UPDATE2: “404 Page not found” now at the BBC for this video on Monday Feb16th. It seems they’ve pulled it. Too much “negative feedback” I suppose. Readers be on the alert for any retractions.
UPDATE: BBC Can’t even get their reporting correct. The reporter in this video report that accompanies the web article says that “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” and that now we are in “scenarios unexplored by the models”. No kidding, it’s that bad. For those of you that don’t know, some alarmists claim that “negative climate feedback is as real as the Easter Bunny, which is what makes this BBC factual error so hilarious.
Readers please let the BBC know that they have no idea what they are talking about. Just click here. – Anthony
Click above to watch the BBC video
Guest post by Steven Goddard
On Wednesday, normally stalwart UK global warming promoter – The Guardian, ran this remarkable headline, which was also covered here on WUWT:
‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts’
The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.
Undaunted and defiant, their comrades in global warming arms at the BBC, chose this as the lead story for Sunday morning:
‘Global warming ‘underestimated’
The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.
….
“We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously in climate policy,” he said. Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem. “
BBC employs the old standby icon - a polar bear
Prof Field said rising temperatures could thaw Arctic permafrost
One fatal flaw with the BBC story is that Chris Field is not a climate scientist, as they claimed. He is actually a Professor of Biology in an Ecology Department. So how does the BBC choose their headlines? In matters of global warming, apparently the apocalyptic words of one American ecologist overrule those of the UK’s own government climate scientists at The Met Office. Chris Field clearly does not have any credentials to be making the climate claims the BBC reported. This looks more and more like a Shakespearean comedy every day.For them all together; which maintained so politica state of evil that they will not admit any goodpart to intermingle with them.William Shakespeare – from ‘Much Ado About Nothing’
“..Field is an acknowledged expert.”
The BBC could have talked at least for a few seconds with the sources that say the earth is cooling. But they spend 100% of their reporting time on those like Field. What are the sources that say the earth is cooling? They’re called thermometers.
“Professor of Biology in an Ecology Department.”
It’s not just an ecology department, but it’s a “Global” ecology department.
He is a biologist, not a climatologist. The BBC thinks a biologist in a “global” ecology department, and not a climatologist, is an expert in climate. The Baby Boomer/ Hippie generation, for the most part, controls the media. To a hippie the word “ecology” carries more weight than the word “climatology”. Throw in a picture of a polar bear and it seals the deal.
Chris Field’s CV at this link : http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/fieldlab/CHRIS/CFcv2pg_10-27-08.pdf
So it looks like Chris Field Is just another alarmist from Stanford.
If the BBC wanted to talk to an expert why didn’t they talk to Richard Lindzen?
His CV at this link : http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf
Since lots of folks are giving their cultural quotes, here’s one of my faves… dedicated to the believers in the AGW/CO2 conjecture [from The Wizard of Oz]:
I could while away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain…
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a clue!
I would not be just a nuffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain…
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a clue!
Boris
February 15, 2009 7:26 am
Let me get this straight, WUWT is complaining that a non-climate scientist featured in the media makes unsubstantiated claims that go against the consensus view of the IPCC?
Smokey (05:56:23) :
It’s very easy to send a comment to the BBC about their climate confusion. Just click here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3990000/newsid_3993900/3993909.stm
Thanks Smokey, done.
=========================================
I see the global warming alarm piece today emanates from a single american IPCC scientist (whose expertise is biology not climate), at a time when lobbying in the USA for climate legislation is intense.
Yet the BBC gives no airtime to the head of the climate change unit at the UK met office who warns against overstated predictions of climate chaos.
When is the BBC going to report climate issues in a balanced and unbiased way?
Our TV license is due, and the TV is going on ebay. I will not pay to support a biased organisation.
========================================
Allan M R MacRae
February 15, 2009 7:42 am
Ben – your question from above http://www.solopassion.com/node/5841
Here Professor Stephen H. Schneider defends the statement and provides the full quote and context.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the
doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context
translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves
in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
means being both.”
He seems to think that calling it a “double ethical bind” absolves him and that he provides an acceptable context that should make us all go “Oooh so he’s torn between being a competent and objective scientist and the ‘need’ to sensationalise and lie for the good of humanity, that’s all right then”.
Congratulations Professor Schneider, your hand-wringing doubts over ethics and integrity vs your perceived ‘greater good’ wins you SOLO’s Villain of the Day award.
