JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

How the BBC became a propaganda arm of the UK government (and WWF)

Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) and Tony Newbery (Harmless Sky) have put in a submission to the review of the BBC’s impartiality on science. It’s the anatomy of how government and activist groups take over an arm of a public broadcaster. There is no sneaking in the back door here.

The main problem facing government and policymakers was convincing the public that concern about anthropogenic global warming was well founded, and not just another scare story that would soon be forgotten. The Climate Change Communications Working Group (DEFRA, EST, UKCIP, Env. Agency, DTI, Carbon Trust) was set up, and in February 2005 received a Short List of Recommendations from Futerra, an environmental PR consultancy, on the means of conveying the required message to the media and the public . In August 2006, the IPPR produced a thirty-page report entitled Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better? which developed Futerra’s recommendations. This concluded that:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly  seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle   techniques of engagement. To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. (emphasis added)

Essentially, the communication technique recommended to the government to use on the people was the sophisticated tactic: “bluff them”. The truth is not what matters. There’s apparently no need to explain the uncertainties, and no reason to treat the voters as grown ups. Don’t mention the evidence.

That the BBC science-journalists weren’t appalled at the IPPR document and the in-house seminar held earlier the same year (see below) is testament to the feeble derelict state of university science and “journalism” training. Does no lecturer explain the core difference between a reporter and a copy-writer for an ad agency?

Where were the strikes and protests from journalists as they were being asked to be the lap-dog sock puppets of the ruling class, and feed approved newspeak to the masses?

The day the BBC stopped “investigating” was in January 2006

According to Montford and Newbery, the key event was a BBC seminar at Television Centre entitled Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting, which was made up of ’30 key BBC staff’ and ‘30 invited guests’. The ‘key speaker’ was Lord May of Oxford (the Royal Society President who also happened to be a WWF trustee and environmental activist).

Richard North (of EU Referendum)* was at that seminar. He says:

I found the seminar frankly shocking. The BBC crew (senior executives from  every branch of the corporation) were matched by an equal number of specialists, almost all (and maybe all) of whom could be said to have come from the ‘we must support Kyoto’ school of climate change activists. So far as I can recall I was alone in being a climate change sceptic (nothing like a denier, by the way) on both the science and policy response.

I was frankly appalled by the level of ignorance of the issue which the BBC people showed.

The BBC claim that seminar was given by “the best scientific experts”. But Richard North remembers hearing only “activists”, and even one of the two organizers — the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) describe the guests as policy experts. The IBT, by the way, describe themselves as ‘lobbying Government, regulators and broadcasters’”. The other organizer was CMEP, Roger Harribin’s unit with an activist friend which is funded by big government (DEFRA ) and what do you know, the WWF.

How often are skeptics accused of being funded by “right wing think tanks” which are “fronts for big oil”?

Thus speaks the Kings of Hypocrisy who see nothing wrong with fronts being funded by taxpayer money and donations made supposedly to help polar bears.

Why were those with blatant aims to spend government money given the head seat at the table to direct the team who supposedly ought to be the ones putting those aims under scrutiny?

We can’t regulate for impartial fairness, just like we can’t regulate for “fair prices”. We need systemic protection and it goes right back to schools.

As long as we don’t teach every single science graduate what science is and how to reason, we leave science wide open to be exploited. As long as we don’t teach journalists the fallacies of logic and the history of tyrannies we can’t expect them to protect us against them.

See Bishop Hill or Harmless Sky for the full submission and all it’s gory details.

*Thanks to Bishop Hill for the correction – Richrd D North is not the same Richard North of the EU referendum site.

http://bit.ly/cF8Njb

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.3/10 (3 votes cast)
How the BBC became a propaganda arm of the UK government (and WWF), 4.3 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/23xlvco

75 comments to How the BBC became a propaganda arm of the UK government (and WWF)

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Definitely see the comments at Bishop Hill. Many folk have tried to engage with the BBC, but to no avail (head meet wall).

    See also http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ for more examples of BBC bias, particularly concerning climate change and Climategate.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    There is nothing like putting the fox in charge of the hen house …

    I hate the modern belief that everything must be done by consensus, and that therefore committees must be stacked with people who will only agree with each other.

    I saw the movie “Social Network” last evening – good movie, by the way – and one of the underlying themes was that Facebook was conceived and formed by a young guy getting hurt and angry, and wanting to get back at his (ex-) girlfriend.

    It was anger and disagreement that started a multibillion enterprise, not some consensus committee.

    p.s. I feel sorry for Richard North, being the token sceptic.

    00

  • #
    janama

    There’s a perfect example of our own in the SMH today.

    Ross Gittins broadcasting the biased views of Dr Frank Jotzo, director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University.

    Because we haven’t done much – and because Obama’s promise to continue working to achieve emissions reductions by other means received little attention – we happily assume other countries haven’t done much.

    Not true – especially not for China. It is actively pursuing the target it reported to Copenhagen. It has ordered the shutdown of inefficient and high-emitting coal-fired power stations and their replacement with high-efficiency coal-fired generators. It has imposed energy performance standards for emissions-intensive industries and vehicle emission standards, is offering various incentives for clean energy and is spending bucketloads on developing renewable energy.

    bucketloads!! – in July China called for tenders to build 13 solar power plants to produce 280 megaW of solar power!! Hardly bucketloads.

    Why don’t journalists do some investigation before they parrot what the warmists tell them.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/other-countries-are-doing-far-more-than-us-to-cut-emissions-20101116-17vr7.html

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    janama: The only reason that China is spending money on renewables is so that it has the technology to export to gullible western countries.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    janama: #3 & Phillip Bratby: #4

    Phillip is right.

    China has a 20 year plus strategic view.

    They have seen how the West has used its own domestic propaganda in the past to imply that Chinese products were inferior.

    They have also started to detect a trend for the West to imply, again through its own domestic propaganda, that China is rushing to use the very self-same dirty manufacturing processes that are now being denied to the West.

