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

Lord Lawson Banned on BBC (only government approved spokesmen allowed to discuss science)

The evidence for man-made climate change is now so overwhelming and convincing that the BBC has written to a Green politician to apologize for airing alternate views (the dumb punters might get the wrong idea, eh?). The head of the BBC complaints unit told the Green politician it would not happen again.

Well obviously, it doesn’t help the United Kingdom to allow riff raff like the former Chancellor of the Exchequer to present his views — unless he agrees with the doctrine, of course. How could anyone expect listeners who are merely doctors, lawyers, teachers, and businesspeople to be able to understand a debate this complex?  (Only certified government approved scientists, and BBC journalists have the mental ability to understand the nuances of an argument which uses large numbers, like 97%). Henceforth, British voters must be shielded from alternate views. Repeat after me: there is a consensus.

The nub of the matter is that the Lord Lawson says he’s banned on the BBC. The BBC, of course, says he’s not. But there is this odd official decision: “The ruling found a false balance was created in that the item implied Lord Lawson’s views on climate science were on the same footing as Sir Brian Hoskins.” And there is that training for 200 senior managers on how to not insert “false balance” into stories. In other words — it doesn’t matter how logical or well informed you are, if you speak against the approved line of thought, the BBC must make sure the audience knows your views are less worthy. (For BBC audiences, I presume the new policy will be hard to tell  from the old one).

The Lawson-v-BBC story is that once-upon-a-time he was invited to speak on the Today program quite often, but since he became an outspoken and influential skeptic, there was only one invitation in February 2014, and that might be all there ever will be. Lawson founded the hugely successful GWPF in 2009, and wrote a best seller on the topic of climate change, but wasn’t asked to talk on the BBC flagship radio program until February this year. It was a civil debate with the scientist Sir Brian Hoskins– chairman of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change.  (Transcript here.) At least that’s how it seemed at the time. But for weeks afterwards the complaints raged:

Following the programme, on February 13, all hell broke loose.

The BBC was overwhelmed by a well-organised deluge of complaints — many of them, inevitably, from those with a commercial interest in renewable energy, as well as from the Green Party — arguing that, since I was not myself a scientist, I should never have been allowed to appear. 

Ceri Thomas, head of programmes for BBC News, pointed out that, after six weeks of flooding, ‘this was the first interview on Today with a climate change “sceptic” ’, and that as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was well qualified to discuss the most cost-effective policy response to the flooding.

But the orchestrated complaints continued and it now seems, from widespread leaked reports which the BBC has nowhere denied, that poor Mr Thomas has been over-ruled.

The head of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, a Mr Fraser Steel, whose qualifications for the job are unclear and whose knowledge of the complex climate change issue is virtually non-existent, has written to a little-known but active Green Party politician called Chit Chong to apologise for the fact I was allowed to appear on the programme and to make clear this will not happen again. 

Among the reasons given in Mr Steel’s letter for upholding Mr Chong’s complaint and over-ruling the BBC’s head of news programmes is the mind-boggling statement that: ‘As you have pointed out, Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling.’ 

The former Conservative chancellor said the BBC was “overwhelmed by a well-organised deluge of complaints” following that programme because he was not a scientist.

The complaints, including one from Chit Chong, a low-energy expert, were upheld by the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit.

Lord Lawson wrote that Fraser Steel, head of the unit, apologised to Mr Chong “for the fact I was allowed to appear on the programme and to make clear this will not happen again”.

Lord Lawson added: “However useful computer models may be, the one thing they cannot be is evidence. Computer climate models are simply conjectures.

“The fact is that, on this issue, the BBC has its own party line (indistinguishable form that of the Green Party) which it imposes with quasi-Stalinist thoroughness.”

The BBC Trust issued a progress report earlier in July saying the corporation should not give equal air time to climate change sceptics.

It was also revealed that BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air “marginal views”.

The spokesman said: “Nigel Lawson has not been banned and nor is there a ban on non-scientists discussing climate change. The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage, whatever the subject, and would not bow to pressure from any quarter whatever the story.

“This ruling found a false balance was created in that the item implied Lord Lawson’s views on climate science were on the same footing as those of Sir Brian Hoskins.

Read more: Telegraph

Public funded television inevitably becomes a mouthpiece for public funding. Could it be any other way?
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (100 votes cast)
Lord Lawson Banned on BBC (only government approved spokesmen allowed to discuss science), 9.6 out of 10 based on 100 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ohfzgl3

141 comments to Lord Lawson Banned on BBC (only government approved spokesmen allowed to discuss science)

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Lord Blaby is in good company. In the 1930′s the well-known appeasement denier, Sir Winston Churchill, was banned from broadcasting his views on German rearmament by the spiritual forebears of the present management. You have to admit that al jabeeba is consistent.

    910

    • #
      Peter Miller

      I never knew that, so I have just been reading up on it. The comparison with the situation today is uncanny.

      In the early 1930s, the BBC practiced extensive censorship because they did not want to upset the appeasers, now they do not want to upset the greenies.

      ‘Despicable’ is just not a strong enough word for those smug ……………

      700

    • #
      Leigh

      In Australia we have a few politicians that are willing to speak out.
      They won’t be silenced.
      One such politician is nationals mp.George Christensen.
      His latest efforts has all the global/warmists in the parliment ducking for cover.
      He spares no one.
      I’ve linked it further down but I reckon it deserves a mention higher up the page.
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/233126123/140701-GC-SP-Climate-Change-Conference-Slides
      What did suprise me was who published it.

      361

      • #
        Leigh

        Oops. I should have mentioned I picked up the link over at Bolt.

        71

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        A brilliant read, thanks for that Leigh.

        50

      • #
        scaper...

        I’ve met George a few times, reminds me of a younger version of Tom Boswell. A no nonsense straight shooter.

        The carbon tax could be repealed in hours. It has been a long battle and after its gone expect more sceptics in the government to come out.

        Got to get the politics right so the science can follow.

        101

    • #
      gesta non verba

      History just doing what it always has,which is to repeat itself.I won’t mention the NAZIS because that will only have Godwin turn up but the world is now on the cusp of turning to Totalitarianism,there is a pervading darkness spreading and it isn’t Islam(Islam is just a symptom of it) but what we have is a general hatefulness spreading across all nation climes and people.There can only be one outcome for this another terrible world war.

      200

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      What is the word they use for “giving comfort and support of the enemy”? Um…it escapes me….

      70

  • #

    We are getting closer to the puppet masters. They know and fear it. Hence, by not discussing it, they hope it won’t exist. By naming it for what it isn’t, they hope to change it to what it isn’t. Hope is all they have. That is except for the wealth they depend upon taken by force of government gun from their intended victims.

