The BBC, Bob Ward & The Climate Catastrophists’ Attack On Dissent

From The GWPF

Date: 31/12/19 Matt Ridley, Reaction

What readers of newspapers and listeners to the radio do not see is the sustained and deliberate pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line on climate change.

I was asked to appear on the Today programme on Saturday 28 December by the guest editor, Charles Moore, and made the case that the BBC’s coverage of climate change is unbalanced. Despite a lot of interruption by Nick Robinson I just about got across the point that the BBC uncritically relays any old rubbish about the environment so long as it is alarmist, even if it comes from an uninformed source like the leader of Extinction Rebellion or falls well outside the range of the scientific consensus that we are on course for a warming of 1-4 degrees this century. But the Corporation has strict rules about letting guests on who might say that the climate change threat is being exaggerated, even if their view and their facts fall within that consensus range.

The BBC now has a rule that if by some oversight a lukewarmer or sceptic does get on the air, he or she must be followed by a corrective interview from a scientist, setting the record straight. Sure enough I was followed by Sir David King, former government chief science advisor. (He’s a qualified chemist, while I am a qualified biologist.)

I sat there open-mouthed as he beautifully demonstrated my point with one exaggeration after another. He said that Europe’s dash for diesel had nothing to do with greens, when green pressure groups pushed actively for it. He said that we will see 1-2 metres of sea level rise this century, when the current rate of rise is 3.4 millimetres a year with no acceleration (or 0.3 metres per century). He said that all of Greenland’s ice cap might melt and could cause 5-6 metres of sea level rise, though at current rates of melting, Greenland’s ice cap will be 99% intact in 2100. He said that wild fires were being caused by trees dying out because of rising temperatures, rather than a failure to manage increasingly luxuriant vegetation in fire-risk areas leading to a build up of tinder. He said scientists are agreed that Calcutta will have to be moved, when the Ganges delta is actually expanding in area, not shrinking.

What readers of newspapers and listeners to the radio do not see is the sustained and deliberate pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line on climate change. Take Bob Ward, who works at the London School of Economics, where his salary is paid by a billionaire, Jeremy Grantham. Ward is not employed to do research, but to “communicate” climate science. He chooses to interpret this as a duty to put pressure on the media to censor people like me. He complains to the Times almost every time I mention climate change, often getting his facts wrong, and kicked up a huge fuss when the Times, after publishing half a dozen of his letters declined to publish another one.

Recently he has taken to complaining to the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Whenever Charles Moore, James Delingpole, David Rose, the late Christopher Booker, I or any other journalist writes an article arguing against exaggerated climate alarmism in one of the newspapers self-regulated by IPSO, he sends in a detailed and lengthy complaint. He never complains about the myriad alarmist mistakes that appear all the time like articles saying that “the science” tells us six billion people are going to die soon because of climate change.

IPSO was invented, remember, to give redress for people whose private lives were invaded by journalists, yet Ward is never complaining on his own behalf (though he probably will after this piece). To give one example, I wrote an article in the Times in 2017 about a scientist whistleblower in the United States who said his colleagues had deliberately distorted a data set to make climate change look more alarming.

Although all of this took place in America and had nothing to do with British scientists, let alone Ward himself, and although the scientist in question was happy with my article, Ward sent IPSO 11 separate lengthy complaints about supposed inaccuracies in my article. I responded with a very lengthy reply, which took two weeks to compile. IPSO asked him to respond to my response, which he did at great length. He raised several new issues that had not been in the original article. IPSO asked me to respond. I did so, at great length and effort. Ward responded a third time. (Remember: this is his day job.) This time, six months into the argument, I and the Times refused to reply and instead asked IPSO to rule on the matter. They did so and quickly found in my favour, dismissing all 11 of Mr Ward’s complaints. Every single one.

In 2019 he tried it again over an article of mine in the Telegraph about how giving up meat would make little difference to emissions, but this time IPSO rejected all of his complaints without even asking me for a response.

Full article here.

86 thoughts on “The BBC, Bob Ward & The Climate Catastrophists’ Attack On Dissent

  1. Please drop the advertiser that puts up the Flash player ads!!!!!!!!
    It covers your articles and gives NO WAY TO GET RID OF IT!!!!

    • “Please drop the advertiser that puts up the Flash player ads!!!!!!!!
      It covers your articles and gives NO WAY TO GET RID OF IT!!!!”

      Not seeing anything like that.