    As in most things, there is some truth in both propaganda campaigns, it is really just a matter of degree.

    The new coal-fired power plants (being commissioned at an astounding rate) are much cleaner than their predecessors because they are much more efficient. And because of that efficiency, they are considerably more cost effective.

    This is an unintended consequence of the European Green movement — the AGW scare has actually made China more competitive compared to the West, something that will flow on to affect European and American employment levels and with that, societal well-being.

    China is not so much “stealing jobs” from the West, as it is the Green-Mother Earth-Gaia movement economically throwing the jobs away.

    But global economic sophistication never was a Green strong-point. The rallying cry, “Think globally, but act locally”, does not make geopolitical sense.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    More about this GLOBAL WARMING HYPOCRITE “Dick Smith”….

    If warming is so dangerous, why is Dick Smith overhead?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_if_warming_is_so_dangerous_why_is_dick_smith_overhead/

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Australia has EXACTLY the same problem with the ABC!!!

    ABC CENSORSHIP…….

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

    ‘PM propaganda’ not ABC role…….

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pm-propaganda-not-abc-role-nick-minchin/story-e6frgczf-1225794871714

    The Australian Conservative » Blog Archive » Gatekeeping at the ABC: CRU emails insignificant says Jon Faine…….

    http://australianconservative.com/main-site/2009/11/cru-emails-insignificant-says-abcs-faine/#more-17464

    Climategate: ABC filters working beautifully…..

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_abc_filters_working_beautifully/

    ABC: alarmist business as usual…..

    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3578

    etc etc..

    One GOOD site which does try and keep an eye on their PROPAGANDA is:-

    ABC News Watch

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/

    00

  • #

    One error here – it was Richard D North, the journalist, who attended the seminar. This is not the same person as the host at EU Referendum.

    [Thanks! Fixed -- JN]

    00

  • #
    Leonard Jones

    In January 2010 I sent the following email to the BBC’s complaints department in the hope it would do some good. It did not:

    Climate Change Bias

    Sir,

    How much longer is the BBC going to continue to peddle the AGW case in
    such a ONE SIDED AND EXTREMELY BIASED way?

    Not only is the information flowing from the BBC with regard to this
    subject biased, it is very often WRONG to the point where it actually
    feels like the BBC are lying.

    Does the BBC have some sort of vested interest to keep this lie moving?
    Or are your masters (the government) putting you under pressure to
    enable them to tax and control the sleep walking public more easily.

    Please look at the scientific FACTS. Do not just publish what Al Gore
    and cronies refer to as a ‘consensus’ as if it were fact. Publish only
    scientific FACT and not opinion.

    Your thoughts on this subject will be gratefully received.

    Yours sincerely

    Leonard Jones

    The reply I got was heavy duty to say the least and was quite obviously designed to firstly deny my claim and secondly to confuse me with a plethora of junk that would take (me at least) a long time to sort my way through.

    Hopefully someone on this site can sort any facts out that may be true, should there be any?

    Here is the reply:

    Dear Mr Jones

    Thank you for your e-mail regarding BBC News and for your comments regarding our coverage of the issue of climate change and the so-called ‘Climategate e-mails scandal’.

    Your e-mail has been passed to us by the BBC Trust as it relates to matters which, in the first instance, are the responsibility of the BBC’s management. Under the BBC’s Royal Charter, the Trust has the distinct role of setting high-level strategic and editorial frameworks, but responsibility for day to day decisions within them rests with BBC management, so your correspondence has therefore been forwarded to us to respond on their behalf.

    I understand that you feel our coverage of the so-called ‘Climategate scandal’, and of the issue of climate change in general, has been biased.

    We are committed to impartial and balanced coverage when it comes to this issue. There is broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.

    Flagship BBC programmes such as ‘Newsnight’, ‘Today’ and our network news bulletins on BBC One have all included contributions from those who challenge the general scientific consensus and we will continue to offer time to such views on occasion.

    You might like to know that criticism that the BBC had underplayed the significance of the leaked e-mails in the ‘Climategate scandal’ was discussed during ‘NewsWatch’ on 4 December. Our Environment Correspondent, Richard Black, commented as follows:

    “In quantitative terms I’m not sure that we have underplayed it. I don’t think that stands up but there is another side to – certainly comments I’ve had in from the public – which talk about the way in which we’ve treated it and whether we’ve asked the kind of questions that…perhaps need to be asked.”

    “…there are different views about how enormous it really is. I mean there are many in the scientific community who say that it doesn’t actually alter the scientific picture one jot. To start with, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is just one of a number of institutions in the world that keep records of global temperatures. So even if all the CRU interpretations and analysis turned out to be wrong, that doesn’t invalidate all the other analyses. And they also point out the fact that the raw data is not something that’s gathered by CRU – it’s used by CRU and analysed by CRU but the raw data is still out there.”

    As far as we are aware, the BBC was the first mainstream news organisation to cover the story – the following article by Mark Kinver was published on the BBC News website just after 14:00 on Friday 20 November:

    ‘Hackers target leading climate research unit’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

    The morning after, our Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, did a piece for the website looking at the arguments sparked by the leak:

    ‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail arguments’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm

    Roger also covered the story for Radio 4 later that night.

    Martin Rosenbaum reported on the Freedom of Information aspects of the hack on Monday 23 November:

    ‘Hacked climate e-mails and FOI’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/11/hacked_climate_emails_and_foi.html

    ‘Today’ also covered the story on the Monday – the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson whose book ‘An Appeal to Reason’ is highly critical of the scientific consensus on climate change was on the programme, as was Professor Robert Watson – professor of environmental science at the University of East Anglia.

    Roger Harrabin reported on the leak and subsequent calls for a public inquiry into the science behind any deal made at the Copenhagen conference for Radio 4 news and the BBC World Service on Monday morning and again later that evening. Susan Watts’ piece led that night’s edition of ‘Newsnight’ and a live studio discussion with Professor Watson (UEA) and Professor Fred Singer from the University of Virginia followed.