    Interestingly, some of us have know this all along. Others are waking up to it. Still others are self blinded by the fact they presume if they don’t think bad things or talk bad things, bad things won’t happen. Yet, bad things happen. They happen mostly because too many do not want to admit that they can happen. People can and do refuse to do anything about it or even prepare for it. Worse, they demand that others make the same refusal.

    It is not a conspiracy. It is simply the almost infinite ability of man to refuse to think and to evade what he knows to be true. What you refuse to know can kill you. Mountains of dead bodies and vast areas of destruction have been made possible by that evasion. See the 20th Century for instructive detail.

    This dark future is not inevitable. As long as we are alive, we can always choose to build a different path. Will we? The coin is spinning and we will soon have an answer. The answer won’t be 42.

    620

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Excellent comment Lionell.

      Having worked in Whitehall (as a much younger man), I have a passable understanding of how, “The Whitehall System,” works. Most of my Masters were permanently petrified of being held accountable for any “error of judgement,” being made by anyone to whom they had even the remotest connection.

      Future Knighthoods could be at stake, or even worse, one could be black-balled at The Club.

      Lobbyists know this, so one of my primary roles, was to keep said lobbyists away from anybody who habitually wore an Eaton, Harrow, or Regimental tie.

      If anybody wants to really understand the actions of the BBC, and other organs of the British establishment, one only has to map who went to school, with whom, and whether they subsequently went up to Oxford or Cambridge or Sandhurst.

      341

  • #
    Mary Brown

    Until the 1990s, the left wing completely dominated USA airwaves. Rupert Murdoch and talk radio found this to be a great free market opportunity. The right wing response was immediately successful because it was a vastly under-served market.

    Unfortunately the media in the USA is now wildly divided across polarized political lines and I suspect this has polarized our electorate as well. As an independent thinker and voter, I now feel that I am under-represented. You get the left wing view and the right wing view. People choose sides on global warming even though they know nothing about the science and have never even heard or read an informed debate. They just follow their party and their TV station like lemmings.

    I’m not sure what the solution is. I suppose just work to keep the First Amendment strong and defend the rights of people to air their opinions…no matter how stupid.

    280

    • #
      jimbrock

      Mary: Get access to the IPCC report…the whole thing, not just the summary sections. Read it carefully. If there are concepts, arguments or data that you do not understand, find some resources to access. When you finish this, compare the summary in AR5 to the scientific part. Good luck, future skeptic.

      120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Mary,

      You’ve started by realizing what the problem is. Keep educating yourself and you’ll get there. Don’t give up and don’t let anyone become your expert, your guru. Instead compare what all sides have to say about things like climate change and soon the flaws will stand out. It will get easier as you go. And if you find you’ve made a mistake the beauty of thinking for yourself is that you can change your mind.

      That’s the process many of us have been through.

      180

    • #
      gesta non verba

      The LEFT – RIGHT divide,one of the most wrongly used terms in the lexicon.If we are to take what the Universities and media teach us then we have at one extreme total govt and at the other extreme total govt which would put anarchy in the middle,but this isn’t how it really works,on the extreme LEFT we have total govt and on the extreme RIGHT we have no govt.
      The other mis-used term/s are conservatism , free market and capitalism,these are not the same nor are they even close.
      Corporate Capitalism(CC) = the corporate controls capital but not labour.
      State Capitalism(SC) = the state controls both capital and labour.
      The problem in the West is that the CC controls the govts and thus controls labour.
      This is why CC and SC are so closely joined,China is a prime example.
      So what of Free Market,he is spurned by both CC and SC.
      True conservatives believe in Free Market,whereas Neo-Cons preach the CC/SC..
      So when people tell you that Murdoch or Geo Bush jnr are conservatives the answer is nah,they are of the lupine variety wearing sheep skin jackets.It’s what they do not what they say – gesta non verba(deeds not words)

      60

  • #

    And to think that I once respected and trusted the BBC. Goodness, how gullible I was. :(

    380

    • #

      You were far from alone but you learned. THAT is the important part.

      Error is part of the human territory. Learning that it is error and discovering its correction is the challenge. Some do and some don’t meet the challenge.

      370

    • #
      DT

      I once trusted and respected the ABC despite having some doubts at times related to their political and current affairs broadcasting, but one day I was present when a cabinet minister was interviewed in an outdoors setting and several times the ABC presenter stopped and asked if he could return to questions he previously had asked.

      That evening on This Day Tonight I was amazed to see the interview and the minister answering questions differently to how I remembered the interview, a furious minister contacted ABC and told them that he would never again give a taped interview that could be manipulated.

      230

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The BBC, through the BBC World Service, has always been a propaganda vehicle, for “The West”, alongside Voice of America.

      Is it really any surprise that the propaganda is applied domestically, as well as internationally?

      130

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Voice of America was once fairly honest. But politics corrupts all things. I’m afraid to ask what Obama has done to it.

        60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          On the other hand, even being honest it’s certainly a form of propaganda, much like Russia Today, which my cable company insists on providing. I trust neither one any farther than I could throw them.

          50

          • #
            DonS

            Hey Roy,
            I love that Russia Today program. Funniest show on TV. Have you seen the guy who is supposed to represent an everyday American Joe giving his take on a news story. He’s dressed as what I think looks like a lumberjack and speaks with the strangest American accent I’ve ever heard. When he gets going the Russian accent burst through and stuffs whatever image he is trying to create. It’s so bad it’s funny.

            60

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Hi Don,

              I watched a little of Russia Today when I first discovered it. It began to remind me of scepticalscience.com. After a recent channel change it’s no longer in the range of channel numbers we’re interested in so I never even surf over it.

              Good riddance for me as far as I’m concerned. Unfortunately it’s still there and is still a stealth propaganda mouthpiece for Vladimir Putin. It has no place on American TV. If it was honest I might change my mind but it isn’t honest.

              30

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I was going to be content with the foregoing response to Don. But then I realized something — I’m not sure I’m getting the honest unvarnished facts, the complete facts and nothing but the facts without opinion masquerading as fact thrown in**, even from the sources I most trust.

                I decided to say so in the hope that others might share their frustration over this problem.

                ** That’s a rephrasing of the oath you take on the witness stand here in the U.S. in all court proceedings by the way. “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” And in many places, “…,so help you God?” has been removed from the end. So of course the oath, once backed up by a higher than human authority now has no moral weight attached to it. To someone bent on lying that may not have mattered. But our loss of this dimension in our lives has been turning very costly as current events bear out on a daily basis.

                And I know at least some of those who might disagree with me. So if you want to spend the time to do it, go ahead. But I’ll remain firmly convinced of my position. And please note, I’ve never said you must agree with me. You make your own decisions. But we all stand or fall by the decisions of society and sometimes they are very harmful.

                20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                There is an old saying in geopolitics:

                Watch your enemies closely, and watch your friends even closer.

