BBC Global warming deceit

Well, I’m not yet bored with this. In fact we have fresh impetus in the shape of comments on an adjacent subject to do with the size of our domestic energy bills.

All, entirely due to the demands that the EU places on some member countries to provide energy from renewable sources without regard for – here we go again – the accuracy and honesty of the data allegedly supporting those demands.

Some day soon, the nightmare of the EU will be gone and we will look back and wonder how it was that our Governments and a majority of our people could so easily be fooled by the EU apparachniks.

Next month, due to EU CO2 directives, about 10% of our viable power generation capacity will shut prematurely. We have installed new wind and solar renewables over the past few years, but when the wind is not blowing and at night or in cloudy weather, there is no power from these sources. Therefore, we will not have that 10% capacity available in reserve for such contingencies, bringing us closer to power blackouts. I expect that this is of no concern to the EU, only that we comply. Where is the debate on this on BBC?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9878251/Keeping-Britains-lights-on-will-come-at-a-price.html

Steven

Well, I’m not yet bored with this. In fact we have fresh impetus in the shape of comments on an adjacent subject to do with the size of our domestic energy bills.

All, entirely due to the demands that the EU places on some member countries to provide energy from renewable sources without regard for – here we go again – the accuracy and honesty of the data allegedly supporting those demands.

Some day soon, the nightmare of the EU will be gone and we will look back and wonder how it was that our Governments and a majority of our people could so easily be fooled by the EU apparachniks.

In the meantime we pay in the sure and certain knowledge that what goes up does not come down.

Moggy C

No one has claimed that the anti lobby is whiter than white. The truth is that they do not have much to lie about. There might be damage – serious damage – in the long term but, in the short term, if they are wrong, it won’t much hurt your wallet or mine. The damage to our wallet’s is in the here and now brought about by the crazed lunacies of the pro lobby.

Arrant nonsense ? As an expert you could be right.

Yup, me too. But one man’s white is another man’s black, so we will get nowhere…

Well that’s an admission. The chicanery and deceit of the pro lobby means that they are utterly discredited. One simply can’t believe a word they say.

Whereas we can believe every word of the anti-lobby. 😀 😀 😀

What arrant nonsense.

Anyway, bored with this now. Feel free to continue arguing that black is white in my absence.

Moggy

It may not be good but unless you want to be wholly reliant on energy bought from Russia and Kazakstan shale gas might be one of our few indigenous sources in the years to come. Turbines even the 10/20,000 we need will produce about 5% and will take years to build.

John Green

Humans effect is local and contained. Your idea of local and mine are very different. I can’t imagine anyone calling the hole on the ozone layer local. Chernobyl? Local and contained? The fallout covered a massive area and it certainly wasn’t contained.

As far as recycling is concerned, you need to get a better council. Ours takes our recycled rubbish and sorts it at a recycling site at Shotton.

Interestingly the temperature data for weather stations throughout the UK is available on the Met Office website. I’ve had a look at these and thought, well, if that well known climate expert Burt Rutan can do it, so can I. There is no doubt that over the timescales of the available data, the average temperature in the UK (for the samples I looked at) is rising. I know it wasn’t very scientific but there you are.

[QUOTE=Andy in Beds;1992214]Actually and to be honest, I think the BBC did inform me of that–Radio 4 I think it was.
So we at least agree that the planet’s resources must therefore be finite.
The question though remains, do you want shale gas recovery going on under your property?
No doubt this will affect property prices and associated costs.

Andy You are right about house prices, it’s not that long ago, that houses in Mining areas up North were virtually being given away, due to the subsidence caused by mines underneath them.
No property Companies would lend them the money, so it was a cash purchase only, then they found no one would Insure their property. So is Shale mining good in such a small Country as ours?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Re 119

Moggy C

Well that’s an admission. The chicanery and deceit of the pro lobby means that they are utterly discredited. One simply can’t believe a word they say.

If the myth of man made global warming was tested in a court of law it would be thrown out for lack of credible evidence.

Re 120

Derekf

No, you are quite wrong – again. I do not accept. I do accept that humans can and do make a difference to their environment but, importantly, these differences are local and contained – certainly not “widespread and catastrophic”.

You can be as environmentally aware as you like, it won’t change anything unless and until you can persuade the planets largest polluters – which of course you can’t.

In the meantime the posturing of warmists and so-called environmentalists such as yourself simply create more and more misery thru’ increased taxation for the rest of us.

It is instructive to note that the public have just been informed that in spite of all the Local Authority and government inspired threats and intimidation re rubbish re-cycling it is all going to landfill anyway. So, what was all that about?

The data you refer to hasn’t been ‘manipulated’ it has been falsified. It is crooked. Pure invention. Total and utter lies.

The UK has about 25,000MW capacity of coal powered stations. China proposes to increase its coal fired capacity by twenty two times that amount. Not many BBC people will tell you that.

It is therefore imperative that we exploit the shale gas that is literally under our feet.

Steven

Actually and to be honest, I think the BBC did inform me of that–Radio 4 I think it was.
So we at least agree that the planet’s resources must therefore be finite.
The question though remains, do you want shale gas recovery going on under your property?
No doubt this will affect property prices and associated costs.

I also realise that china is buying up huge mineral resources in Africa against future requirements.
Of course, we’re all buying the stuff they’re making.

Regardless of any of the foregoing it is worth mentioning that it is generally accepted by all, supporters and deniers alike, that there has been no increase in global warming for nearly 20 years. Naturally each side interprets that fact differently.

I take John Green that you now accept that humans can and have made differences to their environment and that those differences can be widespread and catastrophic. I have no idea whether humans contribute to global warming but in plenty of other ways we can have a detrimental effect on the place we inhabit.