    BBC North weather forecaster, Paul Hudson, blogged about it briefly that day and followed it up with a more detailed entry on 24 November:

    ”Climategate’ – CRU hacked into and its implications’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml

    ”Climategate’ – What next?’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-what-next.shtml

    Roger Harrabin covered the story further for the BBC News website on the Tuesday:

    ‘Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail impact’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8377465.stm

    The BBC News Channel ran the story the same evening – excerpts from some of the leaked e-mails were read out and Bob Ward from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics was live in the studio for his reaction.

    These are just some examples of where the story was covered within the initial few days of it breaking. It also received coverage on the BBC News Channel on 2, 3 and 5 December; the ‘BBC News at Ten’ on 2 and 3 December; the ‘BBC News at Six’ on 3 December and on both the ‘BBC News at One’ and ‘Breakfast’ on 4 December. All this as well as on-going public comment on Richard Black’s blog:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

    It has also been suggested that the claimed lack of coverage of this story is evidence that the BBC is biased against the dissident view in the climate change debate.

    This was rejected by the BBC’s Deputy Director of News, Steve Mitchell, during an interview for ‘NewsWatch’ on 4 December. When asked whether the BBC had taken a corporate decision to downplay the dissident view in the climate debate, he said:

    “I can categorically assure you there has not been any such decision and any such decision would be entirely at odds with the culture of the organisation. Our job is to pick our way through what is a highly complex scientific discussion and also to do so with a sense of proportion – making sure the full range of voices in these areas are represented.”

    The BBC’s Editorial Policy unit also issued the following statement, which was read out on the edition of ‘NewsWatch’ broadcast on 11 December:

    “Our job is to help audiences make sense of the issues and to report on where the centre of gravity lies in the debate. This is why, when we report on the variety of public opinion about global warming, we explain that the broad majority of climate change scientists say that the evidence is clear that human activity has contributed to global warming. The scientific background is not, of course, undisputed and we also feature sceptical voices. We aim to pick our way through what is a highly complex scientific discussion, making sure a range of voices is represented.”

    It is however important to note that on 18 June 2007 the BBC published a report on safeguarding its impartiality in the 21st century. It is the result of a project first commissioned by the BBC Board of Governors in conjunction with BBC management in November 2005 to identify the challenges and risks to impartiality. The report has been fully endorsed by the BBC Trust, the BBC Executive Board and the BBC Journalism Board.

    Below is an excerpt from the section of the report relating to coverage of the climate change debate:

    “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution.”

    The full report can be found on the BBC Trust website:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/other/century21.shtml

    Our view is that the BBC covered this story at length and that we did so in a fair and impartial manner. We will continue to report on the climate change debate in this way, allowing appropriate airtime to both those who support the broad scientific consensus on the causes of climate change and to those who reject it.

    I hope this information is helpful and would also like to assure you that we’ve registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback we compile daily for all programme makers, news teams, and senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content and ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

    Thanks again for taking the time to contact us with your views.

    Regards

    Stuart Webb
    BBC Complaints
    __________________________________________
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The way to convincing other people that something is true, is to firstly believe it yourself, and secondly actually behave as if you believe it.

    The green propaganda machine has got away with the most outrageous lies for years. But they were mainly targeted at socially, politically, and geographically isolated groups like farmers and fishermen.

    But now they have turned that propaganda on to the general public, and simply cannot work out why it is not working so well.
    Like a spoiled child who has found that tantrums work, the only thing they can think of is more of the same at an increasingly escalated level.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Wendy:
    Yep, ABC seems to be run by The Greens. First 3 items on the news Monday night were Green press releases or had final long winded comment from a Green senator.
    And apart from prince Willy getting engaged, main item this morning is Gillard claiming power costs will go up if we don’t have a carbon price. Power prices are going up already because of fear of a carbon price- why build power houses until you know what the cost will be.
    Ken

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    James D’s piece is also worth a read. The seminar with the 30 BBC attendees sounds like the BBC was convinced by these charlatans to do a little social engineering to save the world from itself. Pure hubris. Now its clear the world doesn’t need saving, but how do you back down from such?

    I really hope that Ms Gillard and Mr Combet can surface for air long enough to take a good look around, for if they don’t the federal ALP will do a NSW to themselves. Even Phil Coorey of the not-exactly-sceptical SMH called taxing carbon the Typhoid Mary policy. Do they have ears to hear or eyes to see?

    00

  • #
    janama

    Rereke Whaakaro:
    November 17th, 2010 at 6:29 am
    & Phillip Bratby: #4

    I’m aware China is making renewables to sell to the west. My point was that warmists parrot the statement that China is leading the world in renewables which it clearly isn’t.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Binny,

    I’ve worked out how to tell “Just Plain BS” from “Real BS”.

    “Just Plain BS” is someone trying to sell you a line which they don’t actually believe

    “Real BS” is when they actually believe the line they’re selling

    00

  • #
    LINDA

    Ministers in WA , when presented facts often agreed that the Climate Change and Global Warming was and is fabricated for a purpose,and the science was unprooven.
    Alas to this day we still see the movement of Humans in housing, and work controlled by Climate Change, under the scheme of SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. The unseen hand lies within the Local Councils ,on the constant seminars they attend, often refered to as GRAVY TRIPS.Many of the CEOs are facilitators of Sustainable Development, and play a huge part in who will be able to develop or purchase property , and what and where people will work.
    Stated a few weeks ago was a graph that showed 68% in the cost of land goes to Government taxes, no wonder they smother any form or difference in opinion of climate change.
    Developers in the communitees years ago had great pride and presentation in the legacy of the leafy suburban areas, as they lived in the community, now many of the small Australian developers have been overtaken by multi national companies , and they dont have to live or work in the eyesores they create under Sustainable Development, some of the houses are little better than the tin shacks my Granparents had.
    Approximatly 55,000 people are awaiting social housing in WA, over 200,000 nationally , what isnt mentioned are the businesses shutting down also. Funds that once went to health , education and poverty , are now directed to grass, frogs, bats and any critter but humans.
    MinisterS should be setting up a NATIONAL PEOPLES BANK and SECURE TENURE OF PROPERTY as a priority issue, as the first steps of protecting Australians.
    Ministers and Councillors lead by example, THOU SHALT NOT LIE, THOU SHALL NOT STEAL,our youth are in dire need of hope and direction,and it is to a high degree your examples they are putting into practise.
    Once again Jo Nova has done the research for media and Ministers, and thanks must also go to Senator Dennis Jenson as he has taken a huge step in announcing his private members bill.
    BBC and ABC ,what of all other media in Australia, are they all promoting the same agendas.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “LINDA” (14), you are so right!