                Putin is not aiming his messages at the US. He is more focused on Ukraine and Belarus.

                30

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Putin is not aiming his messages at the US. He is more focused on Ukraine and Belarus.

                May well be true, Rereke. But his paid mouthpiece, Russia Today, certainly is aimed at the U.S.

                00

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I think many people like the idea that someone else has done their thinking for them ( i.e. BBC / Aunty ) and they can relax its all in hand.

      Little do they relaize they might be deceieved.

      What I also find is that people seem to being setting their minds ( in concerete ) now on certain stuff – and like rabbits in the headlights, if they get it wrong ( and most of them will ) it has far reaching implications.

      Sadly it seems people have

      110

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Steve, it is indeed so that a surprisingly large part of the population likes to have somebody else do the thinking.

        Then they follow the bloke they think is in front. That is what is happening here.

        I was told once that only 1 in 40 of the population has the mental capacity to initiate new thinking. With my head buried in the soil of the back blocks, I had already decided that the proportion of the population that had the ability to successfully consider a problem that had more than one variable in it was less that 10%, and possibly as low as 1%. This based on the difficulty I had experienced in getting people to understand fairly straightforward stuff. So I found two and a half percent readily acceptable.

        So perhaps we are lucky that there is any cohesion in our society at all.

        I grew up in a marvellous society, in a land of boundless opportunity. We didn’t have the mass education of modern times, but people had a much better undertsanding of how things worked and how we all depended on each other than they do today.

        Our modern education system has created more confusion than it has relieved.

        As for the AGW conundrum. You don’t need to be a genius to look at the generally published temperature chart and the CO2 emissions chart since 1988 and see that whatever is causing the changes that we see there is vastly bigger than CO2.

        50

  • #
    Penny

    It’s almost as if the BBC arts graduates don’t want swathes of former BBC audience to listen to them any more….

    90

  • #
    leon0112

    A Lysenko-like purge.

    160

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      When I first read about some years ago, thanks to these ACGW sceptic pages, I thought it was an interesting if not odd, historical occurance. But the way the world media, scientific organisation and government are acting these days, it’s making the Lysenko experience all the more real for me.

      I am getting worried. “Those who don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it”.

      110

  • #
    TdeF

    What the public fails to understand is that only a very specialized and senior scientists with a lifetime of experience can understand the reason all computer weather models are infallible.

    Consider our Australian Climate Commissioners, clearly our leading meteorologists and most distinguished climate scientists in our time of greatest need.

    Tim Flannery. BA(English, LaTrobe), No undergraduate science subjects. Paleoentologist
    Will Steffen. Chemical Engineering
    Roger Beale. Retired career public servant. BA(History,Law), Master of Industrial and Labor Relations
    Gerry Hueston Retired head of British Petroleum
    Lesley Hughes Ecologist
    Veena Sahajwalla Scientist and engineer, whose achievements include inventing a process of recycling plastics and rubber tyres in steelmaking.

    These are the sort of extraordinary people, the gifted and visionary meteorologists who alone can understand the most difficult science, science so complex that other scientists cannot comprehend it, computer models so profoundly complex that only they understand them. We as a country lack gratitude for such sacrifice.

    430

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You forgot the “/sarc” tag.

      101

      • #
        TdeF

        Sure, part sarcasm but part sad farce /farc? that we paid $5million for fantasy climate advice from these people, none of whom is a senior career meteorologist when we already had government departments like the Bureau of Meteorology, the department for the Environment and the CSIRO at just a Federal level? The money flowed like a river in the drought and dried up only when the flooding rains started, the rains Prof Flannery promised would never come again, in his professional opinion. So much for science. How did the former head of British Petroleum get a seat? Now that’s funny.

        201

        • #
          Oksanna

          I don’t know how he did it. I have heard an economist say that one general reason for Big Oil support of ETS, is that Big Oil has sufficient depth of experience, insight and energy market knowledge to profit from trading on fluctuations in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Schemes and derivatives markets.

          60

      • #
        Annie

        I had mentally added the /sarc tag…

        40

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        I don’t like sarcasm. It is irresponsible. It can create awful confusion.

        10

    • #
      James Bradley

      TdeF,

      … and as Chester queried in another post concerning purchasing chocolates for Jo, where are the Climate Council getting donations from, are the donations transparent, will the donations be placed on public record – fair is fair, after all the Climate Council did appeal for public donations and within the first 48 hrs they proclaimed that they had hit the million dollar mark.

      180

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The BBC is a law unto itself, it has been hijacked by lefties and luvvies all bent on lining their own pockets and promoting whatever the Guardian thinks is trendy.

    Few BBC executives would survive more than a few days in the private sector. The green bias there is unbelievable and it is hardly possible to see a nature or a news program without an obligatory reference to the supposed dangers of supposed climate change.

    So obviously dodgy members of the Green Party will be given priority over all those who might dare to suggest that being obsessed over demanding a future of expensive unreliable energy to solve a non-problem might just not be a clever idea.

    The best adjectives to describe the BBC are clearly: smug, biased, green-obsessed, top heavy, bureaucratic and unscientific.

    As a scientist, I can say without hesitation that I am truly appalled by the standard and accuracy of so much of the supposed science peddled by the BBC.

    460

  • #
    Manfred

    The BBC doing what the BBC does? Faux surprise. Really, absolutely no surprise here. As follows may draw some explanatory lines between the dots. UN Agenda 21 rears its head, the EU merely a proto-global governance model. Follow the money – an oft used catch phrase here.

    Global Governance: funding the NGO Monster

    EU paid the BBC €6,100,987 last year, Friends of the Earth (in all its incarnations) €4,188,230, WWF €5,344,641 and the RSPB €3,802,544. What is also of very great interest is that the EU subsidised UN institutions to the tune of nearly €140 million.

    But illustrating the incestuous relationship between the NGO “community”, we see several of the “usual suspects” on the list. The European Climate Foundation turns up with $879,317, the ClimateWorks Foundation with $533,842, the Energy Foundation with $330,000, the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC with $325,000, Climate and Development Knowledge Network with $251,911, the Climate and Land Use Alliance with $497,941 and Water Conservation International $249,697.

    Of global agencies, the United Nations Environment Programme is also represented, contributing $542,990. The World Bank gives $366,076. Charities are also represented, with the Robertson Foundation giving $500,000 and the Rockefeller Foundation $326,000.

    The question is, of course, is why these bodies, with so many governments involved, are giving money to a private US charity, for activities which include preparing the ground for an inter-governmental agreement in 2015, fronted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat.

    160

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And it’s all money stolen from you and me in the form of taxes and used to work toward making us slaves of these organizations. And we all know what it will take to stop it. It will be dangerous to stand up to these thieves but eventually it must be done or we go beyond the point of no return.

