Deadly collision? Really? This must be before they remove all the automobiles from London per the recent edict from the EU/EC. The author must have suffered through too many “BBQ summer” heat waves in the London tube.
Here’s more:
“We are seeing how urbanisation is growing – we have passed the threshold of 50% (of the world’s population living in urban areas),” he told BBC News.
“There are no signs that we are going to diminish this path of growth, and we know that with urbanisation, energy consumption is higher.
According to UN data, an estimated 59% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas by 2030.
Every year, the number of people who live in cities and town grows by 67 million each year – 91% of this figure is being added to urban populations in developing countries.
The main reasons why urban areas were energy intensive, the UN report observed, was a result of increased transport use, heating and cooling homes and offices, as well as economic activity to generate income.
The report added that as well as cities’ contribution to climate change, towns and cities around the globe were also vulnerable to the potential consequences, such as:
- Increase in the frequency of warm spells/heat waves over most land areas
- Greater number of heavy downpours
- Growing number of areas affected by drought
- Increase in the incidence of extremely high sea levels in some parts of the world
The first two are effects of UHI, especially downwind of city enhanced precipitation effects. The last two have nothing to do with city growth at all.
But who are you to believe, the UN or the lying eyes of the satellites and the data they produce?
Anyone can measure their city UHI effect themselves. It makes a great science fair project.
Of course, my friend Jim Goodridge, former California State Climatologist, had this nailed in 1996 with his study of surface temperature in California:
The full BBC scare story is here h/t to a bunch of people, you know who you are.
Well, it is the BBC. What do you expect?
What does 70% of emissions and 2% of land mass have to do with anything? How about 70% of emissions and X% of population. That would be a little more relavent.
Not to mention, if all those people spread out, there would be a lot of deforestation, and more commuting.
These guys are brainless. I have a hard time believing that a story like this even got by the editor; but obviously it did.
Energy consumption is higher with urbanization? I think not. Who drives puts more miles on their car, the guy who lives in a city and works 10 miles from his home, or the guy that lives out in the boondocks and is 60 miles from the nearest store? What requires more heating and A/C, a farm house or an apartment?
So What!
The BBC again has embroidered claims of severe problems onto the claims of urban problems.
With atmospheric CO2 levels rising, and global temperatures falling reality is refusing to follow the models.
I have complained many times to the BBC that their reporting of events, with a 0.5% slant that could be made to blame human actions the BBC come out 100% on the side of humans to blame.
And I am forced, by law, to pay for this organization to continue with the rubbish that they spout.
What else do you expect from the BBC?
It is controlled by Common Purpose who are implementing the Agenda 21 sustainable development plan in the UK:
http://www.stopcp.com/findcpmembers.php
You have crossed out “climate change” and replaced it with UHI. Perhaps you should replace “science and environment” with “alarm and hysteria” in the title.
Interesting that even the UN appears to have broadly accepted McKitrick and Michaels’ case about the factors that cause UHI. I drove into London from a semi-rural part of the commuter belt a few nights ago and the thermometer on my car showed a rise from 3ºC to 8ºC along the way, then back to 2ºC by the time I got home (probably freezing or below in a truly rural setting). Perhaps the UHI denialists can come on here and explain how this can happen without creating distortions in the global temperature anomaly data.
Robert Wille
Urbanisation is an aggregate; i.e. rural dwellers generally are contributors to the food supply whereas urban dwellers are 100% consumers. You don’t usually have cattle in the next apartment in a city. Energy for urban life needs to also factor in trucking EVERYTHING into the city plus the load taken up by the rural dwellers to create/grow/raise that which is consumed in the cities.
And that’s just food.
So YES there is on average more energy expended per capita in urban environments.
Washington is contemplating budget cuts. Cutting off all funding to the UN should be high on the list.
2% sounds like a hell of alot of landmass. Are there any geographers out there who can verify this figure?
“…the world’s cities were responsible for about 70% of emissions, yet occupied 2% of the planet’s land cover.”
Is the author suggesting that the cities should spread out more?
Mike.