**********
mal, (4:19:28) that is because, quoting myself from Arctic sea ice thread
last summer on Climate Audit, so consider it copyrighted…LOL:
…it like so many polar bears nowadays… lived on …. 10, Drowning Street
[I myself live on a street nr 10 in Solna (close to Stockholm, Sweden), but
being no polar bear…]
And some news from SMHI, Väder och Vatten Nr 13 Väderåret 2008 [needs no translation for you?!]
Warmest years since 1901 [out of selection of 100 stations, not very many
really rural, but you use what you get…]
1. 1934…..18 stations/%
2. 1990…..17 stations/%
3. 2000…..17 stations/% [I suppose UHI makes earlier year “warmer”]
4. 1938…..14 stations/%
5. 2006…..14 stations/% [same commentary as 3.]
I keep this cliff-hanging…Next time the absolute measured temps, summed up…
Kyle D
February 15, 2009 8:07 am
The earth atmosphere is 5 quadrillion metric tons so 10 billion metric tons is about .000000001% of the atmosphere’s total mass. Is that correct? Does Carbon dioxide not mix with the entire mass of atmospheric particles? I’m not sure how 10 years of this can have a significant effect. On a side note, I like to envision a piece of paper with 10000 dots on it. Make 4 of them red to represent CO2. The caption “Everything still OK”. Make 2 more red in a new Image. This it’s caption: We Are Doomed.
Pamela Gray
February 15, 2009 8:08 am
I believe the IPCC estimate of increased CO2 emissions were all modeled emission rates starting at year 2000 when the models had no future measures beyond that year, just estimates, some of which were reduced rates (scenarios ABC) due to installed reduction programs along side modeled, but assumed to be a combination of natural and unmitigated anthropogenic CO2 increases. The actual measured (and I think questionable) rate of CO2 increase has been in-between the top 3 unmitigated, unregulated modeled rates of increase. Therefore, of the emission rates modeled, the average of the models with starting gate at hear 2000 is below what is currently the case. I believe this is where the statement “underestimated” comes from.
The problem with the models that now arises is just how much of a lag is there between CO2 increase and temperature? For sure there is no immediate connection, as that has already been ruled out by the simple time stamped discrepancy between measured (and don’t forget questionable) CO2 levels and measured (and don’t forget questionable) global temperatures. I am imagining that the IPCC discussion now is WHEN will temperatures start to go up. The part of the mathematical models that connects CO2 to temperature will now have to be adjusted to include a “variable” lag factor that will have to have several ranges with concommittent new model projections, not a cause and effect non-variable temperature response factor.
My conclusion: The original IPCC models are now obsolete and useless for two reasons. 1. CO2 emission rates are not what was projected, and 2. Temperatures are not what was projected.
I’ve complained before on the BBC website. Got nowhere. It’s a vast organisation with, I would guess, millions of complaints. Seemed to me that the folks who stood outside with placards, re the charity raising cash for the Palastinians, got no where either. Probably the only way, maybe, is to go to the regulatory body responsible or Your MP. Good luck. Myself, I turn it off and wait patiently for the day…. And, I know there are people inside the organisation that share my views on AGWers and lambast their colleagues about it.
James P
February 15, 2009 8:14 am
What amazes me is that Hansen’s credibility wasn’t shot away ages ago.. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/global_warmer_h.html
WRT the original article, I have just sent this to the Beeb. A bit petulant, I know, but it made me feel better.
“If Chris Field really was a climate scientist (he isn’t, he’s a biologist) he might know that what he was trying to describe is positive feedback, not negative. This is a schoolboy howler and if the BBC wasn’t run by Arts graduates, an editor might have spared Prof. Field’s blushes.
Do stop scaremongering – you’re supposed to be unbiased!”
“Scientists say that now it is chocolate’s sustainability that needs to be monitored. “ http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6871539&page=1
Nope! No hype here.
There is consensus among Chocolatologists!
I think you’ve won Anthony. Now we need to repair science!
Mike M
February 15, 2009 8:36 am
Why is it with these climate “scientists” that whenever they admit they were wrong, that the situation is always WORSE than they thought? You never hear them say, “oops, our models were wrong. It’s actually not as bad as we thought.”
The feedback they are talking about is the melting of ice and consequent sea desalinization?, “The day after tomorrow” scenario? or they are thinking and planning a new one. Because reality ,credit crisis and low oil prices very probably will mean the end of their pleasant lives.
MartinGAtkins
February 15, 2009 8:43 am
The BBC and ABC are both publicly funded organizations. Because they feed of the taxation of the populace, they are only answerable to the government.
Small wonder that they would advocate higher taxes. By doing the governments bidding they would stand to profit from any tax windfall extracted from the long suffering public.