      If I was a betting man I wouldn’t bet on the outcome of this one. After enough pain there will be all sorts of resistance and it will be put down ruthlessly. Who comes out on top is anyone’s guess.

      100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Youre right about the European Soviet being the “dry run” for global govt….

      90

  • #
    dp

    If the Brits allow this then the BBC is right – they’re ignoramuses and deserve what they get. The ball is now in the court of public opinion, to mangle a metaphor.

    The Beeb has a history of being wrong year on year without a downside, so perhaps they’ve simply quit considering public opinion. It is working for our (US) Imperial President and our lackluster congress, too.

    110

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It is working for our (US) Imperial President and our lackluster congress, too.

      Only it’s not working. His once loyal fawning White House press corps is beginning to challenge him. So maybe he will fall like Richard Nixon — not for the same reason of course but maybe forced to resign one jump ahead of impeachment nevertheless.

      70

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        And I know that’s wishful thinking but when I see what’s happening and that it’s getting slowly worse for Obama, I can’t help hoping for the better outcome.

        60

    • #
      Manfred

      so perhaps they’ve simply quit considering public opinion

      According to the BBC annual report, the great British public are delighted with the service, awarding ‘Overall impression of the BBC is 7/10′.

      BBC license fee income 2012/13: £3,656m and the EU gave the BBC 6.2M euros (£5M)…what exactly for…environmental sustainability? (see below)

      Some additional info from the BBC annual report 2012/13
      BBC World Service is currently funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. BBC Monitoring is funded by the Cabinet Office.

      “The governance of the BBC is the means by which we guarantee the organisation’s independence, ensure that it is delivering its mission and is properly accounting for its actions.”

      Under a ‘responsible BBC‘ lies:

      Environmental sustainability

      “We want our programmes to have a positive impact on the people and places involved in their creation. Our sustainability strategy, The Difference, focuses on embedding sustainable practices in programme-making, working to targets to help to reduce the environmental impacts of our buildings and technology, and inspiring staff to take action. Over 500 BBC productions have engaged in sustainable production through use of our carbon calculator, Albert. We restated our environment targets and introduced a new CO2 reduction target aligned with our energy reduction target. We have made moderate progress this year in energy and CO2 reduction, while we continue to run new and outgoing buildings concurrently. As we phase out technology, our move from Television Centre will add to the savings achieved through the exit of Bush House and the White City Building in London. You can read more about this area of our work in the BBC Corporate Responsibility Review published each summer, and our updates on the BBC sustainability website.”

      Target 2015/16 Year 5: 2012/13 Performance against baseline
      Absolute reduction in energy consumption -20% -4%
      Absolute reduction in CO2 emissions from buildings -20% -6%
      Reduction in water (per person) -25% -7%
      Reduction in waste (tonnes) to landfill (per person) -25% -81%
      % of waste recycled 70% 65%
      Reduction in transport CO2 emissions (per BBC user) -20% -5%

      The BBC sustainability website is currently showing a 404 error.

      It’s all pretty clear isn’t it. Little wonder Lawson doesn’t get a look in.

      70

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        404….priceless!

        For everything else, there’s CAGW Card….

        30

      • #
        meltemian

        “our carbon calculator Albert”???????

        30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        From BBC’s statement about itself and its acceptance by the public,

        … ensure that it is delivering its mission…

        Of course, they don’t begin to say that their mission includes out and out lies to keep the climate change fraud alive, do they?

        A nation of sheep will always be in a pen. A nation of sheep will always be sheared. And a nation of sheep will always be eaten. That’s because sheep exist only for those purposes, do they not?

        I wonder what a nation of wide awake citizens would put up with. But they are asleep and socialism has had a big part of putting them in that state. It will be their undoing.

        Some will not like reading that last statement but I no longer care. I’ll speak what I believe from long experience and long observation of world affairs is the truth.

        40

  • #
    handjive

    The Rasmussen Report
    Wednesday, July 09, 2014

    Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over

    “The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations.
    But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics.
    Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.”

    110

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      If you can’t beat them with your evidence and sound argument then silence them. That’s a time honored practice after all. And one more reason why I don’t read the Los Angeles Times.

      100

  • #
    TdeF

    A recent extensive investigation into why 97% of all scientists who work in the climate change industry believe in climate change has revealed that 3% of all scientists who are employed in climate change cannot even tick the right box. The survey form will be simplified and reissued with only one box.

    220

  • #
    Horse

    A week later the ‘Social Anthropologist’ Christiana Figueres was on the same programme, claiming that the exceptionally wet UK winter was a result of climate change. The BBC didn’t even challenge this assertion, despite it being completely at odds with the views of climate scientists working for the Met Office. The BBC cannot even be trusted to apply it’s own ‘standards’.

    100

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      She had it right except for one word. Change “climate” to “weather” and she’s right on the money.

      And one might ask: What are the qualifications of an anthropologist to decide what’s a result of climate change?

      60

  • #
    stephen

    Dear Jo I am only a lowly tradesman and frankly I think I understand as much of the science as some doctors and teachers do , if more doctors and teachers etc understood the science we would not be in this almighty mess to start with .
    Man

    110

    • #
      Phil

      Steven, there are good tradesmen and poor tradesmen, but no LOWLY tradesmen. People who can actually create (or maintain) something with their hands/tools/brains are precious.

      171

      • #
        Bushkid

        I’m with you there Phil, tradesmen are the ones who keep us moving and operating – our cars, electricals, plumbing etc. Without them, who would be call when a pipe leaks or the lights go out or the car breaks down? No, there is no such thing as a “lowly” tradesman Steven, be proud of who you are and what you do!

        80

      • #
        JLC

        Hear hear.

        40

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Dear stephen, i too am a lowly tradesman. My trade is being an iconoclast. I see an icon like the fake IPCC Climate Alchemy and the to$$ers like Flannery who flock to support it for strange psychological reasons, and I destroy it, to rebuild real science which the likes of the aforementioned are never allowed to contaminate, because they are, arguably, toxic.

      60

    • #
      scaper...

      You are far from the only tradesman that comment on this site. Building is a science within itself.

      I constructed a water feature last month consisting of a granite wall of water with submerged lighting, utilising refraction I created the illusion of an open flickering fireplace.

      I call this work, “Firewater”.

      70

  • #
    the Griss

    I wonder if reports like this would ever make it onto the BBC or ABC.

    Absolutely DISGUSTING what gets a free pass under the so-called “Green / Environmental” agenda.

    81

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Is your avatar the antithesis of “angry birds”, “apathetic birds”? LMAO :)

      70

      • #
        the Griss

        A reflection of my current mood..

        Having tummy issues and they are talking about removing bits (gall bladder).. not happy.

