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

I can make a very good case that the CBC is far far worse, pumping countless cash into the retired geneticist’s faux-ndation to promote his various alternatives to efficient energy, David Suzuki.

Meanwhile, back to the bias of the BBC:

From The Daily Mail:

By David Rose

Last updated at 12:29 AM on 27th November 2011

Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives  in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

Taking advice: Alan Titchmarsh, whose scripts were vetted, filming at Ben Nevis in 2004Taking advice: Alan Titchmarsh, whose scripts were vetted, filming at Ben Nevis in 2004

Like the first ‘Climategate’ leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source.

Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.

 

 

BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is  settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated - none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal

The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated – none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal

The document says the policy was decided after ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ – including those from UEA.

The ‘Climategate 2’ emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.

For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

Man in the middle: The BBC's Roger HarrabinMan in the middle: The BBC’s Roger Harrabin

The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporation’s ‘environment analyst’, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV.

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that in 1996, he and his friend, Professor Joe Smith of the Open University, set up an informal two-man band to organise environment seminars for BBC executives. Continue Reading →

Global warming and the tactics of its orthodoxy and public face.

I started this website with a few areas of focus.

Irrational leftism with a sub-focus on global warming and the effects that those who insist on man’s role in climate play in geopolitics and policy, geopolitics overall, and of course, Islam and it’s effects on Western civilization and liberal democracies. As time passed, I tended to focus more on Islam as the threat seemed more immediate and urgent than the others. I also tended to back off of global warming for a few reasons.

There are great documentaries and available data now to show how climate may be more related to solar cycles, an idea by Danish scientists made into a documentary movie called, The Cloud Mystery, and now confirmed by the large haydron collider at CERN. But also because there are those that agree with this site’s opinions on Islam and, for example, women and minority rights who are firm believers in man-caused global warming. I think while the consequences of that issue may be large in many ways, it is less immediate perhaps than the crushing we see daily of our most important institutions such as schools and mass media by Islam and political correctness, so I do not wish to alienate those people unless I have something truly compelling on the subject, such as the confirmation of the role of sun spots in climate, which mirror actual climate data for all of history where the data exists. In other words, from the time of Galileo.

I feel however, that even those who fit that narrow category of individual would agree with me that the way in which the case for AGP is argued by its most public defenders, David Suzuki or Al Gore for example, is not palatable to reasonable people. That Suzuki would like to jail those who disagree with it and refuses to address any of the science of the issue publicly, or Gore, who buys a beachfront USD $8,800,000.00 palace beachfront property in Montecito California, right where he claims the water is going to rise 20 feet.

This video deals with those tactics more so than climate science. I think it is reasonable to expect those who wish us to dramatically cut our standards of living while they enjoy increased millions to at least debate the issue openly. I would be interested in the opinion of anyone who disagrees. If of course, they care to offer one rather than report me or attempt to have me jailed as a denier.

Better late than never. After 30 years of corporate shilling, someone finally busts David Suzuki

I remember this guy since when he used to frighten me as a child with stories about how human industry was going to fill the sky with soot and cause a new ice age. It would mimic the effects of a global thermonuclear war so he called it, NUCLEAR WINTER.

Funny how you can’t find those clips online anywhere. But I remember them like yesterday. I wonder if CBC would cough them up if you asked. No, I didn’t think so.

Gas against wind

Thanks Fred for sending me this. Real environmentalists of course, by real I mean ones who look at science to help protect the environment, are on the endangered species list, being replaced by anti-corporate leftists, union thugs I grow more and more to suspect are on the Iranian payroll and crypto-enviornmentalist groups who are in the pay of the Saudis to make sure that there are no real options except for fossil fuels produced in Saudi Arabia.

Only a part of the article is here. Please click the link below for the whole thing.

From The Rational Optimist:

Here’s an article I wrote for this week’s Spectator about UK energy policy. Wind must give way to gas before it ruins us all, and our landscapes.

Which would you rather have in the view from your house? A thing about the size of a domestic garage, or eight towers twice the height of Nelson’s column with blades noisily thrumming the air. The energy they can produce over ten years is similar: eight wind turbines of 2.5-megawatts (working at roughly 25% capacity) roughly equal the output of an average Pennsylvania shale gas well (converted to electricity at 50% efficiency) in its first ten years.

Difficult choice? Let’s make it easier. The gas well can be hidden in a hollow, behind a hedge. The eight wind turbines must be on top of hills, because that is where the wind blows, visible for up to 40 miles. And they require the construction of new pylons marching to the towns; the gas well is connected by an underground pipe.

Unpersuaded? Wind turbines slice thousands of birds of prey in half every year, including white-tailed eagles in Norway, golden eagles in California, wedge-tailed eagles in Tasmania. There’s a video on Youtube of one winging a griffon vulture in Crete. According to a study in Pennsylvania, a wind farm with eight turbines would kill about a 200 bats a year. The pressure wave from the passing blade just implodes the little creatures’ lungs. You and I can go to jail for harming bats or eagles; wind companies are immune.

Still can’t make up your mind? The wind farm requires eight tonnes of an element called neodymium, which is produced only in Inner Mongolia, by boiling ores in acid leaving lakes of radioactive tailings so toxic no creature goes near them.

Not convinced? The gas well requires no subsidy – in fact it pays a hefty tax to the government – whereas the wind turbines each cost you a substantial add-on to your electricity bill, part of which goes to the rich landowner whose land they stand on. Wind power costs three times as much as gas-fired power. Make that nine times if the wind farm is offshore. And that’s assuming the cost of decommissioning the wind farm is left to your children – few will last 25 years.

Decided yet? I forgot to mention something. If you choose the gas well, that’s it, you can have it. If you choose the wind farm, you are going to need the gas well too. That’s because when the wind does not blow you will need a back-up power station running on something more reliable. But the bloke who builds gas turbines is not happy to build one that only operates when the wind drops, so he’s now demanding a subsidy, too.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

FOX news

Planet Earth for Earth Day

NASA

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

“I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that “the evidence is incontrovertible.”

“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.  Continue Reading →

NASA releases data which calls man-made global warming into question.

With Ezra Levant and Dr. Tim Ball

The Washington Examiner also has this story on declining sunspots and its effects on climate. The movie, ‘The Cloud Mystery’ is a must watch for anyone wishing to understand the role of sun spots, cosmic rays and the solar wind in the Earth’s climate as well.

Eco-terrorism trial begins in Switzerland

Moral certainty which leads to violence is not just the province of religious psychos.

From The Local.Se

 

Photo credit: IBM Research – Zurich. Unauthorized use not permitted.
Eco-terrorism trial begins in Switzerland

Published: 19 Jul 2011 15:56 GMT+1
Share

Two Italian environmental activists and a Swiss colleague went on trial on Tuesday for planning a bomb attack against an IBM research centre which was being built near Zurich.

“The accused have been charged with planning an incendiary attack on a nanotechnology centre under construction,” Switzerland’s top criminal court said on its website, without giving further details about the suspects. Continue Reading →

Oz. PM called on her election lies.

I have to say, this woman, the Australian PM, is an excellent example of what can happen when intelligent people do not vote.