    • I do not have Flash player add-on installed on my iMac and I’m using straight Safari. Lately now when I load WUWT, I get a re-direct to Flash to install their crappy Malware on my computer. No way Jose.
      I just hit the <back arrow and all is well. WordPress is trying to push the Flash malware onto WUWT readers so it can likely better track us with ads and whatever.

      Just say Hell No to Flash player add-on.

      • Thanks, Joel. I get this blocking splash message from my company IT that says I am not allowed access to the website when I click into this site. I hit the back button and then everything is hunky-dory. I never knew what was going on. All I gotta say it “flash this!”

      • I’d love to ‘just say no!’ but our South African Revenue Service (i.e. the Taxman) has decided that the online tax reporting stuff uses (an OLD) version of Flash. Not HTML4, but Flash!

    • Dolores,
      Do you use an ad blocker with your browser?

      I use Adblock Plus with my browser (Firefox 71.0) and have zero Flash Player ads here at WUWT.

  2. “In 2019 he tried it again over an article of mine in the Telegraph about how giving up meat would make little difference to emissions, but this time IPSO rejected all of his complaints without even asking me for a response.”

    All well and good, but is anyone fighting fire with fire, and filing IPSO (facto?) complaints against alarmists?

    • It is a bad enough with amateur Nick Stokes and his redirections and redefining. Try doing it with a paid professional like Bob Ward as Matt Ridley said it will go on for months. Apparently all the oil money cheques haven’t come in for anyone to have the time to do it.

      The only saving grace is on the majority of the public the snake oil salesman alarms have been going off and most countries are retreating from the alarmist view. That was evident at COP24 and COP25 and will be on show at COP26 where politicians can not go where the alarmists want to go because of there public back home.

      • “Apparently all the oil money cheques haven’t come in for anyone to have the time to do it.”

        There are lots of retired folks on here who have time to post comments all day…

    • Jeff: Yes, if you go to the original article (1st to GWPF, then to another link) Mr. Ridley says the GWPF has been filing complaints and winning in a “target rich environment”.

  3. “Climate science is a kernel of truth embedded in a mountain of nonsense”- Lord Lawson.
    The BBC and other MSM outlets are happily circulating the nonsense.

  4. Any chance the new UK Conzervative Gov’t will demand balance ? There’ always those Gov’t grants, and pesky Licence Fees to withdraw.

  5. So much for the self-imposed code of ethics that the 4th estate declared as a result of the European enlightenment. Their first principles were Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.

    Openly to ban opposing opinions is disgusting. BBC does not deserve to exist.

    • Ethics is a relativistic religious/moral code (i.e. behavioral protocol) that has progressed with a presumption to universality and deference to mortal gods. A semantic space change, bolstered by empathetic appeals, sustained through a conflation of logical domains, and everything old is new again but mutated.

    • For the record, what is the name of the creature that issued the edict? She should be the first tactical target. Fired for cause with no severance should wake people up, although not all, which would be a good thing. The private sector here does this all the time with useless departments. It only takes a few days to right the ship.

      Over to you Boris, and if you do feel the need to keep the taxation, at least get rid of the Goebbelsian.

  6. To be brutally frank, my opposition to the climate change catastrophe story is not based on any useful knowledge of the Science. My doubt of the story arises because any reasonable questions about it have been met with aggressive censorship. Whenever that happens, my first impulse is to suspect that the story being defended is mostly false.

    I’m just a cranky old man in Edmonton, but to me the basic theory seems on its face ridiculous. Suppose, for example, that Edmonton’s annual average temperature were to suddenly increase by two degrees C. Well then, we’d have the same climate as Lethbridge. Are the people of Lethbridge now living in a climate hellscape and cowering in fear of extreme weather? No? So why should I worry about warming weather?

    Or here’s another one: The combined populations of Texas and Florida total 50 million. Lets say that 5 million of those people are what any reasonable person would call rich. If hot weather is such a hazard to human happiness, why don’t the rich 5 percent move?

    Or consider the sneaky use of comparatives. Sea levels are rising. Sure. In 2018, global sea level rose the height of a stack of two pennies. If sea level is rising at that rate, why would anyone imagine that the effects of sea level rise could not be mitigated?

    Or consider that the metric from which all dire predictions spring is the average annual global temperature. This figure cannot be determined, because collecting, collating and weighting the data to calculate it is too complex. Vast areas of the Earth, like most of the oceans, have no permanent thermometers to provide stable readings. Ask Mr. Google what the mean global temperature is for 2018 and he doesn’t know. So, if we can’t come up with a usable figure for the datum that is the base of the theory, how can the theory be verified in real time?

