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 Kyoto has been superceded by Copenhagen, anyway which, in itself, was a damp squib.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

Hallelujah! We are all saved and can stop worrying.

Moggy

If BBC had been doing its job, we would have realised years ago that there was no threat from supposed AGW.

Steven

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

How so ?? I am sure the BBC presents both views equally.
Planemike

If you follow the revelations in the links and the tribunal process, it reveals that at an institutional level BBC were prepared to ignore a whole raft of other views and stick to its own predetermined line on global warming. This is bad enough for that topic, but the most worrying aspect is that this process is most likely being applied to other news and current affairs.

Steven

One speculatively wonders how many of the other claims regarding climate change made by the BBC are equally spurious.

Very few I would think………….. We as race need to be worried by the changes that are taking place.

Planemike

Since 2006 BBC decided to shut out any counter views and allow only those views supportive of the global warming themes. So real evidence which might have exposed those spurious claims or put forward more plausible science, has been suppressed. Leaving out vital information is as bad as giving a one-sided view only.

Steven

It is difficult to trust an organisation that goes to the lengths evident in the ’28gate’ case, to avoid responding to a simple Freedom of Information request on the attendees at a key global warming policy meeting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8901365/The-BBCs-hidden-warmist-agenda-is-rapidly-unravelling.html

The attendee list is extraordinary, being a mix of environmental activists, renewables industry representatives, Church of England, US embassy, BBC heads of drama, children’s programmes, political programmes, and the head of comedy. Only three of the attendees were contributing scientists. No wonder BBC was embarrassed about it.
http://omnologos.com/full-list-of-participants-to-the-bbc-cmep-seminar-on-26-january-2006/

Nor is it easy to trust an organisation that is so easily open to influence by external vested interests.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/8656765/Steve-Jones-tells-the-BBC-dont-give-denialists-so-much-air-time.html

Steven

BBC has a history of promoting the global warming meme without allowing other views, but fortunately the more glaring errors are spotted easily.

BBC backs down on climate change: Forced to delete David Attenborough’s ‘alarmist’ warming claims from final show of Africa series

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2276888/BBC-climbdown-climate-change-claims-David-Attenboroughs-Africa.html

Other BBC biases are less obvious, such as where a BBC environment correspondent was paid by an outside organisation in the news.

BBC’s Mr Climate Change and £15,000 grants from university rocked by global warning scandal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html

BBC also claimed that its stance on global warming was taken from the most expert sources, but on inspection this turned out not to be the case. This was back in 2006, so BBC bias in this regard has been misinforming us for several years.

BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music… and even game shows

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html

I sometimes wonder at how easy the EU makes it for Nigel Farage to get support for his policies on the EU. Take the following examples.

The EU has never been open about its operations, even to the extent of suppressing criticism, in a landmark case a decade ago.

The European Court of Justice ruled…that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1325398/Euro-court-outlaws-criticism-of-EU.html

More recently, the EU has been spending money on countering views on Web blogs which it deems are critical of the EU or off-message.

The European Parliament is to spend almost £2 million on press monitoring and trawling Eurosceptic debates on the internet for “trolls” with whom to debate in the run-up and during euro-elections next year amid fears that hostility to the EU is growing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9845442/EU-to-set-up-euro-election-troll-patrol-to-tackle-Eurosceptic-surge.html

The EU is also an easy target for UKIP when it comes to its budget. Too many items, sometimes of extremely large sums of expenditure, are either ill defined or conveniently wrapped in another budget. The recent European Budget agreement was trumpeted as a triumph for those who wanted EU expenditure held back over the next seven years. There was indeed a reduction of 1.53%, to €960billion, which got the publicity, but it is not only the amount that is to be spent which is important. The public analysis did not go into what was it was to be spent on. Some 20% of the budget, €192billion, is to be spent on the very vague ‘climate action objectives’.

Climate action objectives will represent at least 20% of EU spending in the period 2014-2020 and therefore be reflected in the appropriate instruments to ensure that they contribute to strengthen energy security, building a low-carbon, resource efficient and climate resilient economy…

http://ens-newswire.com/2013/02/08/climate-gets-20-percent-of-seven-year-european-budget/

This is basically a very large fund to be disposed of ostensibly on the now discredited notion of AGW, and no doubt also on unaccounted grace-and-favour disbursements. The fact that the EU is an open goal and makes UKIP’s job easier, is entirely its own fault.