    The following has been posted previously but is worth repeating……..

    ANOTHER CORRUPT UN ORGANIZATION INVOLVED IN THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD!!

    Gillard is not on her own in imposing climate change fraud on Australia.

    Here is a UN group that collects money from your local council and imposes Agenda 21 on your area without your vote or permission.

    They are called “International Council for Environmental Initiatives”.

    http://www.iclei.org

    They are unelected and not voted on but they take over all development in councils that agree.

    They represent the UN and their mission is to impose Sustainability on all regions of the world.

    That is what they think is sustainable, not what locals know is sustainable.

    Wonder how the Victorian bushfires were so bad? I bet these clowns were running the local council agendas.

    So Gillard thinks she is safe in imposing a destructive tax based on a scam on Australia because these socialists have been imposing the conditions since 1998.

    Here is the link to the contact page for this UN anti Australian treasonous group:-

    http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-contact-us

    ADD THEM TO YOUR “SPECIAL” EMAIL LIST!

    Link to AGENDA 21…..

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

    Read it and be very very afraid!

    List of members of this despicable “International Council for Environmental Initiatives”:-

    http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Please note the importance of the AGW scare to the BBC Pension Fund. That fund matters to BBC journalists who are conducting a series of strikes to oppose alterations to their pension scheme.

    Peter Dunscombe is head of BBC Pensions investment and is also Chairman of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).

    Dunscombe has invested a lot of the BBC pension fund in carbon trading schemes so it is not surprising that he has said, “The credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes.”

    Furthermore, the overall head of the BBC’s news and current affairs services is Helen Boaden who was appointed as a Trustee of the BBC Pension Fund in 2008. So, BBC environment reporters (e.g. Roger Harrabin and Richard Black) are answerable to a Trustee of the BBC Pension Fund. A Trustee has a fiducary duty to maximise the returns of the pension fund whose Head of Investment is Peter Dunscombe Peter Dunscombe who is also Chairman of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).

    Can Dunscombe Boaden not have a conflict of interest? And is it any wonder that BBC journalists answerable to Boaden broadcast AGW propoganda?

    Richard

    00

  • #
    DirkH

    Science itself has become a political and economical tool. It can therefore no longer be trusted without independent verification. The same goes for the state media; in Germany just like in the UK (the Deutsche Welle runs a brainwashing seminar each year for journalists to teach them how to report about what goes under the name of science today).

    The results of the state-sanctioned scientists will become ever more detached from reality, and the writings of the journalists in the pay of the state will become ever more irrelevant and crazy.

    The Enlightenment is over.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    BBC reporters have a very vested interest in this green scare…….

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bbc_reporters_have_a_very_vested_interest_in_this_green_scare/

    No doubt this would be Mirrored by Australia’s ABC!!

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “DirkH” (17), some other elevant articles regarding German Banks and the man made global warming FRAUD……..

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/deutsche-bank-really-want-us-to-trade-carbon/

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/deutsche-bank-a-wunch-of-bankers/

    00

  • #
    pat

    it’s time to be “hip” and “sexy” ….

    17 Nov:BBC: Rajesh Mirchandani: Cameron downplays climate deal at Schwarzenegger event
    Mr Cameron said: “We’re not going to get a global legally-binding deal at Cancun… eventually when you’ve got countries like Britain and maybe states in America that are leading the way on electric cars, on solar panels, on heat pumps… when other countries see the success of green growth and the green economy, even the laggards are going to say ‘hold on, I want a piece of this’.”…
    Mr Schwarzenegger said: “We should not just rely on policy… what is important is that we make the general public buy in on this whole idea of going green.
    “You’ve got to make it hip, you’ve got to make it sexy to be part of this movement.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11771754

    surely Rajesh reads the WSJ and knows how well arnold’s green revolution is doing to date?

    3 Nov: WSJ: Meredith Whitney: State Bailouts? They’ve Already Begun
    Bond subsidies and transfers have allowed states to avoid making tough decisions. It won’t last.
    What this panel and so many other investors fail to appreciate is that state bailouts have already begun. Over 20% of California’s debt issuance during 2009 and over 30% of its debt issuance in 2010 to date has been subsidized by the federal government in a program known as Build America Bonds. Under the program, the U.S. Treasury covers 35% of the interest paid by the bonds. Arguably, without this program the interest cost of bonds for some states would have reached prohibitive levels…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578203887408076.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    In Canada we have the same propaganda problem with the CBC.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Certainly didn’t help with all those science magazine “peer-review” print anything with AGW no matter how corrupted the science.

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    Rereke @ 5

    China is not so much “stealing jobs” from the West, as it is the Green-Mother Earth-Gaia movement economically throwing the jobs away.

    Rereke that was superb! so true…..Do you think the Movement cares?