    See? Those are dumbbell questions from a Science illiterate. None of the clever folks who are selling the story even try to answer the questions, and anyone who asks them is called a fool. But they seem like reasonable questions to me.

      • +1. If you do not get counterarguments, but strawmen, tendency journalism, agenda, and censorship, you know it is not about facts but about values.

    • Same here. In addition, the global warming alarmist also continues to increasing resemble a religion and mass hysteria. It reminds me of the eugenics paranoia of the early 20th century. It relies primarily on computer models to come up with these hysterical claims and quite a few claims made have turned out to be false thus far.

    • Another way to refute climate science without having to dive into all the details of the science and models is to point out that CO2 levels have been much, much higher in the past. As high as 7000ppm, without anything bad happening.
      You can also point out that for over 80% of the last 10,000 years, temperatures have been as much as 3 to 5C warmer than present, and the world didn’t end. (So much for the claim that another degree of warming is going to kill billions.)

    • “Or here’s another one: The combined populations of Texas and Florida total 50 million. Lets say that 5 million of those people are what any reasonable person would call rich. If hot weather is such a hazard to human happiness, why don’t the rich 5 percent move?”

      They did. They moved to Texas and Florida. and Arizona, and Southern Cal, all warm places.

    • Great points. Similar to the approach Scott Adams takes. He admits he could never navigate an argument with a climate scientist, but he can sniff out the fraud with common sense. If someone tells you they know what the stock market will consist of in 100 years, it’s easy to call out the folly of such a statement. And nobody who said they could do that would ever have any credibility in a business conversation. However, many of the same people who know this suspend their disbelief when it comes to climate predictions despite the fact that the complexity of forecasting climate is many orders of magnitude greater than a stock market or even global economy.

    • If you go up in the atmosphere (troposphere bit) the temperature falls by about 3 deg C/1000 ft. IIRC correctly that’s the basis of the ICAO standard atmosphere. The actual rate of warming is less than 1.5 deg C/century.

      So, go out tomorrow, measure the temperature and then drive 500ft up a hill. Does it feel like a crisis, are birds dropping dead from the sky, trees shrivelling from the cold?

      To use a seasonal word: Humbug.

      JF
      I used this argument in Suffolk (UK) county council chamber to point out the waste of money pursuing a climate control target when our contribution to global warming could be mitigated by climbing up the equivalent height of a small chihuahua. Elton John style stack boots would also work.

    • hi Ian,
      You don’t need to be a scientist to ask these very relevant questions, or to understand the answers (to quote Dylan “you don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows”). I recommend WeatherStats.ca as a helpful portal on weather data collected by the Canadian Government for over a century. Go to this link: https://edmonton.weatherstats.ca/charts/temperature-yearly.html to see a plot of Edmonton annual averages since 1880 (it’s running slow today, so be patient). No sign of a Climate Crisis.

    • Dear Mr Dumbell. Her is another one. It has been established that with sympathetic regulatory environment, nuclear power is far and away the cheapest and safest ‘low carbon’ electricity and general power source. Yet no ‘green’ government or movement has embraced it…

  7. “Whenever Charles Moore, James Delingpole, David Rose, the late Christopher Booker, I or any other journalist writes an article arguing against exaggerated climate alarmism…”

    No ‘most prestigious environment prize in history’ for you lot unless you have a Sir or Greta in your name then?
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/prince-william-announces-most-prestigious-environment-prize-in-history/ar-BBYv5Xe
    Sadly Queeny’s reign is coming to an end and we will be left with the dimwitted progeny and product of our times.

      • Though a traitor like his beheaded dad, Charles II died in office of natural causes. His brother James II however was ejected in the Glorious Revolution.

  8. I put in a complaint to the BBC about the lack of impartiality in their recent Climategate program. We’re on round two at present and I mean to take it up to Ofcom if needed. It won’t achieve much but at least it gives them trouble.