Bob Brown (UK PM) has wrecked the UK economy and threatened to introduce an even more vicious consumption tax on the people. He backed down but only when civil unrest began to show in the polls.
Now you have Kevin Rudd (Aust PM) going down the same path. He vehemently apposed the GST (consumption tax) on the grounds that it was inequitable. Yet here he is proposing a tax on every thing you consume.
All in the name of saving the planet.
Never underestimate the vigor of a politician bent on bureaucratic empire building and the pot of gold it needs to extract from working people to achieve such a goal.
What better way to build such an insidious regime than to play on the tragedy that struck Victoria. It was pandering to the greens and the cowardice or complacency of the people and the local government to stand up to these moral philosophers that was the real problem
Don’t bother writing to the BBC or ABC. Next time you have a local or national vote, just get off your lazy butts and do it. Your lives may depend on it.
Yea ok, I’ll get snipped but I feel better for saying it.
Pamela Gray
February 15, 2009 8:57 am
My favorite story that speaks volumes about AGW is Alice in Wonderland. Chasing the rabbit is what this is all about. The political motivation behind that story is as interesting as the story itself. Every character has a political equal, every line a political purpose. Much like the Wizard of Oz and Dr. Seuss “The Butter Battle Book”.
Ron de Haa
February 15, 2009 9:00 am
Manfred (22:19:25) :
“so we learned:
the bbc is misleading the public.
the bbc is denying the met office hadley centre’s competence”.
What we have learned is:
1. The UN IPCC is misleading the Governments and the Public
2. The Britisch Government is misleading the public
3. MetOffice is misleading the public and training IPCC members, Politicians, Government Officials etc. to mislead the public and how to handle skeptical points of view.
The BBC is misleading the public by publishing all the garbage produced by people who were probably trained by MetOffice.
What we know:
1. We know that the Government of Gordon Brown has made a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% which is a virtual shut down of the British Economy (if they still have any)
2. As a consequence of their policies Britain has the highest (consumer) energy prices in Europe which already has caused a new phenomenon called “fuel poverty”. http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Cold-weather-deaths-double-warn-campaigners/article-686410-detail/article.html
3. We now know that Green Policies Kill PEOPLE and when Governments adapt Green Policies, Governments Kill People.
4. Similar policies will be introduced World Wide.
There are people who promote the opinion that “KILLING PEOPLE IS THE OBJECTIVE OF GREEN POLICIES IN THE FIRST PLACE” http://green-agenda.com
Shakespearean Comedy? Would that it were. Methinks this quotation from a Shakesperean tragedy is more appropriate; “And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: man made climate change is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing..”
Paraphrased from part of a certain Scottish play.
Thomas Donlon
February 15, 2009 9:16 am
One thing the alarmists concerned about carbon emissions don’t discuss is that melting of glaciers, ice and permafrost should allow more robust vegetation to develop in those places. The new vegetation will remove carbon from the air.
Bernard
February 15, 2009 9:17 am
The most outrageous part of this clip is when the announcer says that “increasing temperatures could ignite the tropical rainforest. ” Yes, Ignite!
Incredibilible…
“..Field is an acknowledged expert.”
The BBC could have talked at least for a few seconds with the sources that say the earth is cooling. But they spend 100% of their reporting time on those like Field. What are the sources that say the earth is cooling? They’re called thermometers.
“Professor of Biology in an Ecology Department.”
It’s not just an ecology department, but it’s a “Global” ecology department.
He is a biologist, not a climatologist. The BBC thinks a biologist in a “global” ecology department, and not a climatologist, is an expert in climate. The Baby Boomer/ Hippie generation, for the most part, controls the media. To a hippie the word “ecology” carries more weight than the word “climatology”. Throw in a picture of a polar bear and it seals the deal.
Chris Field’s CV at this link :
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/fieldlab/CHRIS/CFcv2pg_10-27-08.pdf
So it looks like Chris Field Is just another alarmist from Stanford.
If the BBC wanted to talk to an expert why didn’t they talk to Richard Lindzen?
His CV at this link :
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf
Since lots of folks are giving their cultural quotes, here’s one of my faves… dedicated to the believers in the AGW/CO2 conjecture [from The Wizard of Oz]:
Let me get this straight, WUWT is complaining that a non-climate scientist featured in the media makes unsubstantiated claims that go against the consensus view of the IPCC?
Smokey (05:56:23) :
It’s very easy to send a comment to the BBC about their climate confusion. Just click here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3990000/newsid_3993900/3993909.stm
Thanks Smokey, done.
