A Place to Stand

It is astonishing how fast the entire fraud has fallen apart. Perhaps less surprising that the BBC are still pushing it though gently. Even here they are being much more cautious. In response to a email from me about the BBC claiming "scientific consensus" existed Roger Harrabin at first doubted they had said it & then said the phrase had slipped through (& then placed me on his barred email list).

Roger Harrabin on the Gabby Logan Show BBC Radio 5 Live, 11th February 2010: "...phrase like climate change denier have absolutely no place in the debate whatsoever."

In a report into Al Gore's climate change beliefs broadcast on the 6'o'clock news on BBC radio 4 on Friday 12th October 2007 Mr Harrabin used that, now unacceptable, phrase.

However covering the language the BBC use does not mean they are in any way more committed to honesty than they were. For that to be the case the BBC would have to have publicly apologised for previous lies & censorship, fire at least many of those involved & set up some trustworthy oversight system that would catch future propagandism. None of that is even up for discussion & indeed Harrabin's reaction shows that virtually nothing, except in the most cosmetic form, is up for discussion.

Nonetheless the BBC serve the truth by doing an interview with professor Jones in which he inadvertently admits:

Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.

There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.

The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.

This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.

The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.

The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.

There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.

Which leaves nothing but the corpse left.

Meanwhile the net continues to be the place where real news is reported:

WattsUpWithThat has been doing what he calls his IPCC scandal du jour as "peer reviewed" claim after claim is proven to be wholly untrue, coming from WWF alarmist pres releases & the like:


17th Jan - IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would all melt by 2035 was not only wholly untrue & based on no evidence whatsoever but completely impossible

18th Jan - hid fact that warming would cut number of people facing water shortage.

23rd Jan - IPCC scientist admits they knew glacier claims were fraudulent but were politically useful

23rd Jan - A whole range of claims allegedly "per reviewed scientific papers" which weren't but were only alarmist propaganda from government funded fakecharities like WWF.

24th Jan - Fraudulently linked warming to natural disasters

25th Jan - Quoted paper on IPCC claim about coming destruction of 40% of the Amazon said no such thing.

25th Jan - whole range of claims were lies/gross exaggerations.

30th Jan - IPCC claims about melting ice on mountains based on anecdotes in climbing magazine & speculative student dissertation

2nd Feb - IPCC says "two so-called errors in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC, the first dealing with losses from disasters and the second on the subject of Amazon forests. The leadership of the IPCC has looked into both these instances and concluded that the challenges are without foundations" but not why.

4th Feb WSJ article points out how IPCC report s censored mention of the benefits of warming

6th Feb - Claims about African crop yields to fall are fraudulent

8th Feb - Australian drought claims fraudulent

9th Feb - "Has no scientific merit"

Feb 16th - Hurricane data fixed

Feb 17th They doubled the increase in Arctic sea ice.

On the, behind closed doors, East Anglia University "Inquiry" into the emails, chaired by a Scottish civil servant who protected his bosses during the scandal about the Parliament building 1 of the 5 people chosen, ostensibly because they had no previous commitment on warming, resigned as soon as it was proven he had pushed alarmism. Another, found to have been even more devoted hasn't yet.

The British Parliament is going to do an inquiry & the terms of reference & some people involved make it look like relatively straight.

Rats deserting sinking ships time - Sir David "by 2100 Antarctica will be the only habitable continent" King denounces CRU & IPCC for "crossing the line" by overstating. To many of these to be worth quoting but the egregious Sir David is a particularly ridiculous case.

And East Anglia U refuse to my reply asking that they & Prof jones aploogise for rudeness about me in one of the emails nor to justify it. I guess that shows ethical standards at the UEA so I guess they & all alarmists who don't disagree with them will have no objection to anybody saying, with evidence, that every one of them are wholly & completley corupt, lying, murdering, thieves, deliberately accepting government money to promote fascism & unfit to mix with decent human beings. No offence to any alarmist or anybody at UEA.

Oh yes - and it has been the 2nd snowiest on record worldwide

Labels: Fear, global warming, Media