Guest essay by Eric Worrall
There’s been a lot of fuss in green leaning news outlets, that we have breached the 1C threshold, and we are halfway to the precipice of Climageddon.
For example, according to the government supported climate alarmist BBC;
Global temperatures are set to rise more than one degree above pre-industrial levels according to the UK’s Met Office.
Figures from January to September this year are already 1.02C above the average between 1850 and 1900. If temperatures remain as predicted, 2015 will be the first year to breach this key threshold.
The world would then be half way towards 2C, the gateway to dangerous warming.
The new data is certain to add urgency to political negotiations in Paris later this month aimed at securing a new global climate treaty.
Difficult to measure
For researchers, confusion about the true level of temperatures in the 1750s, when the industrial revolution began and fossil fuels became widely used, means that an accurate assessment of the amount the world has warmed since then is very difficult.
To get over this problem, the Met Office use an average of the temperatures recorded between 1850 and 1900, which they argue makes their analysis more accurate.
Leaving aside the questionable methods of some of the world’s temperature estimates, my big question is – So what?
Just like the big noise about breaching 400ppm CO2 for the first time, this is a big deal about nothing. There is a distinct lack of extreme weather, when compared to the historical record. Crop yields are at an all time high, thanks to CO2 fertilisation. Arctic sea ice has proven to be embarrassingly resilient. And of course, lets not mention the Antarctic.
Climate alarmists can’t even produce a genuine climate refugee. Greens tried really hard, but the climate refugee case fell apart when real courts reviewed their “evidence”.
So why does the BBC, which was once the gold standard for honest reporting, stoop to what is in my opinion such sloppy partisanship? I have a theory. I believe the BBC are in a lot of trouble, and are desperate to maintain a perception of their legitimacy, in a world which has moved beyond needing their services.
The BBC is funded by a compulsory subscription. Unlike TV networks in most parts of the world, if you don’t pay your BBC license fee, people come round with clipboards, armed with extraordinary legislated powers to enter your property without a warrant, to look for televisions. Even if you don’t watch the BBC, in Britain, if you own a television, you are supposed to pay a compulsory TV license fee, to fund the BBC. The license fee might only be a few hundred dollars per year – but for poor people in Britain, already struggling with skyrocketing energy and food prices, in no small part caused by Britain’s climate insanity, this is now a real issue.
There is a growing community backlash against the BBC’s funding model, and some of the alleged bully tactics used by license fee collectors, extracting a few precious pounds of savings from the poorest people in Britain.
If the BBC can’t continue to demonstrate their relevance, within a few years they will be finished. Top level British government ministers are already talking about scrapping the license fee. Stripped of their compulsory, government enforced license fee, the BBC’s top heavy pyramid of well paid middle managers will likely topple under the pressure of real commercial competition.
So the BBC have to stay relevant, they have to provide a service which ensures their continued support from Britain’s political establishment. I think you can see what strategy I believe the BBC chose, to ensure their continued “relevance”.