BBC IGNORES CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD
>> Tuesday, September 29, 2009
For years, the respected Climate Audit site has been warning that the famous "Hockey Stick" - a graph based on tree ring proxies used by the IPCC and Al Gore to "prove" their AGW propaganda - is inaccurate. Over the past few days, he has published conclusive evidence that it it is. The compiler simply took the most dramatic tree ring data and ignored the rest. The true picture is that surface temperatures have actually gone down. This was scientific fraud on a massive scale, and you can read about it here or here. The "hockey stick" graph was pivotal in the attempts to persuade the public to panic about AGW.
Chances of reading about this on the BBC? Absolutely nil. Today's lead climate story is the Met Office warning that temperatures are going to rise by 4C by 2050. That, from a body that cannot even predict what will happen five days away.
38 comments:
The Hockey Stick graph which was the centre piece of fat boy Al bore's crap powerpoint movies was dropped quietly by theIPCC some time back.
The thick camp beeboids like Harrabin and Shitman can spout all the leftist crap they like but human CO2 plays only a tiny part in changing the climate, the more these tools spout their crap the more people distrust them.
Not for the first time I click on a comment thread and find that Martin is already here, smearing the walls with his turds.
James Delingpole has picked it up in the Telegraph as well today:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/
It's not just th original "hockey stick" that's finally demolished - many other climate papers over the years have relied on the same dodgy tree-ring data.
But don't expect the useless beeboids to report on it.
Alas i fear that Steve McIntyre will never achieve the acclaim he deserves during his lifetime.
The BBC just love their 'could/if/might' meaningless waffle, it could be that the models are in fact wrong? Ooooh wait, the models have been proven wrong and yet they still report them as gospel.
We could be invaded by aliens, we might be wiped out by a virus, if the sun explodes we would all die, its all specualation of the worst kind, it fills a vacuum created by the lack of actual concrete proven evidence.
IF the BBC removed all reports that were based on speculation based on projections and models, cutting out any report that was based soley on the 'ifs/mays/coulds' then their science report output would drop by at least 75%.
The BBC is fanning the flames of fear and uncertainty, they are peddling fear and alarmism of the worst kind and in fact they are selling lies to the public that pay for their existence.
When will the BBC get it through their thick heads, we want the facts, the truth, what is it about actual reality that the BBC doesnt get?
At some point the lies and cynical manipulation of the viewer must end.
Its all linked to a small set of dodgy studies using dodgy methods and dodgy statistics.
The root of many of these studies is a small group of people doing the worst kind of research.
When the truth comes out just how many studies have been faked there will be an uproar, no wonder the BBC are turning a blind eye to it all, they will be among the last to ask the awkward questions that need asking now.
"Clearly, the graph above shows that Nature was changing the temperature by a little bit between 1979 and 2009. But it suddenly lost Her mind in 2009 and started to warm up. Why did She stop obeying Her own laws? And how much more quickly will she warm up? Well, the net UAH warming between 1979 and 2009 has been around 0.4 degrees Celsius. If extrapolated, and such extrapolations of violent short-term trends are likely to be overestimates, that would produce 0.6 degrees Celsius by 2060."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/09/four-degrees-celsius-in-50-years.html
Here is the graph - is it really conceivable?
This codswallop will only increase now that the Prime Mentalist announced 250,000 jobs today that are all in the green industry.
This imaginative genie is out of the bottle.
Green jobs? What bollocks. What McTwat means is 250,00 more sodding Council and Guardian reader jobs. Moronic arts graduates or media studies twats working for the public sector inspecting bins or runnig around ordering people to "turn that light off, don't you know there's climate change"
The BBC 'hardtalk' show with Stephen Sackur is a prime example of BBC bias on the subject of the supposed manmade global warming theory.
His interview of Sir David King is a picture of blind acceptance of the AGW dogma.
Sackur never once asks King about his predictions that turned out to be false, King isnt directly challenged about reality of the recent cooling which King and his beloved computer models simply failed to predict other than a trivial and shallow explanation about the PDO itself only a part of the reason for the recent cooling.
The very figures that King peddled in 2001 about temperature rises have failed to come about, in effect he was dead wrong and yet he isnt made to answer for those failed predictions.
So what did David King get right when he was the governments chief scientific officer and when he was peddling his hysterical warnings of doom? How many of his predictions of temperature rises were correct?
Did Sackur do his job properly and did Sackur ask the difficult questions that the title of his show suggests? Perhaps a better handle for his show would be 'soft talk' at least for the BBC allies.
King is a typical AGW liar, he puts the usual old ragged arguments based on a political narrative hidden behind a thin veneer of psuedo science and backed up with faked evidence.