I suggest a new headline: ‘The Perils of the UN Should Be Ignored’
I would think a higher percentage of the worlds population living in Cities would be praised. It means we’re not destroying natural settings with our urban sprawl.
But of course, all arguments must be twisted to serve the grand master argument of CAGW.
“The authors warned of a ‘deadly collision…’ ”
…and concluded that action is needed.
Translation: “Send more of your tax money to the UN.” As if the $billions wasted every year on “climate change” isn’t already 100% too much; $zero is the correct amount.
If the UN was serious about “collisions,” it would be banging the table about the inevitable collision from space [click image to embiggen].
It seems like only a couple of years ago the CAGW crowd wanted to concentrate most of the world’s population in cities to minimize transportation ‘pollution’. Now they seem to want to ruralize the population to reduce the UHI effect. The warmists continue to throw things against the wall to see what sticks.
Patrick Davis says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:01 am
Well, it is the BBC. What do you expect?
Quite so! I made a formal complaint to the BBC about that disgraceful “Horizon” programme a few weeks ago, when Sir Paul Nurse (president of the Royal Society) stated that human activity was responsible for 7 times more CO2 emissions than nature. I am still waiting for a reply.
What does it take, short of revolution, to make these idiots act responsibly?
The planet Earth is populated by human beings, SCARY stuff!
BTW, these so called experts in social and environmental sciences will find it hard to find jobs outside academia, government jobs, working the UN and by working for NGO’s.
Err just thought I’d point out that you don’t need “BBQ summer” to get heat waves in the London tube.
If you ever travel on the central line even in the depths of winter it’s blooming hot 🙁
Most of the central part of the tube is now too hot, I now walk across central London to avoid the heat, mind you the advantage of that is you get to see what a great city London is 🙂
MAKING COMPLAINTS TO THE BBC
Do you want to complain to the BBC?
One thing to get straight from the start: – responsibility for the BBC’s editorial content within their Editorial Guidlines rests ultimately with the Director-General, as Editor-in-Chief. This may save complainants a great deal of frustration as the vast Kafka-like bureaucratic monster that the BBC has become will have you pushed from pillar to post as each department asserts that their department is not the one to deal with your complaint, and fobs you off to yet another department or the BBC’s “complaints” web page. Having had a long experience of dealing with BBC producers and editors, I can say with some authority that complaints are routinely ignored, dismissed, or, as in the case of emails, deleted by one of their army of “screeners” who filter out all averse comments from their boss’ Inbox.
So write a letter to this bloke, who’s supposedly running the joint:
Mark Thompson, BBCDirector-General
Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA
UK
020 7580 4468
Fax 020 7637 1630
Contact the BBC directly –
The BBC Trust
“Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.”
– Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.
Re. AGW bias:
Last year, Alison Hastings said this:
“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”
Contacting her directly –
Alison Hastings
BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ
UK
Telephone: 03700 100 222
Textphone: 03700 100 212
Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/
For the record, I have written to Alison Hastings myself about the BBC’s coverage of AGW, and I can tell you that she did not reply. Instead, I got a letter from her Correspondence Manager, Bruce Vander. He said that the Trust has no role in editorial matters, which are the domain of the BBC’s management. The Trust’s role is to set out the overall framework, known as the BBC’s Editorial Guidlines, which set out the values and standards that all BBC output should meet. He also pointed me to the complaints page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints and said the Trust conducts regular impartiality reviews of BBC editorial content. The current impartiality review concerns science coverage, including global warming, and its findings are due to be published later this year.
From all that, I conclude the way to complain is firstly via the complaints page, then to the management, then finally to the Director-General himself.
The BBC will only change their behaviour on this subject if they get a regular avalanche of complaints from the public. They are an insulated, self-serving, arrogant, incestous bureaucracy which ignores the very public it proclaims itself to serve. The more you let them get away with it, the more they will get away with. If the BBC knows their biased and unfair treatment of AGW and the participants in their programs will invoke an avalanche of objections from viewers and listeners, they may well alter the content of their programs to make them less biased and unfair.