        No alcohol, no yummy spicy foods.. grrrrr. !! :-(

        60

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Not good mate, take it easy and maintain a sense of humor.

          Us “Deniers” are always accused of having a “Gall” so try to keep yours ;)

          50

        • #
          tom0mason

          As the gallbladder is a small, pear-shaped pouch that lies beneath the liver, and stores bile.
          Not good, low bile and no gall, that will affect you comments? :(

          On the upside, two of my sisters suffered for years with gall bladder/gallstones problems but both were eventually successfully treated and are much happier now, albeit with modified diets. :)

          60

  • #
    DT

    How far left has the Australian Broadcasting Commission moved since 2007, the employees ignore the charter and according to a former director, Michael Kroger who spoke on The Bolt Report on Sunday have been in breach of the Act (8.1C from memory) for several years. Yet because ABC has been protected from government interference to a large degree the employees, paid from government or taxpayer funding, they and the board members behave like a propaganda unit of Labor Green.

    The Royal Commission into the Union Movement is exposing graft and corruption involving union executives and Labor politicians including the leader yet the ALPBC in particular give at best very well edited news detail.

    And I need not remind people about the ABC climate change agenda.

    60

    • #
      Annie

      Appearances by Christine Mine are so frequent, as are those by Clive Palmer, that the bias shown by the ABC is almost laughable. There is nothing to choose between the ABC and the BBC .

      80

    • #
      Bushkid

      To my despair and disgust, even the formerly pleasant ABC Classic FM now trots out the gratuitous “global warming/climate change” mantra at every opportunity. There really is nothing left to listen to on ABC radio any more. ABC TV lost me long ago, except for a very, very few quality programs, the news and current affairs are not among them!

      50

    • #
  • #

    The output of Computer models is not evidence. Particularly if the output is shown to be unrelated to the reality of temperature records.

    110

    • #
      Leo G

      A pity that the the head of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, Fraser Steel, wasn’t obliged to complete his statement: “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling…”
      Very likely it would then have been: “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling, … rather his views are merely supported by the evidence from direct observational data”
      So there’s the outcome of The BBC’s resolution of the so-called “false balance” adjudication. The BBC judges that there was indeed a false balance provided between “evidence from unverified computer models” and “evidence from real world data” and only the evidence from modelling deserved BBC attention.

      50

  • #
    pat

    handjive -

    the Rasmussen poll says a great deal about the MSM’s almost complete lack of credibility these days. yet the MSM carries on self-destructing? and i include all MSM, across the political spectrum. for what?

    the advertising $$ in some cases? profit from pension funds invested in the CAGW scam in others? worst of all, for trillions of $$ dreamed of from trading in CO2 emissions – a bubble too far?

    9 July: Herald Sun: Staff Reporter: Clean energy sector warns on RET
    The clean energy industry has hit back at calls for changes to the current renewable energy target, warning that $15 billion in investment could be at risk along with Australia’s profile as a low sovereign risk country, The Australian reports.
    ***Australia’s largest infrastructure investor, IFM Investors, and Spanish firm Acciona have both said they could avoid Australia as a future investment destination should a push to alter the RET succeed…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/clean-energy-sector-warns-on-ret/story-fnn9c0hb-1226982527281?nk=9bd430ffb7b6b0857ad8cfe4acfec345

    ***IFM INVESTORS. wouldn’t the public like to know of GREG COMBET’s involvement? the Board has an assortment of Bankers/Trade Unionists and, most especially, SUPER FUND MANAGERS. watch your Super & warn your friends:

    IFM Investors: Board
    Chairman: Garry Weaven
    Garry is Chair of IFM Investors and of Pacific Hydro, a leading Australian renewable energy company with extensive operations in Australia and South America…
    ***Greg Combet:
    Prior to this Greg held the role of ACTU Secretary for eight years and Assistant Secretary for six years before that. He has been a Director of AustralianSuper (2002-07) and a Director of ME Bank (2006-07) and is adept in advocacy, governance and financial management…
    ETC
    http://www.ifminvestors.com/au/about-us/board-members

    50

  • #
    pat

    UNBELIEVABLE! LIES, LIES, LIES….EXCEPT FOR THE FACT I DON’T KNOW ANYONE, OF ANY POLITICAL PERSUASION, WHO BELIEVES CAGW IS ANYTHING BUT A SCAM:

    8 July: RTCC: Ed King: Australia facing ‘unprecedented rise in climate denial’
    Climate Council’s Tim Flannery says politicians and the media are complicit in spreading misinformation.
    The head of Australia’s leading climate advisory body has lashed out at what he says is a concerted attempt by politicians and media groups to spread climate denial. In a video posted on the Climate Council website, Tim Flannery calls on supporters to ‘help keep science in the headlines’. “We’re witnessing an unprecedented rise in climate denial in media and politics – personally I’ve never seen anything like it,” he says.
    ***Flannery cites key Abbott advisor Maurice Newman, as a prime example of this phenomenon…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/07/08/australia-facing-unprecedented-rise-in-climate-denial/

    ***of course he singles out Maurice Newman….cos there are no other examples to bring up.

    111

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      How sad for Flannery. Life must be really tough for a die-hard like him. :-(

      120

    • #
      DT

      Tim Flannery said that, what a hypocrite that deceiver is.

      90

    • #

      Ed King scribbles:

      The Climate Council was known as the Climate Commission until September 2013, when it was abolished as a government-funded institution by incoming prime minister Tony Abbott.

      Spin. Spin. Spin. The Climate Council is a completely different entity. It wasn’t known by any other name previously. It didn’t exist before the Climate Commission was canned.

      Ed can’t even get the simple facts right. Not surprising as he’s from the BBC where he was a sports journalist and producer with his prior claim to fame/infamy was to complete a half-marathon.

      Mr King seems to be astutely avoiding any relevance to his education and experience by jumping in the deep end of dealing with serious matters following his departure from the BBC and subsequent MA in International Studies and Diplomacy from the School of Oriental and African Studies, U. of London.

      40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    How obvious can the dishonesty get? At some point the public will realize the charade and it will be all over for the BBC and hopefully for the climate change industry this kind of action keeps propping up.

    I sincerely hope that when the fall from grace happens it takes the government of England down with it and they get an honest chance to start over.

    How do so many get fooled into an, I’m the messiah attitude?

    Well, maybe I shouldn’t ask since I probably wouldn’t believe the answer.

    71

  • #
    Leigh

    Speech by National MP George Christensen on climate change.
    Read it.
    And give it to somebody else.
    This politician hits so many nails on the head, it’s bloody embarrassing to the rest of them.
    It’s a damned good read.
    My biggest suprise is who published it.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/233126123/140701-GC-SP-Climate-Change-Conference-Slides

    81

    • #
      the Griss

      I would like to point out that the Brisbane desal plant did actually produce water for a short time.

