BBC Global warming deceit

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.

Steven

Because they do not believe that it is in their best interests to do so. Kyoto has been superceded by Copenhagen, anyway which, in itself, was a damp squib.

It is worth noting that the Kyoto protocol has been rejected by over 31,00 scientists.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Steven

Well certainly the wind farm scam is well and truly on our doorstep with huge subsidies being paid to the manufacturers and to the landowners courtesy of our energy bills, which will only get larger and larger as, by the DECC’s own figures these monstrosities continue as cost inefficient white elephants.

This is an interesting article, and I post it here for your perusal.
I make no comment on it’s contents, as I have no way of knowing if the “facts” presented are valid.

http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/28/a-14-trillion-extortion-for-a-global-warming-scam/

Your answer Chas, don’t answer my question, just about everyone “Moans” regarding the Tax we have to pay in the name of Global conservation.
Why, to repeat myself, hasn’t those Countries not signed the Treaty?.
It’s the same old story, tell them anything, as long as we can get more money from them by telling them Green is Best.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Because they do not believe that it is in their best interests to do so. Kyoto has been superceded by Copenhagen, anyway which, in itself, was a damp squib.

Ah, moaning about green taxes – yes indeed! But anyone who believes in AGW should not be moaning about the taxes, should they?

Well, if that is your view you share it with many others just as those of us who disagree with it share our view with many others. I don’t think “moaning about it” has anything to do with it.

Your answer Chas, don’t answer my question, just about everyone “Moans” regarding the Tax we have to pay in the name of Global conservation.
Why, to repeat myself, hasn’t those Countries not signed the Treaty?.
It’s the same old story, tell them anything, as long as we can get more money from them by telling them Green is Best.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

:D!! So I did…..

You forgot forumology!! :diablo:

You misunderstood – I was talking about the contrary view to those opposing AGW or at best agnostic. Climatology as you will know is a very narrow field and the science which actually affects the climate is represented by many other disciplines such as geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology.

Among those who hold the contrary view there are large numbers who are not narrowly climatologists.

And exceedingly small numbers who are.

I think we are capable of drawing our own conclusions from that fact.

Moggy

Among those who hold the contrary view there are large numbers who are not narrowly climatologists. Since the climate is affected by a range of associated disciplines it would be very narrow minded to limit it to climatology. However two of the key figures supporting AGW in recent years are a railway engineer and a molecular biologist. I do not regard those two disciplines as lending helpful support.

This is worth a read:

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

Well I wouldn’t criticise someone for doing or believing something if I was unable to counter their view. You have a right to criticise my views and the reasons for them but not if you have no countervailing arguments.

I guess my last few posts seem to have been a waste of time. I’m not sure what you want from a discussion charliehunt. I disagreed and put forward and argument against but, and not surprisingly, this isn’t good enough. What you seem to be saying, and I’m sure you’ll correct me on this, is that you don’t care about the environment, and I do, but I have to find a solution to the mess. :confused:

As MoggyC said, that’s a fine list but seems a little short on climatologists and flight test engineers 🙂

The portmanteau term ‘scientist’ seems to cover virtually every discipline apart from climatology.

You make the pro-climate change argument very well with that list.

Moggy

Well I wouldn’t criticise someone for doing or believing something if I was unable to counter their view. You have a right to criticise my views and the reasons for them but not if you have no countervailing arguments.

Is this list sufficient?

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[11]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[12]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[13]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [14]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[17][18]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[19]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[22]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[23]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[24]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[25]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[27]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[28][29]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[30]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[31][32]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[33]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[34][35][36]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[37]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[38]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[39]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[40]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[41]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[42]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[43]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[44][45]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[46]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[47]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth’s environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [50]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[51]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[52]

You’re right. I haven’t got the solutions, why would I? – I am only a flight test engineer and would never presume to pontificate on stuff I didn’t know about 😉

However I can read and understand and I can see what effect we have had already and what measures we can take to mitigate against what we have already done. Also we can try and see what measures we can take to make sure the impact of any future exploitation is minimized. We can only go digging holes and burning stuff for so long.

I’m not sure that energy or raw materials are in abundance either. I guess it depends on what you are talking about, but abundant?

It always strikes me as odd that climatologists think there is a problem, whereas blokes on the internet don’t. If it come to issues of climate, I know which one I would rather believe.

You must have edited your post after I replied.

You accuse me of criticism of others. Only where necessary. 🙂 I am still astounded that anyone could care so little for the future.

To answer your question, it seems to me that much is being being done already to mitigate against human’s ability to make a mess of things. There are strenuous efforts to reduce waste; waste of energy, raw materials etc. Measures such as the ban on CFCs, the Clean Air act, reducing emissions etc. have proved that things can be sorted, or at least the increase slowed but they are only the start of what needs to be done.There is a very very long way to go.

I think I was editing whilst you replied. Well we are all astounded by many things we see in others and in the world about us.

Thank you for your answer.

Energy and the raw materials for its production are available in abundance – politicians and conservationists and misguided science get in the way of its exploitation.

CFCs and reducing emissions fall into the debate, which is ongoing about AGW.

I agree that the Clean Air Act, now 50 or more years old, was a positive and necessary piece of legislation.

So I don’t really see much there which convinces me that you have the solutions to prevent, as you would have it, man’s ever increasing bad effects on our environment.

You must have edited your post after I replied.

You accuse me of criticism of others. Only where necessary. 🙂 I am still astounded that anyone could care so little for the future.

To answer your question, it seems to me that much is being being done already to mitigate against human’s ability to make a mess of things. There are strenuous efforts to reduce waste; waste of energy, raw materials etc. Measures such as the ban on CFCs, the Clean Air act, reducing emissions etc. have proved that things can be sorted, or at least the increase slowed but they are only the start of what needs to be done.There is a very very long way to go.

Well, of course it does.

No, you are probably right. I note that you have not answered my question, repeated here:

” what is your solution to the problem, if you have one? You are fond of criticising others, so let’s hear how you would change the way we live over the next century or so. “

Looks that way to me.

I have to say that I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone state so blatantly that they don’t care what sort of world they leave for their descendants.

Fortunately, I would say that your point of view is a minority one. Most folks would not want their children or grandchildren growing up in a world where there are no environmental concerns.
Most of us value the place we live in and try to do our best to not s**t it up too much for those that come after.

So which part of this,

have I misinterpreted. Seems pretty clear to me?

Well, it is hardly the same as “”‘I’m alright jack–everyone else can go f**k themselves’ “.