Click to get your own widget

Saturday, October 13, 2007


Dear BBC,
Last night (Friday 12th Oct) on the BBC news a couple of minutes after 10 pm, while reporting on Al Gore's winning of the Nobel Prize the BBC used a line from his film that "nine of the 10 hottest years on record have been in the last 10 years". 2 months ago this was accepted as being unsupportable when the US accepted Stephen McIntyre's proof that figures, at least within the US which has the largest area with the most thorough records, purporting to prove this claim were wrong.

Mr Mcintyre proved that the 10 warmest years were in fact, in order

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

This Is clearly the most important fact to have emerged about the warming scare since, at least, Mr McIntyre proved the Hockey Stick of rapid warming to be based on false data & like that earlier news has been censored from BBC news reporting. Indeed since it disproves the central thesis of the warming scare - that significant indeed catastrophic warming is now taking place it can be argued that it is a more important news item than all the news stories published by the BBC on warming, taken together.

The BBC having substantial newsgathering resources cannot possibly be unaware of this latest finding now over 2 months old. Nonetheless such censorship is clearly a sin of omission.

More serious was the act last night of broadcasting the claim that 1998 was still recognised as being the warmest year without mentioning that it was untrue. Lying, unlike censorship, is a sin of commission.

The BBC have made some apologies recently for lying about the Blue Peter cat & the Queen. Lying about alleged global warming (now often rebranded as "climate change") is clearly many thousands of times more serious than, at least, the stuff about the cat.

In the circumstances I must demand that, on tonight's evening news you issue an equally prominent correction. What further action you take I will leave to your consciences. You might also consider making an apology for the rather silly claim on BBC news on the day of Gore's concert that "Al Gore is a climate scientist".

I await your prompt response, which, like this letter, I will be willing to put on my blog.
Yours Sincerely
Neil Craig

UPDATE Obviously the BBC have chosen not to correct their lie or indeed respond at all.

"Indeed since it disproves the central thesis of the warming scare - that significant indeed catastrophic warming is now taking place...": I'm not sure. The fact that the warm-mongers are at least careless and incompetent - and, I fear, often downright dishonest - doesn't prove that we're not in a mild spell. It does show how hard it is to prove how mild it is, in historic terms. In fact, it would seem that the reported temperatures are pretty close to tosh, being the result of farcically unjustifiable "correction" calculations applied to lousy data.
We are differing over the use of the word "significant" - I have no problem with a mild spell but for it to be significant it ought, in my view, to be at or above historical levels. Catastrophic would obviously require something far greater.
P.S. where have you been all summer? The rest of us noticed that the BBC policy on almost everything is to lie, whether it be about phone-in competitions, who's conducting interviews, the Naming of Cats, or indeed about Her Majesty. "Why are these lying liars lying to me?", indeed.
You Are Wrong Again

Back with a vengeance eh, but still in the business of peddling right-wing tosh. Your article states 'the US accepted Stephen McIntyre's proof ' that global warming figures in Gore's film were wrong. In fact all that has happened is that the Goddard Institue of Space Science has accepted some minor corrections to its temperature readings based on McIntyre's submissions.

For the real significance of this data see the Real Climate posting '1934 and all that' on 10 August 2007 at

Which concludes...'Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends.'

One example. The graph in your Coyote Blog source appears truncated towards the right hand side, perhaps that is because it would show the trend line in the recent temperature record is unaffected, a point demonstrated in the RealClimate posting. McInyre has proved nothing. As usual.
OK Norman "McIntyre as usual has proved nothing". So you, along with Mann the author of & the Hockeystick theory are still claiming that he never disproved Mann's hockey stick either.

It is not intrinsically "right wing" to believe in the triumph of the will over mere facts as you eco-fascits running the Pseudo-Lib Dems do.

If you are saying that this new listing has not been accepted you will tell absolutely any lie. As obviously will Mann & the BBC.

On such lies is the whole eco-fascist scare built.
Obviously the above should say "it is not intrinsicaly "right wing" NOT to believe in the triumph of the will over mere facts". In fact it is one of the points on which true liberals disagree with those, of "left" or "right" who believe truth is whatever the government says it is.
If you are saying that this new listing has not been accepted you will tell absolutely any lie.

What 'new listing'? It is not clear what you mean. My response to McIntyre's new sally is to note
that the GISS accepts his argument but that it changes nothing fundamental.

As to McIntyre, I and others have repeatedly pointed two things out to you. Firstly, that McIntyre's work contains significant errors and does not disprove the hockey stick argument. Secondly, that the hockey stick graph is only one of many proofs of global warming.

It is not a lie to say that McIntyre's arguments are not generally accepted. To say that they are accepted and conclusive is inaccurate and an exaggeration.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.