Also write to the BBC Complaints department –
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UT
UK
There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
make a complaint via this website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml#code
Call BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
(UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)
or write (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR
There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/
or write to –
Feedback
PO Box number 67234
London
SE1P 4AX
telephone 03 333 444 544
feedback@bbc.co.uk
You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not about online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBC Statement:
We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.
Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?
We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.
If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.
If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.
Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?
If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days
If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.
Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml
Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?
The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.
Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.
You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.
We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Email other BBC programs directly:
Storyville
storyville@bbc.co.uk
Broadcasting House
broadcasting.house@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight Investigations
NewsnightInvestigations@bbc.co.uk
Newsnight
newsnight@bbc.co.uk
Horizon
horizon@bbc.co.uk
Emma Jay
Producer/Director BBC Vision Productions (Horizon)
emma.jay@bbc.co.uk
The Today Program
todaycomplaints@bbc.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commissioning Editors
The British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC White City
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TS
UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning
Knowledge
George Entwistle
Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
(Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)
Emma Swain
Head of Knowledge Commissioning
emma.swain@bbc.co.uk
Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.
Krishan Arora
Independents Executive
krishan.arora@bbc.co.uk
Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.
Mary FitzPatrick
Executive Editor Diversity
mary.fitzpatrick@bbc.co.uk
Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.
Documentaries
Charlotte Moore
Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
Room 6060
BBC TV Centre
Wood Lane
London
W12 7RJ
UK
charlotte.moore@bbc.co.uk
Emma Willis
Commissioning Executive Producer
emma.willis@bbc.co.uk
Maxine Watson
Commissioning Executive Producer
maxine.watson@bbc.co.uk
NoAstronomer — Is the author suggesting that the cities should spread out more?
Good point.
Look up the argument list of greens in general and you’ll see that urban sprawl is a major target. Essentially their argument is that cities ought to remove the suburbs, build the centers up, and remove all power other than renewables. In (their) theory this would reduce CO2 due to less need for fossil fuel travel in the metroplex.
The problem of course is that as usual this is poorly thought out; the major source of emission comes from getting food etc to the metroplex in the first place, not citizens driving a few miles to work.
The more you look into the green arguments the more obvious it becomes that they are motivated solely by politics/political power with an enviro veneer painted on top hpoing to fool those who aren’t really looking.
The BBS news is my home page and I reeled in shock when I saw this headline and was about to send it on to you, Anthony, but thought you would have it already – you have, well done.
Note that this doom laden report from the UN is going to be launched at the LSE on Monday; the home of Lord Stern. ‘Nuff said?
I presume this has been lifted wholesale from the Press Release and one wouldn’t expect any BBC journo to add any critical thinking to the story. It beggars belief, but, as usual, readers of this blog will have to do it for the BBC. There are so many holes and contradictions in the story/fairy tale that it is hard to know where to begin. I am going to make a cup of tea instead and read something else more interesting.
On the BBC news home page it is headlined – Cities ‘feeling heat of climate’
I suggest – Climate ‘feeling the heat of cities’
People live in cities for economic reasons. They use more energy because they are richer. Some folks have a problem with other humans being richer.
We are just learning how to enhance urban areas so they are healthier for both people and wild things. It is all good.
That’s exactly why in Canada crown corporation utilities are following orders from the WWF and soon forcing their customers to do so. They astroturf so called concerned citizens groups who in turn lobby for more green policies at the municipal level. This is subversion no more no less.
“David S says:
March 29, 2011 at 7:19 am
I drove into London from a semi-rural part of the commuter belt a few nights ago and the thermometer on my car showed a rise from 3ºC to 8ºC along the way, then back to 2ºC by the time I got home”
Clearly the interface between your satnav, thermometer and UHI compensator chip has failed and you are experiencing reality.
So bereft and confounded by the real climate of the earth, that they are now having to attribute it all to the Urban Heat Island effect, and deliberately misconstrue it as “climate change”
At last. they found a geographical parameter that is a fair bit warmer than non heat island parameters.
What luck – or on the other hand – scraping a barrel that gets emptier and emptier