    00

  • #
    pat

    another candidate for the hypocrites wall of shame:

    16 Nov: Wall St Journal blog: Joseph B. White: Bloomberg Calls for Carbon Tax
    New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told a group of chief executives that he’s in favor of a carbon tax — a view not shared by many political leaders of either party in Washington.
    Mr. Bloomberg, speaking to the Wall Street Journal CEO Council, said the U.S. needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil if “you want to stop sending your money to … terrorists.”
    The answer, he said: “We need a carbon tax.”…
    http://blogs.wsj.com/ceo-council/2010/11/16/bloomberg-calls-for-carbon-tax/

    16 Nov: AP: SARA KUGLER FRAZIER: NYC mayor’s ’09 tax forms show more offshore money
    Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s money managers invested more than $75 million of his money in offshore tax havens in 2009, according to his philanthropic foundation’s latest tax forms, continuing an activity seemingly at odds with his public statements about the economy.
    The practice is not uncommon or illegal, but it clashes with Bloomberg’s oft-repeated message that New York City and the nation depend on tax revenue to keep government running…
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101116/ap_on_bi_ge/us_nyc_mayor_investments

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Another Ian @ 15

    I’ve worked out how to tell “Just Plain BS” from “Real BS”.

    “Just Plain BS” is someone trying to sell you a line which they don’t actually believe

    “Real BS” is when they actually believe the line they’re selling

    In the teachings of Wes I have learned much. In light of that, what can possibly be the difference from the bull’s perspective?

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Janama @12,
    I agree that China is simply snowing the idiots in the west who are flogging the great lie. I have never met a Chinese who was not wise and very pragmatic. If we want to be stupid they will certainly help out where they can.

    To all the wise on this blog ; we also need a simple, verifiable and absolutely rock hard statement that we can use to make the case for a carbon tax, look ridiculous.

    I have heard various statements about the amount of temperature reduction or prevention that we can expect from closing down the worlds coal fired power stations. One estimate is one tenth of a degree Celsius. Is this right? If it is it makes for a short snappy answer to all these calls for a carbon price. Our contribution at one thousanths of a degree is hardly worth spending anything on. If the world cools as it appears to be doing then the argument for a tax/price is even less believable.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Colin #23

    What about CTV or Global? They did just as much damage. How about our good buddy David(We’re Killing the Planet) Suzuki?

    00

  • #

    OK, so the BBC has a problem. My view is that the ABC in Australia has read the BBC handbook and is equally at fault. It seems that there is no mechanism for addressing/correcting the blatant bias and scientific garbage that is constantly sent forth by the ABC.

    How can we address the Australian problem? Sell the ABC?

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    I am concerned that some among the sceptic set are starting to claim victory. As an old army man I know that victory is when the enemy is laying at your feet, preferably stiff as a board. The AGW crowd are not dead, they are not laying down and indeed they seem to have got a second wind. Reading comments in various papers and on-line journals the warmers and their tame journalists are baying for action and surprisingly a lot of pollies are listening. Malcolm Turnbull is quoted in the SMH as still pursuing carbon abatement as he is concerned about ocean acidification. Idiot or does he still see dollars in carbon?

    Thanks to Jo and others for keeping the fight going. We need “Climategate MkII” before Cancun to really stir the possum.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Another Ian – You said:

    I’ve worked out how to tell “Just Plain BS” from “Real BS”.

    “Just Plain BS” is someone trying to sell you a line which they don’t actually believe

    “Real BS” is when they actually believe the line they’re selling

    Real BS probably needs to be called “Seinfeld BS” or “Costanza BS” after the line in the show:

    George Costanza: Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.

    Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098904/quotes

    00

  • #
    Pete Hayes

    Remember Harrabin a few months back trying to cuddle up to the skeptics? I seem to remember over at WUWT that he got run off very quickly.

    As a matter of interest Jo, Has anyone checked into where ABC have the pension investments?

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Lawrie” (33), Read this…..

    I Love CO2: Here comes the “ocean acidification” scam, watch out!

    http://www.iloveco2.org/2009/04/here-comes-ocean-acidification-scam.html

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I think the ABC was trying to do a balanced piece here… maybe i am being a tad charitable:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/17/3069111.htm?site=thedrum

    My thoughts, as posted there:

    “The reason the pollies struggle so much with the issue is that contrary to popular chants the science is far from settled. The trivial elements of the science are well understood and agreed upon, such as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, CO2 causes some heating of the atmosphere etc, BUT the critical question of feedback loops is very much debated and unsettled. Without that key element the IPCC models are useless and catastrophic global warming does not eventuate.

    So we find ourselves straying into other fields of study. Julia did herself no favours by straying into economics as it appears this is a field of study Labor and the Greens are blissfully ignorant of. Yes I know… sentence ending in a preposition…

    Explain to me as an economist… maybe I am a tad slow… why is it that the lack of a tax (read “carbon price”) is going to increase energy prices? No, really… I want to know because I will have to mark up all my old textbooks on the subject of microeceonomics. Clearly the science of economics has moved on from my day… For the record here is is again:

    “Greg Combet explained that electricity prices were going up in part because we don’t have a carbon price.”

    Ignorance does not begin to describe this statement. Perhaps what he meant to say is this:

    “Electricity prices are going up in part in anticipation of a carbon price.”

    Now that line would make sense in economics… but might be a tad suicidial in politics. When the pollies are shovelling manure into our brains it is time to call them out. It is the ABC’s role to do exactly that.

    To reiterate, the only uncertainty and that which might be contributing to a rise in energy costs, is uncertainty about whether there will be a price on carbon or not. Without the promise or suggestion thereof, only natural market forces and government regulation would be impacting energy prices.”

    00

  • #
    Tim

    James Delingpole is one of the few examples of true investigative reporters that have invested their time, energy and intelligence to unearth what is really transpiring with this massive fraud. Here he uncovers the BBC’s involvement in spreading Government AGW propaganda.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100063937/why-the-bbc-cannot-be-trusted-on-climate-change-the-full-story/

    Anyone who does the same investigating into Australia’s ABC will find they’re also in the same global lockstep.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    I agree with Lawrie (33), it will be a long battle.

    The CAGW phenomenon has been likened to the many-headed Hydra.

    A blogger (maybe here) likened it to a brown snake — it’s not dead until it’s unrecognizable (disclaimer: snakes are a protected species).

    It’ll be hard to kill, there are far too many vested interests.

    CAGW pushers range from those whose career and livelihood quite directly depends on its full acceptance through to politicians and bureaucrats who see it as an instrument of power and revenue to opportunists who see a quick profit to be made to ‘…the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue….their psychic welfare is at stake…”.