It is a fact that the planet has been warmer in the past, it is a fact that the planet is cooling, it is a fact that the natural cycles of the earth has produced very similar temperature rises/falls in the past, the geological record proves it beyond doubt, it is a fact that the IPCC and the AGW theory failed to predict any cooling untill it overtook them and they could no longer deny its existence, it is a fact that the computer models have beeen using corrupted data and the conclusions of these computer models have been proven wrong.
The result of the Sackur-King interview is that the AGW believers have failed only in getting their message across to the public, after years of failed models and hysterical warnings of doom, after years of almost total dominance of the media platforms worldwide and the fanatical smear campaign against sceptical scientists the public isnt yet convinced about the AGW theories, so why is that?
Luckily for us all, many people realise a hard sell of a faulty product when they see it!
Yes that is correct if a news organisation doesn't run a story that is proof that it is bias and as such it goes to prove that Fox news has a liberal bias, those lefty lunatic global warming cheerleaders have failed to report this story. The list of obviously bias organisations grows, the Spectator have tellingly not picked it up. Most tellingly of all however is the Daily Mail that denizen of left liberal idiocy have yet again proved their horrifying bias by failing to pick up on this story. It says something when the only person brave enough to pick this up is a man who has a self confessed bias against global warming. It is heartening to see such even handed unbiased comments. I can that this is a place for the collective minds of those who have really looked at both sides of the argument.
You people are hilarious.
This not a B-Fox, B-Spectator or a B-Daily Mail blog so whether those organisations have failed in their duty is neither relevant nor an excuse for the BBC failure.
The BBC is the largest news gatherer on this planet, is publicly funded and has a legal obligation to neutrality. I can't tell you what, if any, position Fox News, the Spectator or the Daily Mail take on Global Warming. What I can say is that the BBC actively promotes Climate Change hysteria; inserts Global Warming references in all sorts of stories whenever possible no matter how far fetched; is a major player in what <span>James Delingpole called the Global Warming Industry and displays its partisanship both by the stories it runs and those it makes an editorial choice not to run.</span>
<span>Your sarcasm does not constitute an argument nor does it defeat the consistent observation on this topic by hundreds of observers from within and without the B-BBC blog.</span>
Sam 8:08
Don't forget that Cameron and the Conservative leadership also have fallen for this "Global Warming" idiocy.
The point is, if man-made warming is a reality, why do the scientists have to fake and skew the data ? It makes me suspicious that they and the politicians who are pushing this have an underlying motive which is not open and honest.
The hockey stick story is HUGE! Even the complete obstruction for getting data is a story worth its own "story"!
Interesting thing is, how will al beeb choose to cover it? Will they do a guardian and delete all reference to it?
Mailman
Is this the same Delingpole that claimed that there was no warming in the Arctic after noticing that there was more ice in a particular February than in the previous August, thereby showing he didn't know or notice the difference between winter and summer?
As far as I'm aware Delingpole has no appropriate scientific qualifications, but one would hope that any person of normal intelligence would know there was more ice in the winter than the summer.
Speaking of which, just how big this story is can be shown here;
"IPCC AR4 said that the late 20th century was the warmest in 1300 years, relying not just on the Mann Hockey Stick, but on about 10 reconstructions by a relatively small group of authors (the "Hockey Team" or the "Team"). "
Now that the hockey stick is dead once and for all, this has HUGE implications for the IPCC and every other global warming (tm) group that has based their claims on Mann's claims.
So again, be intersting to see how al beeb covers this development.
Mailman
Those doubters of climate change may wish to read this, it explains things quite well.
http://zikkir.com/it/13779
Ooooh so its all an honest 'mistake' is it?
All the fraudulant data, all the lies based soley on that fraudulant data, all the fake studies using that falsified data, all the obstructions and obfuscations, the smears and blinding arrogance?
Its only an 'honest mistake' because they got caught red handed!
The only mistake they made was to get caught out lying and cheating, they have the brass neck to claim it was all a mistake?
FFPS,
My ire was not aimed at you, the sheer neck of these people is quite stunning.
I hope they are found out in full and their careers are ruined.
Another follower of David Icke? I believe they have their own online community. Or were you considered too extreme for them?
Or maybe, y'know, it is all a conspiracy. All those scientists, all 97% of those surveyed, are lying. Why? Well scientists clearly hate cars and factories, it makes perfect sense. I've always thought scientists had it in for progress and...oh wait, i take that back.
Have you heard of cock-up theory? It's basically the retort to conspiracy theorists like yourself - instead of things happening for a reason, as part of a grand plan, things actualy just happen, more often than not as the result of a cock up somewhere along the line.
Tell me Conspiracy Queen Cass, did Bush also plot 9/11? Did Blair do 7/7? What about Diana - did Prince Philip do it? No one takes those conspiracy theories seriously because they are unsubstantiated and nonsense - and only a few strange and ignorant fools take the 'global warming isn't happening' theory seriously too.
