Whilst I do truly believe there is no real threat from the recent global warming, let’s not cherry pick data Steven. That doesn’t do anyone’s argument any favors. I notice the graph conveniently cuts off the data from 1905 to present day, which some estimates predict have increased at least 2 degrees over the past century.
So realistically we’re now at -29.5 degrees, similar to that the Roman’s experienced.

The graph shows a contiguous 10,000 years worth of data. It covers up to the year 2000AD, and since the temperatures have not changed over the last 16 years, the graph end point is correct. We are in a period cooler than Medieval or Roman times.

For information, the global temperature rise over the last century is a measured 0.8°C.

Steven

I’ll give you this John Green, you are a winner when it comes to forums. You never answer any of the points put to you , your replies are full of bluster and fantasy and as such are frankly impossible to debate with. Your superiority complex is so woefully misplaced as to be laughable. I wouldn’t have called you a liar but I can think of plenty of other phrases that would have been rewarded with a ban even on this relatively unmoderated forum.
All the best with the rest of your pontificating and I hope you get a tin-foil hat that fits.

You are right when you say that points need to be addressed properly on our blogs, rather than returned as one long and rambling ad hominem attack. Provided that the points and questions raised contribute to the debate at hand, of course.

My question here is a follow-up to tbe global temperature variation discussion currently in view. Have any of the contributors to this topic on BBC’s approach to global warming been made aware by any of BBC’s productions, that going back over ten thousand years we are in a distinct cold period? The graph is derived from Greenland ice cores,with the current period on the far fight, near to the ‘Little Ice Age’. Temperatures were higher in the past.

Steven

Re 218]
A rather chilling story was reported this week which tends to throw some doubt on the intellectual capacity of those deemed fortunate enough to have ‘received a university standard of education’…
This report concerned a case that came before a judge and jury. The jury was composed of a mix of men and women – for obvious reasons, I won’t say in what proportions.
The court case was of staggering simplicity. The jury did not have to grapple with complex legal issues. There were no problems that required anything but the most elementary discussion before proceeding to resolution.
The jury forewoman asked a series of questions that were so maddeningly opaque in their simplicity and irelevance that the learned judge could not answer them…
It might be that the BBC, perhaps for all the wrong reasons, have got it right. They’ve been ‘dumbing down’ knowing that a significant portion of the viewing masses are incapable of recognising the difference between fact and fiction or truth and lies. So, the BBC can say more or less what they like knowing that they’ll get away with it…
I think that merely confirms our suspicions about the value of State education and the capacity of the BBC to assault our ears and eyes with the blatant, lying nonsense of their global warming and climate change propaganda.

BBC seems to believe that their best audience is the ‘youth’ market and this means that all programming has to be dumbed down. Yet youth can be more interested in spending time with computer games and activities on the Web with its multiplicity of sources, and of course many are also wanting to learn how to deal with complex issues.

Meanwhile, BBC ignores the older, more capable population, who are living longer, and who are also mostly the people who pay for them.

BBC is therefore gradually shutting itself off from the majority of the populace. This direction will only end in their demise.

Steven

And I’ll cut back to the agenda you so doggedly pursue.
Your postings indicate far more than a passing interest.
Why don’t you want to tell us what motivates you to continue..??
Something or someone is driving you on.

‘Projection’ is when someone ascribes actions to others, which are in fact character traits or unquestioned assumptions about themselves.

But back to the topic of BBC deceit on AGW.

Given that BBC is need of reform of its policy of deciding key science by a star chamber of selected and sympathetic parties, the question is where to start. I think that this will be difficult as the management is a mess; a view shared by many, following recent revelations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9889137/The-BBC-rot-starts-at-the-top-with-the-elusive-Lord-Patten.html

The task of admitting that BBC is wrong on AGW is complicated, the process of reform is likely to be beyond even that.

Steven

So, who do you represent..?

Me.

Steven

Well it was certainly a great idea to get the BBC to investigate itself over the
Savile scandal wasn’t it ?

The Leveson inquiry into alleged misconduct by the press media was in public and headed by a High Court Judge. BBC’s inquiry was set up by BBC with mainly BBC people and under BBC terms. One section of the press gets a thorough questioning, whilst another gets to act as judge and jury on itself.

So it is no surprise then, that BBC thinks it can get away with AGW deceit.

Steven

A cursory glance through the list would suggest that yes, they do have an agenda.

The sources that you quote have a political agenda in common, certainly.

So, two quotes here on the supposed agenda. Tell us what that is, then, but only if the agenda is relevant to BBC deceit, of course.

Because I asked you to share your agenda with the rest of us.

I cannot share that which I do not have.

But back to the topic of BBC deceit on AGW.

BBC withholding of AGW information is puzzling considering that their Charter says that they must not do it. Even more puzzling is the extent of the general dumbing down of programmes over the decades. This last point flies in the face of the national demographic, which shows that since the nineteen sixties a rising numbers of people have university standard education. Therefore, the national audience has become better able to deal with complex issues, and has less need of an avuncular but overbearing universal filter to manipulate their opinions for them. The rising university demographic ought to mean, too, that BBC ought to have its rising quota of people aware of the need for more complete debate, or at the very least some semblance of debate that does not purposely leave out essential material.

This is not happening at BBC. Instead we have the patronising double insult of an organisation freely leaving out what it does not like, because it believes we are not clever enough to detect it, and then attempting to hide this intellectually offensive act by hiring six lawyers against one private individual, who had the temerity to ask for a list of key meeting attendees.

Steven

Because I asked you to share your agenda with the rest of us.
You obviously have one because you’ve spent more time on this thread than any other single subject since you joined the forum–even the aviation bit.
My assertion (which you largely ignored), and then selectively answered was was that you have one.
As I said, care to share??

But back to the topic of BBC deceit. This has been commented upon widly from many sources over a period of time. A quick search reveals these links and concerns for BBC’s conduct.
http://www.thegwpf.org/bbc-david-attenborough-revealed-serial-climate-alarmists/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8901365/The-BBCs-hidden-warmist-agenda-is-rapidly-unravelling.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100063937/why-the-bbc-cannot-be-trusted-on-climate-change-the-full-story/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/365640/BBC-blasted-over-climate-change-bias
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2071358/BBCs-bias-global-warming-An-inconvenient-truth-climate-change.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/23/the-bbc-endeavours-to-provide-more-biased-coverage-on-climate-change/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8758121/heres-a-bbc-scandal-that-should-really-make-you-disgusted/
Do they all have an agenda?

Steven