    00

  • #
    UK Sceptic

    I made a formal complaint to the BBC about a blatant piece of AGW bias in a so called “scientific” series of climate change documentaries. I was referred to the contents of IPCC AR4 which apparently cannot be criticised, although I went to some lengths to do just that. Head. Brick wall. Sense of chronic waste of effort.

    There is no opening of an unbiased dialogue with the BBC but that could have something to do with the BBC pension fund apparently being dependent upon how well shares in green technology perform. A rather squalid and self centred case of follow the money and to hell with the thousands of UK pensioners who are going to die of hypothermia and cold related illnesses because they can’t afford to heat their homes this winter. Grossly inflated fuel bills designed to fund the great green agenda CO2 rip off will kill people and all we get in mitigation is the pathetic think of the cheeeeeldren syndrome. Not only are we funding useless wind turbines but we are now paying farmers up to £50k a year to bury valuable arable land in solar panels – in a country that sees bugger all sun!

    Good luck to Montford and Newbery, they’ll need it.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off Thread:

    Oxfam helping anyone with a cause, to put their hand in our pockets.

    Oxfam’s fantasy ‘climate court’ is both prescient and practical

    Over a thousand legal experts, politicians and economists gathered in Dhaka this week to explore routes to justice for the victims of climate criminals – and found that precedents exist

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/nov/12/dhaka-climate-court-criminals

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Janama: #14

    Point taken. I had no desire or intent to gainsay what you reported in your comment.

    My sincere apologies.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bob Malloy:

    I am both amused and disgusted by the Oxfam conference in Dhaka which i to be held to discuss methods to criminalise climate realists.

    People give to Oxfam so their donated money can be used to aid poor peoples. But Oxfam is using some of those monies to conduct this Conference in Dhaka.

    Those going to Dhaka to attend the conference are going for self-gratification and are misusing money that was donated to Oxfam for expenditure on benefitting the poor.

    They are are worse than those who got to Indonesia to partake in sexual abuse of children because there are only two differences between the groups: i.e.

    1. The child-abusers going to Indonesia harm the children they confront while those going to the Dhaka conference attenders harm the children whom Oxfam’s misused funds were donated to help.

    2. Those going to Indonesia conduct their vile activity at their own financial cost but those going to the Dhaka conference take their costs of attendance from their victims.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Richard S Courtney: #18

    Richard, you beauty, thanks for that.

    Er, you don’t happen to have a reference or references you could share, do you?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Lawrie: #30

    … we also need a simple, verifiable and absolutely rock hard statement that we can use to make the case for a carbon tax, look ridiculous.

    Look them in the eye, place your right hand over your heart and say, “I would be honoured to pay a carbon tax if I knew that the money was going to be invested in new light-water Nuclear power plants to protect the future energy needs of my children and grandchildren”.

    There, that should do it.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Oxfam” HAS NOW BEEN BLACKLISTED BY OUR FAMILY.

    Thanks “Bob Malloy” (41).

    I suggest that others pass around this information that Bob posted.

    EVIL is a far too kind of word to describe these characters!!!

    00

  • #
    Alexander Davidson

    Here’s a post just accepted for BBC environment correspondent Richard Black’s blog:

    Last February I set out to establish what was wrong with climate science. As it’s 40 years since my PhD and I worked 30 years on technologies to prepare for CAGW, I’m well qualified.

    There’s a fundamental error from 1974 when to predict cloud albedo, Lacis and Hansen at GISS modified a general equation for the optical physics of aerosols from Sagan. The formulation apparently used directly or indirectly in all the climate models, assumes constant ‘Mie asymmetry factor’, impossible because Mie derived it for a plane wave, only true when the wave first enters the cloud. It also ignores substantial direct backscattering at the upper cloud surface: a shielding effect.

    In AR4, a statistically-insignificant median 0.4 W/m^2 bare CO2 signal is bumped up to 1.6 W/m^2 by ‘global dimming’ yet the 0.7 W/m^2 ‘cloud albedo correction’ is imaginary. Because you have to change the models, the IPCC’s predictions of CO2-AGW are at least a factor of 3 too high.

    Furthermore, because the shielding is reduced by aerosol pollution, instead of ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, it’s heating, another form of AGW and self-limiting. That’s a game changer. True AGW may well be mostly from this effect and it could explain why according to ocean heat capacity, global warming stopped in 2003 and Trenberth has since been fretting over the ‘missing 0.7 W/m^2′.

    As for CO2-AGW, radiosonde data show reduction of upper troposphere humidity. Because the fall in the IR absorption by water vapour counters the increase due to CO2, the net effect has been low. Miskolczi predicts constant IR optical depth for a water planet independent of [CO2].

    After experiment couldn’t prove ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, about 2003, NASA websites claim polluted clouds ‘reflect up to 90% of incoming light’ because of enhanced ‘reflection’ from greater water surface area in polluted clouds. That’s fake physics.

    To conclude, the IPCC’s claims of high CO2-AGW in AR4 are baseless. Real AGW may have been an increase in light transmission by polluted clouds, possibly from Asian globalisation ['Asian Brown Cloud']. It may now have switched off. AR4 included data known to be wrong. Time for an inquiry.

    00

  • #
    Pointman

    As part of its Cancun Week, today’s piece at http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/ is the second part of the Low Carbon Plot Chinese translation.

    http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/standing-before-america-the-great-enemy-why-is-china-so-nervous/

    Pointman

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Lawrie #33

    Re the ABC: I wouldn’t have said so ten years ago but now I definitely would support the ABC being sold as it’s just a sheltered workshop for Marxist activism.

    Malcolm Turnbull is looking out for his old mates at Goldman Sachs as is Joe Hockey with his missus in her job at Deutscher Bank. The pickings are getting slimmer in other locales so the financial vultures are determined to make the best of what is left wherever it’s left.

    Did you read the McKittrick rebuttal of Deutscher Bank’s ridiculous foray into “climate science”?