      This was in the week or so after the big 2010 flood.

      Other treatment plants got flooded ! :-)

      50

      • #
        DT

        One of the several desalination plants around Australia, state owned. A former NSW Premier Bob Carr retired and was given an office suite in the government office block (the black stump) alongside cabinet ministers and premier, and became a $500K per year consultant to Macquarie Bank. He was also a consultant to a foreign desalination plant supplier. His Union Labor premier comrades were keen to have secure desalinated water supplies as the Church of Climate Change disciples had warned them that there would not be sufficient rainfall in future to fill the dams.

        Every post a winner in the Union Movement & Associates.

        70

  • #
    Greg House

    I do not understand the BBC.

    Lord Lawson fully supports the physically impossible IPCC “greenhouse effect”: “It is true that the fundamental greenhouse effect yields only a 1.2°C increase for a doubling of CO2″ (http://www.thegwpf.org/lord-lawson-a-lord-turnbull-respond-to-chris-huhne/).

    Unfortunately, very few people are aware of how the IPCC “greenhouse effect” is supposed to work according to the IPCC reports. It goes like that: the “greenhouse gases” intercept the IR radiation produced by the surface of the Earth and return it DOUBLED (!) back to the surface, thus causing warming: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html. Seems to be the greatest fraud in the history of science.

    141

  • #
    pat

    is there a bigger hypocrite than Steyer? much, much more, including the usual excuses, at the link:

    4 July: NYT: Aims of Donor Are Shadowed by Past in Coal
    By MICHAEL BARBARO and CORAL DAVENPORT
    To environmentalists across Australia, it is a baffling anachronism in an era of climate change: the construction of a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that will churn out carbon-laden coal for the next 30 years…
    But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change…
    But an examination of those (STEYER’S) investments shows that even after his highly public divestment, the coal-related projects his firm bankrolled will generate tens of millions of tons of carbon pollution for years, if not decades, to come…
    Over the past 15 years, Mr. Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital Management, has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into companies that operate coal mines and coal-fired power plants from Indonesia to China, records and interviews show.
    The expected life span of those facilities, some of which may run through 2030, could cloud Mr. Steyer’s image as an environmental savior and the credibility of his clean-energy message, which has won him access to the highest levels of American government. A few weeks ago, Mr. Steyer, 56, joined President Obama for an intimate group dinner at the White House that ran into the early morning hours, according to people told of the event…
    Together, those mines have increased their annual production by about 70 million tons since they received money from the hedge fund, according to corporate records, government data and interviews with industry experts.
    That is more than the amount of coal consumed annually by Britain…
    ***The Australian mine, known as Maules Creek, illustrates the complexities of Mr. Steyer’s efforts to distance himself. Farallon was a major investor in a 2009 deal aimed at developing the mine, lending an Australian entrepreneur hundreds of millions of dollars to buy out the previous owner, according to people involved in the transaction. Eventually, the entrepreneur took the mine public, turning Farallon’s investment into a large profit. An executive involved in the original deal estimated that Farallon earned tens of millions of dollars…
    Farallon remains an investor in Maules Creek to this day. Mining at the site, expected to start in 2015, will last up to 30 years, yield as much as 13 million tons of coal a year and generate about 30 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to Ian Lowe, the former head of the School of Science at Griffith University in Queensland, Australia…
    “It’s gobsmacking,” Philip Spark, president of the Northern Inland Council for the Environment, a nonprofit trying to stop construction of the mine, said in a telephone interview. “It’s amazing that such a person could have been involved in this project.”
    Mark Carnegie, an investment banker in Australia who was involved in the Maules Creek deal, said he could sense even then that Mr. Steyer was struggling to reconcile his motivations as a profit-seeking investor with his growing anxieties about the environment.
    But the investment was financially irresistible. “It was a hard thing to turn down,” Mr. Carnegie said. “It was a huge winning bet for Farallon.”…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/us/politics/prominent-environmentalist-helped-fund-coal-projects.html?_r=0

    always follow the money.

    40

  • #
    Mike Singleton

    Follow the money folks.

    60

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    Andrew Lilico has delivered a withering response to the alarmists: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/100027585/lord-lawson-the-climate-and-the-bbc-whos-the-real-expert/ . Lilico does have a pretty feeble middle paragraph (“Next, we need a model of how carbon emissions will affect the climate…”), which is essentially nonsensical, but his conclusions overall tend to be sound.

    The Telegraph, however, also published a piece of triumphalist tripe by leftie Martha Gill, a hack from the “New Statesman”, a periodical with a vanishingly (but understandably) small readership. Gill (in her own mind, anyway) vanquished Lord Lawson by referring to that well-known scientific publication, the “Huffington Post”.

    50

  • #
    handjive

    Only Government approved spokesmen like …

    Andrew Simms of the New Economics Foundation, who (in 2006),
    argued there were only 100 months left to save the planet through radical emissions cuts.

    That 100 months was celebrated on April Fool’s Day, 2014.

    http://www(dot)dailymail(dot)co(dot)uk/news/article-2537886/BBCs-six-year-cover-secret-green-propaganda-training-executives.html

    50

  • #
  • #
    pat

    time to move the goal posts again:

    10 July: SMH: Reuters: Global warming requires more frequent rethink of ‘normal’ weather, WMO says
    The baseline for “normal” weather used by everyone from farmers to governments to plan ahead needs to be updated more frequently to account for the big shifts caused by global warming, the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation said on Wednesday.
    The WMO’s Commission for Climatology believes rising temperatures and more heatwaves and heavy rains mean the existing baseline, based on the climate averages of 1961-90, is out of date as a guide, the WMO said in a statement.
    “For water resources, agriculture and energy, the old averages no longer reflect the current realities,” Omar Baddour, head of the data management applications at the WMO, told Reuters…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warming-requires-more-frequent-rethink-of-normal-weather-wmo-says-20140710-zt20z.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    memo to Tim Flannery -

    please post links to MSM coverage of the Heartland Institute’s 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas.

    given the MSM will give prominence to any nonsense involving one or two CAGW activists, please explain the SILENCE, Tim.

    warmist MSM already debunking their own recent headline!

    9 July: WaPo: Gail Sullivan: No, climate change is not driving redheads to extinction
    So what did these “experts” have to say? Actually it was two experts — one who refused to give his name and another of uncertain expertise…
    Who is this (“expert of uncertain expertise”) Alistair Moffat anyway?
    ScotlandsDNA is one of those Web sites that claims to trace your ancestry if you send them a DNA sample. On the site, he lists his credentials: MA (Hons), M.Phil, Cert.Ed. but doesn’t say anything about a background in genetics. Nevertheless, he writes books on the subject, including “The British: A Genetic Journey” and “The Scots: A Genetic Journey.” You can find out about his other writing, mostly histories of Scotland, on his Web site.
    Among his claims to fame: In 2012, he told BBC radio he’d discovered Eve’s (as in Adam and Eve) “grandson” and direct descendants of the Queen of Sheba. Some geneticists were skeptical.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/09/no-climate-change-is-not-driving-redheads-to-extinction/

    20

    • #
      DT

      Pat was that the conference at which delegates decided that action must be taken to force sceptics to believe in warming? I recall reading this somewhere and it reminded me of communist control.