FFPS,
That site doesnt clear anything up.
The only way this entire sordid issue can be cleared up is if all of the data and associated meta data is realesed so that people like McIntyre can review it in detail.
Then and only then will this problem go away.
However, something just keeps nagging away at me. Some how I doubt that those who have invested enourmous amounts of time, effort, energy and money will just give up on global warming like that.
Mailman
Have a look at these links, great deniers present, see what you find. Might open your eyes
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Denier-Myths-Debunked
So if I put togehter a page of pro-global (tm) warming is rubbish links, that will prove global warming (tm) is rubbish?
Honestly FFPS, the only way this problem will go away is when ALL the data and meta data is released so it can be reviewed. Until then, the hockey stick and everything else that is based on this data should be veiwed with suspician.
Not merely because of the authors continued reluctance to share their data. What does that tell you about the veracity of their work? What are they trying to hide?
so many questions and only one real scientist willing to ask the hard questions aye :)
Mailman
I think that many of these people are well aware that much so-called global warming research is not worth a cup of cold piss and is easily debunked. The promulgation of GWs I think has more to do with economic reasons rather than any benevolence or sensitivity towards suffering humanty.
A lot of research grants and tax money depends on this after all..
Science is about observation, experimentation, and hypothesis, not consensus. To quote Albert Einstein “a hundred scientist’s agreeing me doesn't amount to anything, because it only takes one to prove me wrong.”
Thats an interesting point Andy, but unfortunatealy one that is all to often lost on those who worship the religion of global warming (tm).
Mailman
I tend to find any post that has 'You people...' at the start or end seldom works out as the author might have hoped.
For those sympathetic to many of the points advocated in favour of climate 'caution', might I ask FFPS what exactly a 'denier' is (and of what, for that matter), and how throwing it around like confetti is in any way designed to work to positive consensus? One might almost think you prefer to wallow in the gutter spoiling for a fight than actually trying to make a meaningful change to the future. Which is an anarchic, nihilistic tribal approach incompatible with being sincere in making this a better world for our kids.
Of course it is relevant, all the news organisations I mentioned particularly fox news are highly sceptical of global warming and yet they did not think the story news worthy. The point of the piece was: because the BBC did not run the story it proves that they are biased towards the theory of man made global warming. News organisations such as the BBC and FOX have to decide what is in and what is out. To draw any conclusions on what they don't report especially when it is not seen as a big story by the majority of news organisations is spurious at best. If all other news organisations had covered it but the BBC had not then it would be good proof of a bias however that was not the situation.
On a wider point I wonder how many of you are scientists, I myself studied it but did not go on to do it professionally, I understand the difficulties of producing data that is perfect, it is easy to accuse the "evil scientist" of bias because of this. Data is always somewhat debatable but to come up with conspiracy as a reason without having full command of the facts doesn't prove the bias of the scientists or of those reporting it.
If any of you are interested the new scientist has done a very comprehensive scientific assessment of all the evidence, it draws no hysterical conclusions, it is mostly the press and bloggers that get hysterical about these things, not scientists.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
The hockey stick is one piece of evidence in a jigsaw puzzle that in it's self cannot create a picture. I personally believe it is rational to look at all of the pieces and try to understand the argument as a whole, to look at why you believe what you believe and where the information/desires you are basing these beliefs come from. The scientific community love nothing more than to prove each other wrong. Unity of belief across the scientific community is relatively rare. I my self am a sceptic of every piece of information that I come across but the evidence presented by scientists for man made global warming when looked at as a whole picture, all pieces in place, is convincing.
Certainly as a guardian of this planet which I think we humans should be for the sake of our children, I believe it is better to heir on the side of caution, I certainly do not understand the kind of rabid anger that this subject seems to provoke is some.
Peace.
Sorry about the sarcasm by the way I was just having a little fun. I apologise if it ruffled feathers. And on the point about lots of people on this site thinking the BBC is biased, well this is a politically motivated site, the BBC shouldn't be. If they are doing their job well the people posting on this site should disagree with many of it's conclusions by virtue the fact that this site is openly bias to one side of the political spectrum. Again I am not concluding anything about how the BBC is editorial, just that if it was editorially in line with the postings on this site then it definitely would not be impartial. Hard to swallow it may be but Steve McIntyre is not well respected and that is why the story did not get in to any of the major news organisations out put. Belief in something because you want it to be true does not make it so.
The two sites you provided are a perfect picture of the AGW cults true nature, a hellish version of murky intent,cherry picked/faked data/ugly smearing/blatant lying/misrepresentation.
If those ugly sites are the best you can do then I truly feel sorry for you, science is the pursuit of truth whereas you seem to want to follow those who pursue the opposite.
I suggest you visit the 'WATTS UP WITH THAT' site and read the first four posts, if you read those posts with an open mind and you still refuse to open your eyes to the grubby dirty reality of the AGW theory, then you truly are a lost cause.
