The BBC’s TV ‘flagship’ program, Africa, presented by the venerable David Attenborough, has been forced to issue a retraction regarding the program’s claim that climate change in the continent of Africa had produced a temperature increase of 3.5 degrees Celsius over the preceeding 20 years.
The BBC now admit that this was untrue, speculative and entirely without supporting evidence and the quote has been withdrawn.
One speculatively wonders how many of the other claims regarding climate change made by the BBC are equally spurious.
By: ThreeSpool - 17th February 2013 at 20:52
I couldn’t give a toss about future generations now, why should I start worrying whether they might have a year-long suntan now?
By: Arabella-Cox - 17th February 2013 at 19:29
During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.
Courtesy of http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
If you study the graph below you will see that the earth has been MUCH hotter than right now, and for most of the time. We are coming out of a glacial period and nothing man can do to stop it. Better to learn to live with it. The global warming scammers would have us believe – by generating mass hysteria – that if you pay carbon offsets (which somehow ends up in their pockets), you will stop this phenomena.
By: steven_wh - 17th February 2013 at 18:55
What seems to be lacking in the climate change/global warming saga is pure unadulterated data that we could use to make an informed opinion..
There is a whole mass of data available from actual observations, current and past, but unfortunately what seems to be the main driving force for the AGW claims and legislation, is the output of computer climate models. A lot of faith has been placed in the projections of the models. However, they have been shown to be wrong.
In the early part of the last decade and just before the millenium, the climate model experts told us that they had all of the data input needed. They said that the software models included all of the climate effects and interactions. They told us that they were the expert authority, that their models predicted ever increasing global temperatures over the coming years due to increases in CO2, and governments should act upon their word to curb CO2 emissions drastically. Hundreds of billions were thus committed.
The global temperatures did not rise with increasing atmospheric CO2, as so confidently predicted, but stayed the same. We have had no global warming for 17 years. The models were wrong. If the models were wrong, then the data, or the software, or the experts were wrong. Perhaps it is the case that the climate experts were not just wrong, but not as expert as they had claimed.
So when people challenge the climate experts and criticise the expensive and damaging legislation resulting from their failed claims, such sceptics have a very valid point.
Steven
By: Andy in Beds - 17th February 2013 at 18:41
Derekf
When before “did we detrimentally affect our environment” ?
John.
You’ve only got to see the endless sh*te dumped in the hedgerows and roadside ditches of Bedfordshire to recognise that we can detrimentally affect our environment.
Come to think of it, we affected the environment when the ditches dug and the hedges were planted, so you cannot say that we haven’t affected the environment.
By: Derekf - 17th February 2013 at 18:40
Derekf
When before “did we detrimentally affect our environment” ?
Off the top of my head:-
Acid rain
Deforestation causing flooding in Bangladesh
CFCs causing ozone layer holes
Chernobyl
The 1920s dustbowl in the USA
The Aral Sea
London smog
and many many more.
Humans have the ability to do a great deal of harm to any environment they find themselves in.
By: Lincoln 7 - 17th February 2013 at 18:17
John.
The same way as Cows, when they Far* ?. :rolleyes:
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: John Green - 17th February 2013 at 18:16
Re 57
Moggy C
….”some great conspiracy…”
Where did that come from? I thought that this was a debate about the vaunted ability of the BBC to present ‘manufactured evidence’ about the source of climate change.
There may well be a conspiracy or there may be not – much like climate change. Call me a cynic if you like, but to me one thing is certain, if there was a debate on ‘conspiracy’ by the BBC, the ‘evidence might be well and truly doctored.
Under its present leadership the BBC cannot be trusted to present impartial and neutral opinion. Tear up the Charter.
Re 58
Charliehunt
100 percent commonsense
By: John Green - 17th February 2013 at 17:45
Derekf
When before “did we detrimentally affect our environment” ?
By: Derekf - 17th February 2013 at 10:31
I would suggest that a flight test engineer lecturing about climate change comes across as arrogant. If a climatologist told me that my analysis was wrong, I think I might query his qualifications. I speak as a flight test engineer of 27 years standing.
Rutan’s language rather gives him away – his use of “alarmist” is a tell-tale sign that he has made up his mind, and will almost certainly produce data to prove his point of view.
What seems to be lacking in the climate change/global warming saga is pure unadulterated data that we could use to make an informed opinion.
My opinion? I’m sure something is changing in our climate but are humans causing it? I don’t know but we have detrimentally affected our environment before so we can do it again.
The good side to this carbon offset/green efficiency is that has produced many energy and fuel saving by-products. 3 litre 200bhp cars capable of 50mpg would have been a pipe dream only a few years ago.