=========================================
I see the global warming alarm piece today emanates from a single american IPCC scientist (whose expertise is biology not climate), at a time when lobbying in the USA for climate legislation is intense.
Yet the BBC gives no airtime to the head of the climate change unit at the UK met office who warns against overstated predictions of climate chaos.
When is the BBC going to report climate issues in a balanced and unbiased way?
Our TV license is due, and the TV is going on ebay. I will not pay to support a biased organisation.
========================================
Ben – your question from above
http://www.solopassion.com/node/5841
Here Professor Stephen H. Schneider defends the statement and provides the full quote and context.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the
doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context
translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves
in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
means being both.”
He seems to think that calling it a “double ethical bind” absolves him and that he provides an acceptable context that should make us all go “Oooh so he’s torn between being a competent and objective scientist and the ‘need’ to sensationalise and lie for the good of humanity, that’s all right then”.
Congratulations Professor Schneider, your hand-wringing doubts over ethics and integrity vs your perceived ‘greater good’ wins you SOLO’s Villain of the Day award.
**********
Electricity consumption in China (and emissions from coal plants I presume) are currently falling rapidly.
Electricity generation fell by 13% from a year earlier in January 2009 (the numbers were 4%, 10% and 8% in the previous 4 months).
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20090211-121136.html
mal, (4:19:28) that is because, quoting myself from Arctic sea ice thread
last summer on Climate Audit, so consider it copyrighted…LOL:
…it like so many polar bears nowadays… lived on …. 10, Drowning Street
[I myself live on a street nr 10 in Solna (close to Stockholm, Sweden), but
being no polar bear…]
And some news from SMHI, Väder och Vatten Nr 13 Väderåret 2008 [needs no translation for you?!]
Warmest years since 1901 [out of selection of 100 stations, not very many
really rural, but you use what you get…]
1. 1934…..18 stations/%
2. 1990…..17 stations/%
3. 2000…..17 stations/% [I suppose UHI makes earlier year “warmer”]
4. 1938…..14 stations/%
5. 2006…..14 stations/% [same commentary as 3.]
I keep this cliff-hanging…Next time the absolute measured temps, summed up…
The earth atmosphere is 5 quadrillion metric tons so 10 billion metric tons is about .000000001% of the atmosphere’s total mass. Is that correct? Does Carbon dioxide not mix with the entire mass of atmospheric particles? I’m not sure how 10 years of this can have a significant effect. On a side note, I like to envision a piece of paper with 10000 dots on it. Make 4 of them red to represent CO2. The caption “Everything still OK”. Make 2 more red in a new Image. This it’s caption: We Are Doomed.
I believe the IPCC estimate of increased CO2 emissions were all modeled emission rates starting at year 2000 when the models had no future measures beyond that year, just estimates, some of which were reduced rates (scenarios ABC) due to installed reduction programs along side modeled, but assumed to be a combination of natural and unmitigated anthropogenic CO2 increases. The actual measured (and I think questionable) rate of CO2 increase has been in-between the top 3 unmitigated, unregulated modeled rates of increase. Therefore, of the emission rates modeled, the average of the models with starting gate at hear 2000 is below what is currently the case. I believe this is where the statement “underestimated” comes from.
The problem with the models that now arises is just how much of a lag is there between CO2 increase and temperature? For sure there is no immediate connection, as that has already been ruled out by the simple time stamped discrepancy between measured (and don’t forget questionable) CO2 levels and measured (and don’t forget questionable) global temperatures. I am imagining that the IPCC discussion now is WHEN will temperatures start to go up. The part of the mathematical models that connects CO2 to temperature will now have to be adjusted to include a “variable” lag factor that will have to have several ranges with concommittent new model projections, not a cause and effect non-variable temperature response factor.
My conclusion: The original IPCC models are now obsolete and useless for two reasons. 1. CO2 emission rates are not what was projected, and 2. Temperatures are not what was projected.
Apparently the Antarctic is still melting (go NASA!):
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090215.html
“It’s all gone but the mountains.”
I’ve complained before on the BBC website. Got nowhere. It’s a vast organisation with, I would guess, millions of complaints. Seemed to me that the folks who stood outside with placards, re the charity raising cash for the Palastinians, got no where either. Probably the only way, maybe, is to go to the regulatory body responsible or Your MP. Good luck. Myself, I turn it off and wait patiently for the day…. And, I know there are people inside the organisation that share my views on AGWers and lambast their colleagues about it.
What amazes me is that Hansen’s credibility wasn’t shot away ages ago..
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/global_warmer_h.html
WRT the original article, I have just sent this to the Beeb. A bit petulant, I know, but it made me feel better.
