‘the science is settled’ with regard to Global warming and that from then on they would mainly promote the global warming alarmist point of view.
What is curious about this court case is – what are the BBC afraid of? Why would they want to keep the names of these 28 specialist secret? Surely they would want to shout their names from the roof tops to cement the credibility of their decision of bias. We can assume that the reason for not wanting to give the names is that once again the BBC’s credibility would be found wanting. I can conclude from the BBC’s obstructive behaviour that most, if not all, of these 28 are political activists and self-proclaimed Climate Change experts. And you know what I think of Climate Change Experts – there is no such thing.
I have no doubt, in time, that the names will become known. Until then the BBC will keep digging themselves into an even bigger hole on this and others issues.
When the BBC speaks – Don’t You Believe Them!
Last week the new UK Energy Minister John Hayes slapped a moratorium on any new (that have not already been sanctioned) onshore wind turbines. I do not imagine that this decision will go unchallenged. The British Conservative parties coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, will have something to say about it as well as the myriad of vested interests that are going to suffer from this decision. Expect skin and hair to fly over the coming months as Hayes attempts to make his radical manoeuvre stick.
This is not the end of the wind energy boondoggle, No Siree, Bob! Notice the weasel word ‘onshore’ used in the announcement. The British Government are still ploughing ahead with the equally wasteful and vastly more expensive ‘offshore’ wind farms, but at least it’s a start. Perhaps we will get some more dialogue on the subject and move it more into mainstream politics so that Joe and Joanna public can see where there tax pounds are being wasted.
More on this and here