I disagree, with this the politicians did not want to believe in man made global warming for years they had to be brought around to this perspective this is also true for the scientific community. They have all been brought around to this perspective by a large amount of evidence. Global warming is not a positive thing for anyone, least of all the state, it has economic and infrastructure implications that will be inconvenient for all of us, politicians hate anything that upsets the electorate. Why would it possibly be to anyone's advantage to lie about it. You talk about an underlying motive but I cannot think of a single motive for wanting global warming to be true if it wasn't, if you can it would be interesting to hear it.
Sam,
Politicians have been bought (spelling on purpose) around by the large numbers of votes now tied up in the issue. The reality is that any politician that runs against the religion of global warming (tm) is hanging a nice bit of juicy propoganda to their political opposition to run against them with.
Secondly, politicians can see the cash cow that is global warming (tm) green taxes. As I stated earlier, the transport minister himself made it very clear that not a single person has been stopped from flying due to green taxes. Lets not forget these taxes will be raising millions and billions of pounds of revenue and right now the government needs every penny it can get!
You ask why anyone would lie about global warming, apart from the answer being obvious. Politicians will lie for a number of reasons, increase revenue, protect power, increase power, increase influence and as for scientists, this is a body of people who have invested their very sole in to the great warming swindle so do you believe these people will just turn around and say their "lifes" work has been a sham?
Mailman
Sam,
Time and time again the differences between Fox (commercial news channel) and al beeb (tax payer funded) have been set out here.
You know with Fox, they at least allow both sides of a story to be aired...probably why the hockey stick story isnt such an important piece there as they already allow those who do not believe global warming (tm) is the problem people are making it out to be.
However al beeb is different. Al beeb has a responsibility, a requirement to be impartial...yet time and time again al beeb fails to meet that very low expectation.
Also lets not forget that al beeb IS the largest news gathering source in the world! Al beeb SHOULD be covering things like this as global warming (tm) policies and laws effect everyone in this country. YET not a twitter.
Nadda...nothing...zilch...zero. Al beeb is most definately NOT impartial when it comes to the great global warming (tm) swindle. Al beeb is an agitator for global warming (tm). al beeb is a vehicle to spread global warming (tm) propoganda and its all funded by the tax paying public!
BTW your argument about how many are scientists doesnt hold water. If you follow your argument, then you are saying that only those who are experts in any given area should be allowed to comment. If thats what you are after, then any forum would be a VERY quiet place indeed. Also, last time I checked, when most of these so called "scientists" were in University I some how doubt global warming (tm) degree's were being offered. Maybe global cooling (tm), but not global warming (tm).
Regards
Mailman
<span style="">On a wider point I wonder how many of you are scientists, I myself studied it but did not go on to do it professionally,</span>
There with the 'you' thing again... very tribal.
I do agree that the background of a commenter could be of value, but on blogs pointless. I could claim to be Al Gore and the head of the IPPC's love child for all the relevance it would have.
Only those in above-parapet, usually paid positions are open to more scrutiny. James Delingpole is in a poor position in this regard, but doesn't claim to be on the high ground educationally. Were that most BBC 'science' 'reporters' as frank about their backgrounds and abilities to seek, sift and/or convey what they are handed by those they like mixing with.
As to 'doing it' that reminds me more of Brainiac: 'I can do science, me'.
I think 'it' is a tad more extensive, and nuanced, than many seem to imagine.
And as 'it' seems much in climate science futurology is still erring on the triumph of hope over experience, at best, I am finding that with my two science and engineering-based degrees I am using facts a lot more on assessing claims than most voodoo projections that I see getting rushed out, shot down... and setting back sensible climate communication to the public by the decades it is possible (note that) we may not have.
Thanks mainly to a bunch of 'paint it green and anyone will have to buy it' numpties, and those in certain media who did English and politics at Oxbridge with them who they have on their licence-payer funded iPhone.
No wonder they don't seem to be grasping all sides very well, as they only seem to be aware of one. After the evidence of the last few days, do we really want Ed Miliband as the overlord of our energy and climate futures????! Yet he is Aunty's 'go to guy' as we head for Copenhagen.
Hold the fire...al beeb has responded to why they are ignoring McIntyres findings;
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/10/1/briffa-responds.html#comments
Scoff away at your own time :)
Regards
Mailman
And more from Mr Bishop!
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
You know, one would think that journalists would be inquisitive by nature...so if Harribin and Black are so incredibly INCURIOUS about the antics surrounding global warming (tm), what real hope do we have of al beeb or anyone else in the msm covering what McIntyre has just dismantled?
Mailman
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx
The wheels on the bus go round and round...and yet al beeb remains incredibly incurious!
Mailman
Post a Comment