    • Susan,
      Taking on the current BBC, is akin to taking on the entire Establishment. Cliff Richard with all of his contacts, all of his wealth and all of his genuine friends and fans, only just got a ruling against the BBC. They used a helicopter camera crew, to film the police raid of Cliff’s house, at a time when BBC stars were being prosecuted for illegal sex with children, amongst other things.
      The BBC, even when found guilty of invasion of privacy, and don’t ask how they knew the police were about to make the raid on the house…. even after the ruling, they went on air to say they would appeal the judgement. Their defence was journalists freedom to report. As far as I know, the police were not investigated for public office offences, but they should have been. It had to be they who told the BBC to be at the house, helicopter camera crew primed and ready. The BBC then presented the action on their news coverage without ever speaking to Cliff Richard?
      Good luck Susan, those of us who have complained to the BBC have got absolutely nowhere. Let us hope Boris does something about the untouchable BBC. They need sorting out.

    • I have done the same with the David Attenborough programme on climate change with Michael Mann, it has gone to OFCOM.
      Another complaint was about an article on their website that headlined that some catastrophic event was going to happen referring to a published paper, which I read and it said that the event may happen, this complaint is still ongoing with the BBC.
      The final complaint was about their explanation of the Foehn wind, awaiting a response

  9. How does the LSE tolerate this behaviour under its name? I suspect he is in clear breach of their staff code of conduct.

  10. ”I sat there open-mouthed as he beautifully demonstrated my point with one exaggeration after another. He said that Europe’s dash for diesel had nothing to do with greens, when green pressure groups pushed actively for it. He said that we will see 1-2 metres of sea level rise this century, when the current rate of rise is 3.4 millimetres a year with no acceleration (or 0.3 metres per century). He said that all of Greenland’s ice cap might melt and could cause 5-6 metres of sea level rise, though at current rates of melting, Greenland’s ice cap will be 99% intact in 2100. He said that wild fires were being caused by trees dying out because of rising temperatures, rather than a failure to manage increasingly luxuriant vegetation in fire-risk areas leading to a build up of tinder. He said scientists are agreed that Calcutta will have to be moved, when the Ganges delta is actually expanding in area, not shrinking.”

    If this is not proof that the whole climate debate is political not scientific I don’t know what is. Surely not so many people from so many organizations can be that stupid? The question remains….why???

    • “the whole climate debate is political not scientific” The mistake made by this site, as well as all the other sceptical blogs is to ignore this fact. Mr Watts has science and the measurements on his side, the climate hysterics have feelings, luurve for polar bears, a semi-autistic cabbage patch doll. It’s no contest — luurve conquers all.

      Until true climate scientists learn to fight in the political arena they will always lose.

      JF

      • “a semi-autistic cabbage patch doll”
        Julian: That’s no way to talk about a young SkandiTroll.

        As soon as the sun comes out she will turn to stone or go back under her bridge

  11. Matt Ridley wrote:
    “He never complains about the myriad alarmist mistakes that appear all the time like articles saying that “the science” tells us six billion people are going to die soon because of climate change.”

    That portends something worrisome… that the socialists, in implementing their Agenda 2030 plan for worldwide socialism, have plans to cull ~6 billion people while foisting the blame for the deaths off of socialism and onto ‘climate change’, and they are floating trial balloons to see the reaction.

    Arm yourselves, stock up on ammo, target practice and dry-fire practice regularly, keep in physical shape, be prepared… when government goons (most likely UN goons) kick your door in because you spoke hatespeech against the ‘climate change’ socialist agenda, you must be ready to take action without hesitation, it must be swift action, it must be devastating to the government goons, and you must be prepared to sacrifice yourself for the future of your family… enough of us doing that, and their plans will fail.

    We are up against the same sort of dangerous people who’ve killed more than 100 million in the past century… if everyone who was killed by these deranged loons had been armed and ready, the socialists would have failed then, too.

    Our motto must be, “Never again.”. Let them know that we are prepared for them this time, that we will drive them back under the rocks from whence they slithered, that we will destroy their plans and wreck their lives, that we will incarcerate them for life where they rightfully belong… in mental institutions.

    • I have just obtained a shirt that states, “If the Government says you don’t need a gun, you most definitely do.” Of course, I live in the USA and can possess a gun (in most places so far), but the vast majority of people in the world do not have that right and cannot defend themselves against their governments. Even here, I doubt the general populace would rise up. We have been made too dumb and docile (sheeple?).

    • “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

      A. I. Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago

  12. I’d have to conclude that many folk who value their public image, have stuck their necks out so far so that they have very real fears of being shown up as being, on the polite scale, wrong, and on a more extreme scale, to be total plonkers ?