By: Lincoln 7 - 17th February 2013 at 10:28
Andy, Overpopulation, I agree, lets Nuke China, and a few others, just to bring the numbers down by a couple of Billion, 🙂
Jim.
Lincoln.7
By: Andy in Beds - 17th February 2013 at 09:39
Surely all the Earth’s real problems (whether we either accept or do not accept global warming as a man-made concept) are caused by human over-population. It seems obvious to me that with the ever increasing human population on a finite amount of land with a finite amount of resources, then in the end, something will have to ‘give’.
My guess is that nature, which scientists these days seem arrogant enough to believe we can control (whereas I reckon we may not even be influential enough to have any sort of meaningful impact upon it–we’re more like irritants) will by dint of disease, starvation (other methods are available) eventually trim humanity down to more sustainable levels.
In the mean time, in less than 30 years I’ll be gone.
I could perhaps be accused of leaving a bigger than necessary carbon footprint with my internal combustion engine based exploits over the years, but my conscience is clear over the subject of procreation. I never had any and am glad that I never helped manufacture a load of unwanted and unnecessary extra mouths for the planet to support.
By: Grey Area - 17th February 2013 at 08:43
Grey that’s both terrifying and hilarious at the same time! I think an aircraft designed by a climatologist would be a balloon, because they deal with hot air on a regular basis and would require a large amount of it for their design to fly. I suspect that if aircraft designers used the same standards as GW believers then most test pilots would be victims of natural selection, and we’d still be crashing planes made of wood & canvas.
So, would that be a “yes” or a “no”?
By: AlanR - 17th February 2013 at 07:43
BBC and then Aljazeera is where I look for my news
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/
For those of you who have never tried it.
It certainly is nice to be able to see world news from a variety of sources, and how others look at what’s happening in the UK.
For example, the best coverage of the recent meteor strike was on RT.News
By: charliehunt - 17th February 2013 at 07:40
No, it won’t go away. The climate will change over the millenia, whether by man’s hand or not, and man is powerless to change the inevitable. Our descendants will perish at the hand of “mother nature”.
By: Moggy C - 17th February 2013 at 07:15
Maybe it will, maybe it won’t but “sure as little eggs is little eggs” it will affect all our children and grandchildren.
Planemike
Just to be clear, I share this view completely. My equanimity on the subject comes from the fact I have no children, not from a naive belief it’s all some great conspiracy and will go away if we post enough arrant nonsense on enough fora.
Moggy
By: DC Page - 17th February 2013 at 02:16
Just out of interest, would you be happy to test-fly a composite aircraft of unconventional configuration that had been designed by a climatologist?
Grey that’s both terrifying and hilarious at the same time! I think an aircraft designed by a climatologist would be a balloon, because they deal with hot air on a regular basis and would require a large amount of it for their design to fly. I suspect that if aircraft designers used the same standards as GW believers then most test pilots would be victims of natural selection, and we’d still be crashing planes made of wood & canvas.
Cheers
By: paul178 - 17th February 2013 at 02:07
BBC and then Aljazeera is where I look for my news
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/
For those of you who have never tried it.
By: Grey Area - 17th February 2013 at 00:48
Most people I know who are involved in aviation know of Burt Rutan. I personally have a great deal of respect for him and for all he has done in aviation design, engineering, and now space exploration. Several of his groundbreaking designs hang in our national air & space museums. He is an aerospace engineer and a man of science who believes in proven methods of testing and evaluation.
If you haven’t read what he has written about “GW” then you should take a look at it. I’ve yet to encounter a single human being that could provide a coherent answer to the key points of his presentation. Without exception, everyone that I have confronted with Mr. Rutan’s data is left stuttering and stammering or sometimes speechless. The best response I’ve gotten so far is “I’ll have to study this and get back to you.”
Never heard back from any of them.
Just out of interest, would you be happy to test-fly a composite aircraft of unconventional configuration that had been designed by a climatologist?
By: charliehunt - 15th February 2013 at 20:09
Choice, who needs choice when you have the BBC ?? The Corporation has done a fantastic job for 80 or so years……..
Choice does not bring quality, far from it.
Planemike
Of course not -it brings choice. Other news organisations are no less worthy than the BBC, which now sadly bears little resemblance to the BBC of 40 or more years ago.
Matt – I thought we were discussing news broadcasting.
By: Matt-100 - 15th February 2013 at 19:46
Well each to his own, I suppose – thank goodness we have so much choice these days thereby obviating the necessity to rely on the once fabled BBC!
There may be a lot of choice, I wouldn’t say any of the alternatives were as good though.
As troubled as the BBC is, it still beats the celebrity drivel ITV broadcasts or the childish crude live comedy on C4. Channel 5 is okay, just a little low budget.
Sign In
February 13, 2013 at 11:21 am