“If Chris Field really was a climate scientist (he isn’t, he’s a biologist) he might know that what he was trying to describe is positive feedback, not negative. This is a schoolboy howler and if the BBC wasn’t run by Arts graduates, an editor might have spared Prof. Field’s blushes.
Do stop scaremongering – you’re supposed to be unbiased!”
More of the same:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7887536.stm
Just to clarify the 10 billion tons of CO2 released a year figure comes from the alarmist article posted by TerryBixler.
Ben, you will find the person who suggested that AGW scientists fudge to impress and scare instead of proclaim honest facts here:
http://infowars.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/
And yes, I was scared after I read clear through to the bottom.
STAFFAN LINDSTROEM (7:59:29)
ADDENDUM CORRIGENDUM
1934: ….. 20 stations/% ….
“Scientists say that now it is chocolate’s sustainability that needs to be monitored. “
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6871539&page=1
Nope! No hype here.
There is consensus among Chocolatologists!
I think you’ve won Anthony. Now we need to repair science!
Why is it with these climate “scientists” that whenever they admit they were wrong, that the situation is always WORSE than they thought? You never hear them say, “oops, our models were wrong. It’s actually not as bad as we thought.”
The feedback they are talking about is the melting of ice and consequent sea desalinization?, “The day after tomorrow” scenario? or they are thinking and planning a new one. Because reality ,credit crisis and low oil prices very probably will mean the end of their pleasant lives.
The BBC and ABC are both publicly funded organizations. Because they feed of the taxation of the populace, they are only answerable to the government.
Small wonder that they would advocate higher taxes. By doing the governments bidding they would stand to profit from any tax windfall extracted from the long suffering public.
Bob Brown (UK PM) has wrecked the UK economy and threatened to introduce an even more vicious consumption tax on the people. He backed down but only when civil unrest began to show in the polls.
Now you have Kevin Rudd (Aust PM) going down the same path. He vehemently apposed the GST (consumption tax) on the grounds that it was inequitable. Yet here he is proposing a tax on every thing you consume.
All in the name of saving the planet.
Never underestimate the vigor of a politician bent on bureaucratic empire building and the pot of gold it needs to extract from working people to achieve such a goal.
What better way to build such an insidious regime than to play on the tragedy that struck Victoria. It was pandering to the greens and the cowardice or complacency of the people and the local government to stand up to these moral philosophers that was the real problem
Don’t bother writing to the BBC or ABC. Next time you have a local or national vote, just get off your lazy butts and do it. Your lives may depend on it.
Yea ok, I’ll get snipped but I feel better for saying it.
My favorite story that speaks volumes about AGW is Alice in Wonderland. Chasing the rabbit is what this is all about. The political motivation behind that story is as interesting as the story itself. Every character has a political equal, every line a political purpose. Much like the Wizard of Oz and Dr. Seuss “The Butter Battle Book”.
Manfred (22:19:25) :
“so we learned:
the bbc is misleading the public.
the bbc is denying the met office hadley centre’s competence”.
What we have learned is:
1. The UN IPCC is misleading the Governments and the Public
2. The Britisch Government is misleading the public
3. MetOffice is misleading the public and training IPCC members, Politicians, Government Officials etc. to mislead the public and how to handle skeptical points of view.
The BBC is misleading the public by publishing all the garbage produced by people who were probably trained by MetOffice.
What we know:
1. We know that the Government of Gordon Brown has made a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% which is a virtual shut down of the British Economy (if they still have any)
2. As a consequence of their policies Britain has the highest (consumer) energy prices in Europe which already has caused a new phenomenon called “fuel poverty”.
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Cold-weather-deaths-double-warn-campaigners/article-686410-detail/article.html
3. We now know that Green Policies Kill PEOPLE and when Governments adapt Green Policies, Governments Kill People.
4. Similar policies will be introduced World Wide.
There are people who promote the opinion that “KILLING PEOPLE IS THE OBJECTIVE OF GREEN POLICIES IN THE FIRST PLACE”
http://green-agenda.com
Shakespearean Comedy? Would that it were. Methinks this quotation from a Shakesperean tragedy is more appropriate;
“And all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: man made climate change is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing..”
Paraphrased from part of a certain Scottish play.
One thing the alarmists concerned about carbon emissions don’t discuss is that melting of glaciers, ice and permafrost should allow more robust vegetation to develop in those places. The new vegetation will remove carbon from the air.
The most outrageous part of this clip is when the announcer says that “increasing temperatures could ignite the tropical rainforest. ” Yes, Ignite!
Incredibilible…