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Alexander@ 47; a very interesting post; AGW wheels out global dimming as the excuse for all the predicted but failed manifestations of climate sensitivity warming; if in fact instead of a cooling effect aerosols have a warming effect, as you say that is a game changer.

    There are some papers which have looked at this:

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/879/2009/acp-9-879-2009.html

    But the ‘official’ position about aerosols is confused to say the least:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols_prt.htm

    00

  • #
    Messenger

    @Tim: James Delingpole of the Daily Telgrpah blog is great, but the topic in his post was researched and written by Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) and Tony Newbery (Harmless Sky.
    Credit where it’s due and all that…

    00

  • #
    george

    For those who may not be aware of this – from the Oxfam website;

    “To secure a safe climate future and protect the lives of millions of vulnerable people around the world, wealthy developed nations must:
    Set strong binding emission reduction targets of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.”

    Exactly as stated on the Australian Greens website. And strangely enough have seen this mantra elsewhere…more than once…

    00

  • #
    Alexander Davidson

    Thanks for your comments, cohenite. Not only is it a game changer for CO2-AGW, it also means Sagan was probably wrong about Venus. I can understand how the activists were driven by his fears of thermal runaway on Earth but by about 2004, I think warmist central knew they had lost the science so set out to deceive. Most climate scientists appear to have swallowed the incorrect ‘reflection’ idea but realised something was wrong but didn’t know what.

    My [unpublished] ideas are apparently being analysed in depth by a number of insiders. I intend to publish but I did not want to fall into the trap of being delayed 14 months before being rejected on spurious grounds by an activist reviewer. As I don’t have a career to establish, I don’t mind.

    This looks like it has been the biggest scientific deception since Piltdown Man.

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Piers Corbyn, Bill Hutto. Bill Hutto said: JoNova: How the BBC became a propaganda arm of the UK government (and WWF) http://bit.ly/cF8Njb #climatechange #globalwarming [...]

    00

  • #
    John Campbell

    It’s Goebels Redux! Joseph Goebbels (of Third Reich fame) invented the Big Lie. The idea was that when announced by a government people believed it – because they just couldn’t believe that their government would tell such a big lie. Of course the BBC shares the same groupthink as the UK and EU parliaments about AGW.

    00

  • #
    Charles Sainte Claire

    To John Campbell

    “It’s Goebels Redux! Joseph Goebbels (of Third Reich fame) invented the Big Lie.”

    Yes indeed. A lie so enormous people would believe it because something so incredible that it could easily be proved false if untrue. And besides, the Government said so.

    If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

    00

  • #
  • #
    cohenite

    Alexander@53; keep us informed.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    Interesting article about the ABC here.

    But what about the ABC’s preference deal with the Greens?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/but_what_about_the_abcs_preference_deal_with_the_greens/

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Rereke Whaakaro @45.
    If AGW had been ignored and the wasted money applied to research into the energy source to follow fossil fuels I feel a much better environmental outcome would have been achieved. We would not be erecting ineffective wind turbines and solar panels as they would have been found to be wasteful. We would not be cutting down vast forests to grow palm oil nor diverting protein to feed bio fuel plants depriving the hungry. We would be working to gradually replace coal with nuclear for power generation. Electrification of rail to save liquid petroleum and to reduce interstate road haulage. There are so many things we could have done. The Green movement however isn’t really interested in the environment but in control; and carbon taxes are a means to that end.

    Mark @ 49,
    Westpac is another bank moving down the green valley. I’ve informed them I don’t want my dividends wasted on wind etc. After reading Bishop Hill I am convinced that the BBC sent all their material to our ABC. The methodology of both is remarkably similar. The journalists are equally biased and in most cases positively hostile to anyone from the right particularly if they are sceptics. The ABC has even told the government that it can be a valuable tool for government messages. A pox on them all. It no longer provides balance in any way and merely plays to the left meaning that the rest of us are not gaining any value for our taxes. Let the left buy the ABC and the rest of us will save a few dollars.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    As long as we don’t teach every single science graduate what science is and how to reason, we leave science wide open to be exploited. As long as we don’t teach journalists the fallacies of logic and the history of tyrannies we can’t expect them to protect us against them.

    I could hope for that small change in your last paragraph Jo. It would be really useful if every last college grad had the wherewithal to recognize what’s science and what’s not. Our world today is too dependent on science for people to be ignorant of the basic tenets of the scientific method, logical fallacies and unable to tell when they should ask embarrassing questions of their government.

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    If you want to know why the MSM won’t cover sceptics, its because of their governments cosy relationship with the Club of Rome.
    Anyone who wants to understand this scare needs to look at the Club of Rome and their links with prominent environment advocates such as Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Richard Sandor (Founder of Chicago Climate Exchange or CCX to those who didn’t know).
    http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=122
    Even European royals are in bed with the Club of Rome.
    http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/people/honorary_members3.asp
    President Obama is brainwashing children with environmental indoctrination.
    http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-alert%c2%a0obamas-250-million-plan-to-brainwash-your-children/

    [Mr. Smith, you need to know this is not a conspiracy blog. Tone the comments down please] ED

    00

  • #
    Mark

    A trading block (ie the EU) is only as strong as the weakest country’s economy.

    Read here

    00

  • #
    John Paolozzi

    Basically what they’re saying is that they’re going to simply stop engaging with people like yourself. Fair enough. No amount of evidence short of waves lapping at your door would convince you regardless, so for the most part it’s time to move on.

    Climate change is real. It’s happening right now. It is an indisputable fact that the Arctic is melting, hence the increased militarization of the area as northern nations realize that the Northwest passage is opening up to shipping traffic and resource interests. It’s a fact that southern species are migrating north as the climate warms, take the pine beetle that is currently ravaging Canadian forests, and the increasing incidents of the west nile virus (also invading Canada). Take the melting of the permafrost that is crippling northern community infrastructures. All of these are not theories, but facts. And the reason this is happening is because the planet is getting warmer, and the most likely reason for this is the injection of billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere that had previously been trapped in rock.