      40

    • #
      DT

      Pat was that the conference at which delegates decided that action must be taken to force sceptics to believe in warming? I recall reading this somewhere and it reminded me of communist control.

      21

    • #
      James Bradley

      Meanwhile over at The Climate Council:

      Urgent Appeal
      Donate now to keep science in the headlines and crowd-fund accurate science information.
      Tim Flannery, Chief Councillor.

      Hmmmmmmmm – not so easy having to rely on public donations as opposed to public funding.

      70

      • #
        James Bradley

        P.S.

        Especially if the people you rely on for public donations rely on public funding…

        80

  • #
    TdeF

    Looks like the Carbon Tax repeal bills were just thrown out in the Australian Senate. The Palmer turkeys have voted for an early Christmas as Tony Abbott has his third refusal on bills passed by the lower house. That is sufficient for a double dissolution.

    82

    • #
      the Griss

      The situation is now basically untenable.

      TA probably needs to pull the DD trigger immediately, even at the risk of putting Labor/Green back in. (we seem to be stuck with their refuse anyway)

      This PUP rabble needs to be got rid of.

      But first, make sure Palmer pays ALL his carbon tax, then see how his funding stands up to another election.

      I doubt he would be game to take another bite of the Chinese pie.

      71

    • #
      scaper...

      No need for a DD…yet.

      If it does not get passed next week, by both houses then maybe.

      60

      • #
        bobl

        I don’t know scaper, while I think you have top notch political instincts, I think this is just the thing to polarize the electorate for a DD election. The dumbasses in Labor and the Greens think the public’s had a change of heart on them and their carbon tax, but polling is just budget protest, not real intentions. I think Lab / Green polling will hit the mat, and Palmer is likely a wipeout. He was put there to repeal the tax and he’s cheated those conservatives that put him there. If there is one thing Gillard showed us, is that the Australian Electorate does NOT like being cheated, especially due to deals made with Al Gore.

        Palmer is now nailed to the carbon tax mast with Labor and the Greens, and we know how that plays out.

        80

      • #
        James Bradley

        I’m with you on this one scaper.

        If I was The Governemnt I think I’d just sit pat and let the ground swell of public opinion build up against the carbon tax and the Labor/Green/Pup alliance.

        Especially once this winter really hits and the heating bills start coming in, and it’s starting to get mighty cold.

        71

        • #
          scaper...

          Also, we have to take into account that if the tax is not repealed it goes up with a backdate to the beginning of the month and fuel for transport will attract the tax.

          I don’t need to outline the consequences for the economy.

          40

          • #
            James Bradley

            Oh yeah, let that lot sink in and then see how good the Labor/Green/Dud alliance looks to the voting public.

            40

  • #
    Tim

    Respected Scientists losing their jobs, government media excluding sceptical opinion and pushing the CAGW meme, panel discussions stacked, debate gagged, sceptics derided, government climate scientists muzzled, data denied or doctored, media brainwashed, accepted scientific principles abandoned…

    We have to ask: ‘Who benefits’? Certainly not science or Democracy, but something bigger.

    80

  • #
    TdeF

    It means we will keep paying the Carbon Tax for nothing and Tony Abbott can call a double dissolution any time he likes. However why do what Palmer wants? The senate can only stop things, so no legislation will pass, not even repeals.

    60

  • #
    TdeF

    The required vote for a Senator halves as twice as many have to be elected. However it would be amusing if Tony just kept his job and made Palmer pay his Carbon tax bill of $6M a year. He voted for it.

    50

    • #
      DT

      Maybe Mr.Palmer has run out of milking cows now that his China associates have discovered the leak?

      70

  • #

    The press are championing NGO’s like Greenpeace and Fiends of the Earth against elected governments.

    Also in the UK, the Independent is apparently miffed at the Environment Secretary Owen Paterson turning down a “briefing” with Chief Scientist Julia Slingo, the latter being an avid climate modeller. So miffed is the Indie, that it misinforms the public with gross inaccuracies and an imbalance of sources. Unsurprisingly, lacking more than a superficial comprehension of the subject, the press offers no insight.

    The transnational, undemocratic NGO’s aren’t happy when elected governments conduct their business according to national demands; with NGOs invoking fake “authority” to justify their stance, eagerly supported by presstitutes.

    90

  • #
    pat

    all the gory details:

    10 July: Brisbane Times: Lisa Cox: Ricky Muir and Palmer United senators vote with Greens and Labor against repeal of carbon tax
    with Matthew Knott and AAP
    The Senate has voted down the government’s third attempt to repeal the carbon tax after a chaotic morning in which the Palmer United Party backed out of its agreement to support the bills.
    PUP senators and Motoring Enthusiast Party senator Ricky Muir sided with Labor and the Greens to defeat the abolition of the carbon tax, with a final vote just after 12.30pm rejecting the repeal 37 votes to 35…
    In defending his party’s decision, Palmer United Party leader Clive Palmer said his senators had been ”doubled crossed” by the government and as a result they abandoned the deal and sided with the opposition.
    However, the government maintains that the amendment put forward by Mr Palmer was unconstitutional because it would have constituted a money bill, which by definition cannot originate in the Senate…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ricky-muir-and-palmer-united-senators-vote-with-greens-and-labor-against-repeal-of-carbon-tax-20140710-3bo57.html

    more headlines for the media tarts. Peter Beattie had nothing on these guys.

    30

  • #
    pat

    DT -

    i can’t answer that for u, but maybe others can.

    10

  • #

    [...] to Jo Nova Rate this:Share this:GoogleTwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailLike this:Like [...]

    00

  • #
    TdeF

    It looks now like Tony Abbott might just keep presenting the Carbon Tax repeal bill with minor amendments until it passes. Why not? He has three years. He is establishing a strong case for a coalition senate as the Greens and their Labor lackeys (lickspittle?) keep demanding a carbon penalty for evil carbon polluters.

    The last time I calculated it, humans were about 60% water, 15% bone so 25% pure hydrocarbon which is just CH2 in chains, so what is left is (12/14) or 86% pure carbon. So humans are 20% pure carbon, along with most life on earth. We evil carbon lifeforms are just pollution and should tax ourselves for existing. As it is we now pay tax on the air we breathe, the dream of so many governments. Actually with the tax on methane from cemetries, we now also pay a death tax. Now that is Green masochism.

