BBC back peddling on Climate Change/Global Warming

I'm glad you're waking up to the world biggest scam next to telecommunications.

The Great Energy Con.

Global Warming > Save Energy > Energy Usage Decreases > Cost Increase.

Energy companies now charge up too 70% more for electricity to counter the short fall of energy usage due to the global warming crisis. They have made the energy a whole lot more profitable....

"So, the point I am making is that even if there is global warming, the end result would be an ice age - this is fact and matters not whether man did it or whether it was nature. I often see this confusion in people who argue against climate change.
"


Love this point. The closest humanity is able to get to the truth, at least for the time being. All the rest are just lies and conspiracies.

reply to post by bigyin

You're basing your argument (and I guess pinning all your hopes) on one contested statement - in a documentary featured in an article found in the BBC's Entertainment & Arts section?

This is as good an example as any of why I fear for all mankind - seriously

Seems like we cherry pick our info sometimes - doesn't it?

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.
Desmogblog (s.tt...)

I wish you would read this - and all the links. Not because I think I can change your mind with facts - I just think you should see how committed the people who are knowledgeable about this subject really are - scientists are about to go all activist on our asses

The Earth is - WHAT?
Why Earth and atmospheric scientists are swearing up a storm and getting arrested.

Why shout out the blunt question on everyone’s mind? Werner explained at the outset of the presentation that it was inspired by friends who are depressed about the future of the planet. “Not so much depressed about all the good science that’s being done all over the world—a lot of it being presented here—about what the future holds,” he clarified, “but by the seeming inability to respond appropriately to it.”

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

As for the big question—is Earth ******?—Werner announced in his talk that he has done some preliminary runs of his model. At this point I could sense the audience lean forward collectively on their seats. First he simulated the global economy proceeding into the future without the drag of environmental management decisions. “What happens is not too surprising,” he told us evenly. “Basically the economy fast chews up the environmental resources, depletes those reservoirs, resulting in a significant amount of environmental damage.”

Originally posted by bigyin
I'd like to make my position clear since a few posters have criticised my op.

I'm not a scientist but I can think for myself.

I accept that weather patterns are different now to what I remember from years ago.

Whether this is due to mans activities or not I don't know.

I am all in favour of reducing pollution of the environment where possible.

What I have noticed especially on the BBC is a relentless mention of Global Warming or more recently Climate Change and it is always linked to some activity by man. We are constantly reminded/bombarded with comments about temperature rises, the effect on wildlife (Polar Bears), CO2, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, etc, etc

What annoys me is that it is all one way hysteria, designed for what I'm not sure, but somebody is making money from it at my expense.

Fact is the actual facts on the ground are not the same as those being broadcast.

Yes some glaciers are melting, like they always have and always will. Others are growing.
Sea levels are not rising, in fact some studies show they are falling.
Polar bears are not as bad off as Sir David made out in a previous programme.
Temperatures are not rising like Sir David claims, in fact the are falling.
Climate is changing like it always has and always will.

If the BBC told us that one guy claimed the temp was going up but then went on to say that another guy says it's going down and summed up by saying that we can't be sure, then I wouldn't have a problem with them.

What does bother me is the BBC taking one side of the argument and pushing it as if it was a proven fact when it isn't.

Why make false claims.

If the BBC accept that this particular 'fact' was not in fact true, then why don't they get Sir david to come on TV and explain to the audience why the 'mistake' came about. He could go on to explain that there are two sides to the Climate Change theory. It is only a theory. There are other theories. There are other forces of nature which could account for some of the climate changes we experience and buying energy efficient light bulbs is not going to make any difference against those.

Sure some people are going to feel better thinking they are doing something to save the planet, but imo they are either being conned, or living in a fantasy world.

I saw a bus the other day with a sticker on the back stating it was a Carbon Neutral bus .......what does that even mean ........ made me laugh at least....... but heh if it gets more passengers on board it must be a good thing.

I am going to admit that I should not have used the word backpeddling, because when I think about it the BBC have not backpeddled. They have been caught out once again and have decided to airbrush an inconvenient truth out. They still have not admitted that the whole agenda could be wrong.

edit on 12-2-2013 by bigyin because: (no reason given)

A very good post, all valid points and I could not agree more with you.
Especially the day in and day out of screaming about carbon this and carbon that.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


So are you saying the sea is rising or not ?

Also to add here, I am curious about how much of a carbon foot print perpetual wars have on the Planet?
Nobody seems to mention the emissions of a battle tank/jet fighters/transports/etc etc?

I can bet they are not "Carbon Neutral"
Lets not ask lest there is a drone above us.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by bigyin

So are you saying the sea is rising or not ?

Afraid of a little reading are you?

or, is it that you're genuinely confused?

:-)

Yeah we shouldn’t believe those greedy scientists they are only out for themselves the oil and coal companies wouldn’t lie to us haven’t you seen they make clean coal. I mean it its clean they wouldn’t spend millions advertising it if it wasn’t true. They are a wholesome group that is so very thankful for the billions in subsidies they would never do anything unethical for money.

BP said they are really sorry and they won’t do it again they pinky promise.

We should have nothing but trust and admiration for oil and coal but those greedy lying cheating scientists are only in it for the money don’t trust a word they have to say. They actually want us to think they are smart or something can you believe the nerve of those people.

