You Won’t Know This Of Course; Thanks BBC.
“Perhaps the Woolly Mammoth can do one last service. If climate change really did it in, could there be a reason government hasn’t considered?”
“Could the sun be the most potent influence on our planet’s temperature?”
I tweeted a tongue in cheek jibe at the BBC Radio 4 Today Show’s climate change bias last month when it broadcast a story saying Woolly Mammoths were wiped out 4,000 years ago by climate change.
“That can’t be true,” I said. “Everybody knows that human generation of carbon dioxide (CO2) causes climate change, right?”
That is the conventional wisdom at the BBC and other leftie, superficial, lazy news organisations and they refuse to allow any serious attack on their positions, even though there is still no direct evidence linking human emissions of CO2 to change in the climate. The link has been “established” by using computer models with algorithms stacked with dodgy evidence aimed at producing the right result. There have been long periods in the 20th century when CO2 went up but temperatures refused to follow.
And let’s get this straight early on. There is a reason for this bias. Communists/Marxists/socialists/fascists lost all the arguments in the 20th century about how to boost economies and ensure political freedom at the same time. The late 20th century showed freedom, free markets and open societies were the way to do it. But if you could manufacture an issue which showed the world’s climate would be destroyed unless we stopped producing CO2, and the only way to stop this was to let politicians control our use of energy by top-down dictat, you can see how the left would love this scenario.
The rest of us know that if you let extreme lefties near the levers of power again we’ll see the return of chaos and death that communists/Marxists/socialists/fascists brought down on our heads in mid-century. (see http://www.wintonsblog.com/wintonsworld-bbcdiary/ for my thoughts on why fascists are socialists)
You won’t be surprised to hear that I received no reaction from my Woolly Mammoth tweet, and the BBC still sails on serenely despite the latest IPCC report, which has been roundly attacked by many scientists as yet more incompetence and tendentiousness. Not many appeared on the BBC.
The latest IPCC report said, among other things, that its basic raison d’etre, that humans are causing climate change, is even more certain than before, even though this is clearly not the case. The mainstream media led by the BBC did allow a couple of dissenting voices in on the story, but it still refuses either to acknowledge this growing opposition, or even suggest that anything needs to change. Let me show you some of the reaction to the IPCC report that the BBC and its ilk are hiding from you.
Let’s start with my hero Professor Richard Lindzen, climate scientist at MIT.
Not intelligent respect for science
“The IPCC report is a political document. Each IPCC report seems to be required to conclude that the case for an international agreement to curb carbon dioxide has grown stronger. As the discrepancies between models and observations increase, the IPCC insists that its confidence in the model predictions is greater than ever,” Lindzen said.
“Support of global warming alarm hardly constitutes intelligent respect for science,” Lindzen added.
Or take Israeli astrophysicist Dr Nir Shaviv.
“The IPCC and alike are captives of a wrong conception. The IPCC is still doing its best to avoid the evidence that the sun has a large effect on climate. After perhaps billions of dollars invested in climate research over more than three decades, our ability to answer the most important question in climate has not improved a bit,” Shaviv said.
Here’s another expert who has been censored into non-existence by the BBC, Dr Don Easterbrook, Professor of Geology at Western Washington University.
“After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it. We’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90 per cent of the past 10,000 years. Warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years, long before CO2 could have had anything to do with it, so warming in itself certainly doesn’t prove that it was caused by CO2,” Easterbrook said.
Cooling is coming
Climatologist Dr Tim Ball Queen Mary College, University of London warns that we are facing a cooling period.
“We’re heading toward what occurred around the year 1800. It was called the Dalton Minimum of low sunspot activities. We certainly are down to that in number of sunspots this year. That means the cooling will continue at least until 2030 and yet the government is preparing for warming, which is outrageous,” Ball said.
The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, said the world had pumped more than 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere between 1998 and 2012.
“Yet global surface temperatures have remained essentially flat. That’s the mystery. If emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming, why hasn’t the globe been warming,” the Journal said.
The Journal said this unreliable set of evidence from the IPCC should persuade policymakers to be cautious, and hold off grandiose and very expensive schemes like so-called Cap and Trade, which seek to limit the output of CO2. Robust economic growth remains the best insurance against any possible global warming crisis.
“But that requires free-market, pro-growth policies that are the opposite of the statist fixes pushed by the climate alarmists,” the Journal said.
“They use the flimsy intellectual scaffolding of the IPCC report to justify killing the U.S. coal industry and the Keystone XL pipeline, banning natural gas drilling, imposing costly efficiency requirements for automobiles,……….,using scarce resources to subsidise technologies that even after decades can’t compete on their own in the market place,” it said.
(The Keystone pipeline is a proposed link from Canada to Texas to exploit oil reserves. The Obama administration has caved to his leftist support who want to stop any use of oil and coal at all).
This feeling that the IPCC has lost the plot doesn’t seem to have much impact on the politicians which are listening to their edicts. You would have thought that the blatant data rigging revealed by the Climate Gate scandal might have had a more lasting impact. Or the so-called “hockey-stick” controversy, which sought to cover up the inconvenient truth of a medieval period of soaring temperatures which happened without increased CO2? And doesn’t it seem weird to someone in our government that Greenland had a warmer climate a couple of thousand years ago that spurred agriculture, or that red wine growing flourished in England then, led by higher temperatures without the aid of industrialised amounts of CO2? And global temperatures fell between 1945 and 1975 as CO2 output soared. Could it be that the sun’s has the most potent influence on our planet’s temperature?
None of these powerful ideas seem to have any impact on our government, seemingly still in the grip of green maniacs who insist on eliminating our carbon based economy without any regard for the consequences, with measures which will have no impact on the climate.
Perhaps the Woolly Mammoth can do us one last service, despite its sad extinction. If climate change really did it in, could there be a reason for this phenomenon our government hasn’t yet considered?