We all have to make do with the environment we find ourselves in. That doesn’t mean we can’t do our bit to reduce waste of raw materials or energy or emissions. As well as being “green” (which ironically you don’t seem to be :D) it has the added advantage of reducing costs as well. In that respect I don’t particularly see anything wrong with being environmentally aware.

There is also no doubt that data has been “manipulated” and, as I said before, it has been very difficult to get real unadulterated data, unsullied by one agenda or another.

The bottom line seems to be that global warming is happening, but it is unclear if humans are a contributory factor. The question is, are we willing to take chance that we aren’t to blame? Some clearly are. I’m not so sure.

Re 102

Moggy C and others

I realise that you are probably not looking for it but, some credit would hurtle your way if you gave even grudging acknowledgment that to some degree at least, the proponents of global warming have cooked the books of supporting evidence.

Undeniable.

But then I suppose those so keen to pretend climate change isn’t a reality never have?

A pointless point that moves the discussion not one step further forward.

Moggy

See, to my mind, it’s all about ‘NIMBY-ism’. Who here would want the process of ‘Fracking’ going under their little piece of ‘paradise’? A further question might also be: ‘If resources are so plentiful, why are comapnies having to resort to a process like fracking, which seems to have the smallest hint of desperation about it.

A.

PS. And I do admit that the figures were ‘jiggled’ about climate change. Too many people were/are making money from it for it not to happen.

There will be more contention for resources, whilst we are wrongly turning away from coal, the rest of the world is using it at a huge rate.

The UK has about 25,000MW capacity of coal powered stations. China proposes to increase its coal fired capacity by twenty two times that amount. Not many BBC people will tell you that.

It is therefore imperative that we exploit the shale gas that is literally under our feet.

Steven

I return to the subject of over-population.
If you had half the human population, you would have half the problems–in every respect.
Now, is anyone present going to argue with me that the Earth’s resources are finite..??
If therefore they are finite, how are we going to proceed when with an population rising close to exponentially, and therefore needing to rip out the resources ever quicker..?

See, to my mind, it’s all about ‘NIMBY-ism’. Who here would want the process of ‘Fracking’ going under their little piece of ‘paradise’? A further question might also be: ‘If resources are so plentiful, why are companies having to resort to a process like fracking, which seems to have the smallest hint of desperation about it??

I agree that I don’t see why people in the third world shouldn’t have a beeter standard of living, but at what price? If that meant a decrease in living standards here, how many, even those do-gooding souls who advocate these things would tolerate it?

There you go, there’s a few questions there to chew over.
A.

PS. And I do admit that the figures were ‘jiggled’ about climate change. Too many people were/are making money from it for it not to happen.

Re 102

Moggy C and others

I realise that you are probably not looking for it but, some credit would hurtle your way if you gave even grudging acknowledgment that to some degree at least, the proponents of global warming have cooked the books of supporting evidence.

At the beginning of this subject I mentioned the latest instance in Attenborough’s TV series ‘Africa’. The BBC were persuaded to alter their claim because sufficient people noticed the canard and were prepared to do something about it.

And that, is really the nub of this argument. Why does it appear so necessary for the pro lobby to cook the books as we KNOW they have and have admitted that they have?

If the case for global warming is clear and unequivocal then false evidence isn’t required and the matter will stand on its own merits.

Quite frankly, it would not make the slightest difference if I was the world’s foremost authority on climatology. The span of time involved in observing significant periods of warming/cooling activity on this planet is too great for man made observations thus enabling remedial measures to be taken.

We are left with computer projections giving rise to wishful thinking hypotheses. Indeed, rubbish in; rubbish out.

Derekf

Re 100

It is obvious that when it comes to issues of climate change you are a man of high principle and conscience. You write that you are looking for a solution as well as making your own individual contribution to the threat of climate change.

May I suggest you turn off your heating, lock your car in the garage, and become a vegetarian thus obviating the expense of rearing beef herds with their huge concomitant release of methane gases into the atmosphere.

In addtion, and most importantly, plant lots of trees and hand out free condoms. Next, hire a coach and horses (plus shovel for the manure) go to India and China two of the most heavily populated countries on the planet and talk to them about your plans to save the world. They will gather at your feet and listen to your message. Whether you can convince them to take all the measures that you have now so courageously volunteered – in pursuit of your solution – remains to be seen.

We’d all be interested to know what they say.

Since this obviously interesting post was started with the intent of reviewing BBC’s lack of coverage of most of the debate on AGW, here are some highly relevant topics which, to my knowledge, won’t have been covered by BBC.

No almost certainly not. None fits the “warming glove” of the BBC’s AGW agenda!!

That’s true but, much as I would like it otherwise, that petition has been largely discredited because of the lack of verification of the signatories and the wide diversity of their expertise.

You can get a list of the signatories, here. http://www.oism.org/pproject/

For such a key petition, there have been attempts at scamming it and attempts at discreditIng it by those with a vested interest in AGW. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/25/why-did-pbs-frontline-electronically-alter-the-signature-of-one-of-the-worlds-most-distinguished-physicists-in-their-report-climate-of-doubt/

It is a relatively old petition, so opposition to the global warming meme has always been there. Organisations like BBC have played their part in hiding the extent of the dissent, by ignoring such scientific counter views. Preferring instead to wheel out the resident Greenpeace or WWF stooges to state the expected BBC approved message.

As for the diversity of numerate and scientific backgrounds, this actually strengthens the case.

Steven

That’s true but, much as I would like it otherwise, that petition has been largely discredited because of the lack of verification of the signatories and the wide diversity of their expertise.