"The committee’s chair, Ralph Hall (R-Texas), lumps 'global freezing' together with global warming, which he doesn’t believe humans can significantly impact because 'I don’t think we can control what God controls.' Dana Rohrbacher (R-Huntington Beach) thinks cutting down trees reduces levels of greenhouse gases they absorb. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) still trots out the debunked notion that a scientific consensus existed in the 1970s on 'global cooling,' which he portrays as a scare concocted by scientists 'in order to generate funds for their pet projects.'

See there is your proof that scientist are lying about climate change as the senator said only GOD can change the weather. How can anyone believe a scientist over GOD or a senator?

Here is more proof that science is worthless. U.S. Rep. Paul Broun how can you argue with that after all he sits on the science board he should know. Right?

“God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. Its lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. There’s a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.

Believe in God, Senators, congressmen, Big Oil, and coal forget those greedy scientists what can they possibly know.

God put oil and coal on earth for man to use when he made the universe 9,000 years ago and he swore he wouldn’t do anything like the flood again oh and dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to mislead us and scientists are the tools of Satan but don’t worry the republicans will save you because they are God fearing truth tellers that will also spread the gospel of fossil fuel.

articles.latimes.com...

Originally posted by Phage

So warming is nothing but a scam to take money away from oil companies and give it to poor African nations?

That is the gist of it, yes.

I'm confused though, he's talking about how such a policy would result in the wealth of huge corporations being "redistributed" to less developed nations. I'm a bit surprised you find that offensive.

Your confused about what? That such a policy is simply wealth redistribution, or that I find it offensive?

Of course they are...

By now everyone knows Al Gore is a crazy person who paid a NASA scientist to give him "data" to make him look right...

Global warming is a hoax, just like the hole in the ozone layer that was suppose to expand, and the global food shortage... all these self crafted disasters are from democrats btw

reply to post by burntheships

That such a policy is simply wealth redistribution, or that I find it offensive?

There is no such policy.
I'm surprised that you find reduced corporate profits as a result of a nonexistent policy who's intent is to mitigate climate change is offensive.

Originally posted by bigyin
It would have imo been far better if they had got Sir David to explain why his comments have been deemed as codswallop and exposed the AGW conspiracy.

Well the reason is simply that a researcher got it wrong/didn't check their facts.

It's a bit worrying that a flagship programme could contain such incorrect information. But the BBC has been dumbing down for years, sadly.

Details of where the mistake came from here

(note: the Guardian is not exactly known for rejecting science when it doesn't accord with what they want to believe, unlike some UK media outlets)

reply to post by Phage


Why are you suprised that I see this for the hoax that it is?

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

The First Global Revolution
which is " A Report by The Club Of Rome" in which the quote is found...

On page 75 you can find the quote:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

page 84 of the PDF, page 75 of the actual document.
ia700408.us.archive.org...

www.archive.org...

reply to post by burntheships

Pollution is a hoax? See what's been happening in Beijing lately?
Famine is a hoax? People aren't starving?
Water shortages are a hoax? Seems last summer was pretty bad.
Warming is a hoax? Seems last year was pretty hot.

You don't think humans are their own worst enemy?

Did you read the paragraph before that one?

In the present Situation in the world, the lack of identification of the people with the processes of decision making is expressed in the form of indifference, sceptism, or outright rejection of governments and political parties, which are seen is having little control over the problems ofour times. These attitudes are clearly Indicated by a decreasing rate of participation in elections.

Seems they want people to be more aware of whats going on. They want people to "wake up".

A dynamic world needs an effective nervous system at the grassroots level, not only to ensure the widest range of inputs, but also to make the identification of every citizen with the common process of governance possible.

Yeah, sounds like a terrible idea for people to be able to identify with those who govern them instead of thinking that nothing can be done about it.

reply to post by burntheships


They are ignoring other factors.
The axis of the Earth effects our weather patterns.
The El Nino effect causes warming of the Pacific Ocean and effects our weather.
Every 11 years heat bubbles up off the coast of South America. Man has nothing to
do with that.
Solar flares, CMEs and normal solar wind effect the warming / cooling of the Earth.

I don't think Al Gore cares anymore. He got his $100 Million already.

reply to post by Phage


Pollution is not a hoax, however AGW is, one cannot forget the IPCC Scandals and the
"hockey stick" that never was.

Were not talking pollution here, we are talking the hysterics of the GW religion.

Besides, everyone knows that The Gubbments dont want to regulate pollution, if they
did they would keep in check the EPA, that is complicit with the FDA and the USDA
allowing such mass quanities of pesticides into GMO crops, so much so that it is found
in the cord blood of pregnant women, and the corn fields are toxic.

A scam and a hoax it is.

Yes, good points you have made.

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

I don't think Al Gore cares anymore. He got his $100 Million already.

that he did, although I think he likes being the poster boy of GW.
Its become part of him, even though it was a scam.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
Of course they are...

By now everyone knows Al Gore is a crazy person who paid a NASA scientist to give him "data" to make him look right...

Global warming is a hoax, just like the hole in the ozone layer that was suppose to expand, and the global food shortage... all these self crafted disasters are from democrats btw

Now I know how Noah must have felt...

:-)

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
Of course they are...

By now everyone knows Al Gore is a crazy person who paid a NASA scientist to give him "data" to make him look right...

Global warming is a hoax, just like the hole in the ozone layer that was suppose to expand, and the global food shortage... all these self crafted disasters are from democrats btw

Now I know how Noah must have felt...

:-)

Question: The Noah flood really did occur.
Apparently, it took 9 months for the water to go down to its current level.
That's a lot of water.

Where did it go?

reply to post by TauCetixeta

Question: The Noah flood really did occur.

Answer: There was no worldwide flood. The water went into the ocean, eventually.