    40

  • #
    pat

    let’s call the whole thing off!

    9 July: Reuters: Global climate deal won’t stop dangerous warming – study
    Even if governments strike a pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions next year, they will still exceed levels thought necessary to stand a chance of preventing dangerous global warming, a study by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon showed…
    The study mapped possible Paris outcomes against the maximum amount of the gases that a U.N. panel of scientists this year said the world could emit and still have a two-thirds chance of keeping to 2 degrees.
    It found that to keep within 2 degrees, global emissions would need to decrease by at least 3 percent year-on-year, well above the 1.9 percent annual rate proposed by the European Union.
    “That kind of commitment is just not on the table right now,” said Point Carbon analyst Frank Melum.
    “Climate negotiators may need to reframe their work  the 2 degree goal just doesn’t appear to be achievable, no matter how strong the progress made in Paris next year,” said fellow Point Carbon analyst Ashley Lawson. (Reporting by Ben Garside, editing by William Hardy)
    http://www.trust.org/item/20140709151937-40up2

    10

  • #
    pat

    never mind, China still isn’t playing ball!

    10 July: South China Morning Post: China and the US still far apart on climate responsibilities
    by Li Jing and Kwong Man-ki in Beijing
    China and the United States laid bare their core differences in drafting a new global treaty on combating climate change yesterday as they renewed pledges to fight global warming by signing partnership pacts on cutting emissions.
    China’s chief climate official, Xie Zhenhua and his US counterpart Todd Stern spelled out the disagreements between the world’s top two carbon emitters on how to contribute to emissions reductions after 2020.
    The pair were briefing journalists separately in Beijing on the sidelines of the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
    Xie, vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said responsibilities should differ from rich to poor countries, while Stern, the US special climate envoy, said Washington favoured each country deciding what it was capable of doing.
    “We have different historical responsibilities. We are in different development stages, and we have different capacities,” Xie said.
    Stern said the US was not against the idea of responsibilities being based on each country’s capabilities, but that the “bifurcated two categories” of developing and developed nations set in 1992 was unacceptable.
    ***”I’m seeing Xie many times every year, and we understand each other’s position very well … It’s one of those conversations that just goes on and on, doesn’t stop,” Stern said.
    The issue has become one of the major stumbling blocks to negotiating a new global climate treaty involving more than 190 nations next year in Paris.
    Despite their differences, China and the US signed eight new pacts on tackling climate change on Tuesday including agreements on projects demonstrating clean coal technologies such as gasification, and recovering oil from captured carbon…
    (ANONYMOUS) A senior climate adviser to the Chinese government said Beijing was considering setting an absolute cap on carbon emissions between 2016 and 2020.
    http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1550595/china-and-us-still-far-apart-climate-responsibilities

    10

  • #
    bobl

    Those of you that care need to contact PUP and voice your opinion, here is the message that needs to be sent.

    If there exists a carbon tax OR ETS at the next election, whether it be a DD or regular election, then there will be no Palmer United Party after it.

    Go to it folks.

    50

    • #
      bobl

      Mind you the 6 years their senators get before they are up for election will be plenty to do dsmage, so one has to hope it’s a DD they face.

      30

    • #
      James Bradley

      Strangely, the email address for PUP is not working.

      30

      • #
        Yonniestone

        I just sent one James, seems to have gone through, hope my bloody message got through too!

        40

        • #
          James Bradley

          Yonnie, works fine now, thanks.

          So either the Carbon Tax Repeal is voted through or at the next election the PUP is not.

          20

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Question – there used to be a bitingly funny site called DailyBayonet.com that has since stopped functioning.

    Any idea what hppened?

    10

  • #
    Greg

    BTW it seems they misspelt the name of the original complainant. The “low-energy expert ” sounds like some stoner who gave his name as Cheech Chong.

    He’s probably getting paid carbon credits for growing ‘bud’ in the basement, fertilised by CO2 sequestration.

    20

  • #
    BunyipBill

    Yep, the tool Palmer continues to run amok in the Senate with his grab-bag of [snip, we get the idea] siding with the watermelons and alp to block the repeal of the Carbon (dioxide) Bill.

    As for Clive himself, once the Chinese Govt owned CITIC group get through with him for his mishandling of money, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about him for much longer as the lawyers for the Chinese Company continue their “discovery”.

    http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ricky-muir-and-palmer-united-senators-vote-with-greens-and-labor-against-repeal-of-carbon-tax-20140710-3bo57.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Muir
    http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2242677/jacqui-lambie-uunderdog-rising/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqui_Lambie

    11

  • #
    BunyipBill

    Clive Palmer’s problems continue to mount. Methinks the Chinese Government are a bit bigger, tougher, richer and more determined than poor ol’ Clive.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/clive-palmer-sent-10m-of-citic-cash-to-1-company/story-fnk76wj3-1226983614303

    20

    • #
      JLC

      It’s all going to fall in a heap for Clive, and it will probably happen sooner rather than later. It’s going to be entertaining to watch.

      There’s no reason to have sympathy for him: his coming troubles are of his own making.

      10

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    So what is the difference between the BBC and Pravda circa 1980?

    Seems Burgess is still in control. He is just working for a different master now.

    20

  • #

    Jo, I love you! Your writing style is so effective…. Mocking them is satisfying as well.

    You’ve probably seen this already, but just in case: http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/
    I thought the “peer review ring” an interesting concept, not altogether unrelated to your post above.

    Also, if I may, I’d like to address your stalwart followers/commenters/fellow freedom fighters: I love you guys, too! Always a boost to come in here and find good humor along with high intelligence and caring natures. Thanks, Mates.

    30

  • #

    (And yes, now living in the U.S.A., my autocorrect takes U’s out of humour. :-) )

    20

  • #

    Finally, I’m on my mobile and cannot find how to reply directly to Pat @#39, but you should rest easy, because Sir Richard Branson is coming to the rescue, saving the world be renouncing beef. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2688252/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Richard-Branson-gives-beef-save-world.html

    That should boost the spirits of the Movement.

    10

  • #
    Carbon500

    Reading the transcript, nothing new is apparent. The usual stories and spurious associations, and we have Sir Brian Hoskins stating ‘but we are very sure that the temperature has risen by about 0.8 degrees’ with no reference to a time period.
    Assuming that he’s referring to the alleged rise over a century, it’s interesting to note that no-one mentions the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and how much it’s risen since the so-called ‘pre-industrial era’, when CO2 was allegedly 280ppm. It’s now close to 400ppm, so that’s an increase of close to 43%.
    So a 43% increase in CO2 has supposedly resulted in a temperature increase of 0.8 degrees centigrade – and we don’t even know what percentage of this rise is due to natural causes!

    00