    In short, the dummies will no longer be humored as they cling to the talking points injected into the dialogue by well-funded “think tanks”, bent on muddying the waters so that business can continue to go on without taking responsibility for their activities.

    I don’t deny that there should be debate on how to proceed. I advocate nuclear power as part of the solution, but right now we’re left debating whether the planet is even heating up, and that’s just plain goofy. Let’s be done with it. Cut the conspiracy theorists loose and save their sorry asses with our own whether they like it or not.

    00

  • #
    Alexander Davidson

    John Paolozzzi: ‘It is an indisputable fact that the Arctic is melting’

    “the arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the arctic zone. expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”
    —US Weather Bureau, 1922

    According to ocean heat content, global warming stopped in 2003: NODC which runs the ARGO buoy system is refusing to release data: wonder why, is it because they show cooling?

    00

  • #
    John Paolozzi

    @Alexander

    I have this funny feeling that we know a little bit more about how things work in the year 2010 than we did a century ago. For example… we have nearly 100 years more of data since that was written. When this report was written, very little was known about the far Arctic. The first expedition had only reached the Pole 13 years earlier, and the first flight over the pole wouldn’t take place for another 4 years. Compare this to the fact that we now have decades of satellite data, and computer modeling.

    Watch this video from science journalist Peter Hadfield who painstakingly debunks the various “earth is cooling” myths floating around:

    http://www.boingboing.net/2010/11/04/where-climate-myths.html

    00

  • #
    Alexander Davidson

    Trenberth keeps on fretting about the missing 0.7 W/m^2 from the absence of ocean heat content, the only real measure of global warming.

    I prefer hard data to poor science apparently aimed at force fitting the high net CO2-AGW hypothesis.

    As a real, old-skool scientist trained by FRSs and Nobel prize winners in the 1960s, I also hate scientists fiddling data.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    It is probably a bit late for this blog, but has anybody else out there noticed how even the ABC’s Country Hour has become openly pro-AGW?

    Even the farmers are copping the propaganda storm.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    John Paolozzi @66,

    “the arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the arctic zone. expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.”
    —US Weather Bureau, 1922

    I would say that direct observation trumps your models. In fact it shreds them. It also calls into doubt the debunking of various Earth is cooling myths measurements.

    Like Alexander Davidson I very much dislike anyone fiddling the data.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    John Paolozzi #64

    Sir, you may wish to look at some data. Really look. I assure you having spent 30 years of my life in science, and interpreting data, that there is very little CO2 mediated warming going on. 2XCO2 appears to be converging at about 0.6 C by several different empirical methods of calculation – this is lower than theory, but that is no shock to me as I’ve spent much time comparing the real world to book thermodynamics, and the real world wins every time. Denying the significant variables such as solar output, multiyear climactic cycles, UHI and particulates is just as dishonest as you seem to think sceptics are. And have you really looked at sea ice? All sea ice? Nice death spiral isn’t it.

    right now we’re left debating whether the planet is even heating up, and that’s just plain goofy

    In a few years you may also wish to rephrase your words when the solar minimum really hits its straps. The data is quite clear – 13.5 years SC23 length is worth 1.5 to 2 degrees of cooling druing SC24, give or take a bit. There has been no significant exception to the relationship since data collection started around the time of the Maunder minimum. Sceptics do not cause F10.7 to remain in the basement, they just try to look at data without ideological baggage.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    Messenger@51 With a huge cast of paid consensus mercenaries being the major alternative, brave little Bishop Hill and Harmless Sky are ok by me.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    It is an indisputable fact that the Arctic is melting, hence the increased militarization of the area as northern nations realize that the Northwest passage is opening up to shipping traffic and resource interests.

    Name one commercial shipping voyage through the Northwest passage.

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Tim: @ #71
    November 19th, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    “consensus mercenaries”

    I like it. There should be a word for that .

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Rereke Whaakaro:

    Re #44, I am sorry that I have not replied until now.

    Please see and follow the links from

    http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Stefan

    John Paolozzi, the climate has always been changing, sometimes slower, and sometimes faster than now. But that is not the big issue. The big issue is that we have always had the problem of how to live with nature. Go back 200 years, or 1000, or 2000, or 10,000, or even 50,000 years, and you see the human animal having different ways of trying to live in nature. We have industrialisation to make machines to make life easier. Before we had religion which taught people to have faith that life would be easier after death. Before that we had tribal conquests, where as the resources of land and animals grew scarce, one tribe would solve this by committing genocide against another tribe. Before agriculture we could only use what we found. With agriculture we could start to get more from the land, so much that we could live off the land in large villages, fortified, they became the first cities, with walls, and a new concept: personal privacy for the family. And yet even back then, some think, we had already started influencing the climate. I think it was a colleague of Dr Mann who wrote a book about having detected man’s signature on the climate with the start of agriculture, 12,000 years ago. So we have always had an impact on the environment, and we always will. Even if we use 100% green energy, there’s still the materials to build those, and replace those, and maintain those. The way we get things done in the modern world is with big industry and big corporations — so now big companies build wind farms using resources and costing billions, and off shore with massive shipping and engineering facilities. There’s 7 billion on the planet. Before agriculture was invented, which had an impact on the climate, world population was less than 5 million hunter gatherers. So the issue is much much bigger. There seems to be this notion that we can exist without harming anything, without killing anything, without crowding out other species, and without consequences. Yet I see nobody, absolutely nobody, giving up modern life, pre-industrial life, and returning to a very simple existence. There is this view that technology can’t solve the problem because, by making more food and energy available cheaply, population will continue to climb. By definition green energy should be inefficient and produce only a small amount of energy, otherwise you’re just making it easier for people to increase consumption even further. It is a dilemma. Climate change is an issue that a percentage of the people care about as they become globally aware. But it is only the tip of the iceberg. Our very relationship to life is in question. I don’t see many greens talking about this, if any, which is disappointing.

    00