    In such circumstances the only viable option is to maintain, or increase the doomsaying, whilst knowing full well that not only will one not be on the planet at the end of the century, but neither will most who have heard ones claims.

    Absent an extended and dramatic solar minimum, these hucksters will pull it off, sadly 🙁

  13. Fortunately fewer and fewer people are watching or listening to the BBC. If Boris does not defund it, it will wither away in a few years (just like the climate change scam will).

    A cooling world, high energy prices and a few blackouts resulting from unreliables, followed by civil unrest, will sort it out.

    • JUST DO IT.
      Scrap subsidies immediately to all the freeloaders, BBC, Eastern European countries that have never been anything but in the red, Wind farms, Solar farms, people that get paid double for producing “green” electricity that has to have 100% back up, the environment agency, fire them all for deliberate neglect..fire the Euro MPs that never turn up to the parliament except to collect pay cheques…

      Right, that should get people back to work, earn honest livings, reconstruct a few run down visagrad countries, and clear the airwaves for a bit.
      Nothing like some good kicks up the butt.

      Do it Boris.

    • Dont hold your breath on that. The licence fee is guaranteed until 2027, by which time the current government may have moved offstage, being replaced by another with very different priorities from those of today.

      Its also interesting that the BBC have started to position themselves regarding any cut in their income by suggesting alternate ways of funding that do not involve reception of broadcast services, but seek to keep the gathering of such funding to a very broad and involuntary base.

      Its not inconceivable that they would push for some scheme that involved a levy on being ‘Online’. The current need for a licence to view the BBC’s output online suggests that this indeed will be their direction of travel.

      And despite the current murmurings, dont underestimate the value the BBC has to the government when it comes to getting their message out to the plebs ? Something the BBC will be well aware of, and will no doubt use to their advantage.

      • “Its not inconceivable that they would push for some scheme that involved a levy on being ‘Online’. ….dont underestimate the value the BBC has to the government when it comes to getting their message out to the plebs”

        Don’t underestimate the ability of advanced technology luckily to nullify any strategy the rent seekers attempt to introduce.
        The widespread introduction of VPNs, ultra compact microcomputers, 5g services and easy anonymisation easily defeats anything any mass media organisation attempts to use.

        They forget one golden rule,- the competence of any organisation is in direct inverse proportion to its size.
        Boris is hardly enamoured with a BBC and their overtly “remain” stance which held the entire British electorate to ransom for nearly 3yrs, despite his bluster & laughable “electric planes” waffling. The knives are out, and the “establishment” is not quite what it used to be.

        Stick the knife into the BBC, and turn it,- the only relief we had in 2019 was the disappearance of that turd John Humphrys,- next has to be Attenborough, then Harrabin who’s time are all up.
        There a lot of swamp draining to follow.

      • Dont hold your breath on that.

        Agreed.

        The licence fee is guaranteed until 2027

        If there’s a will there’s a way. It’s only guaranteed as long as HM government allows it to be. If enough members of the current government are willing to rescind that guarantee (IE pass a new law voiding the old one), it could be rescinded as soon as they wish. Unfortunately I don’t see the many in British government with the kind of backbone such a move would require. Even if, for whatever reason, 2027 was so set in stone as to be unrevokable, nothing stops them from passing a law *now* that says 2027 is the end of the line and there will be no license fee beyond that date. As I said, if there’s a will there’s a way. unfortunately, as things stand, the will is lacking.

  14. There is deliberate and sustained pressure on ordinary people to not dispute the warmunist party line. For example, I will not talk about AGW in many settings because I know that my views will be met with aggressive hostility. It is not worth the stress that comes with trying to engage the unreasoning and so unchecked they grow ever more aggressive. I don’t speak about my views publicly because my business depends on sales to a community which has a significant proportion of the entranced. It is not easy for me to sacrifice sales to make a point with people who in the end would not be swayed by evidence or logic. And I suppose that is the way fascists win. They make it increasingly difficult to exist outside the group. While we see the hand of socialism co-opting AGW to bring about restructuring of the global economy, the techniques for creating compliance, including controlling the media and bullying dissenters, are text book fascism.

    • No need to engage in political discussion with your customers as a businessperson. That’s just asking for it. Stay apolitical to them.

      • The problem is that if you are a businessman, it doesn’t matter if you are engaging with your customers.
        So long as you engage with ANYONE, the news gets out and your customers hear about it.
        That’s enough for many lefties to start boycotting.

        • Indeed, and this goes back to the debate over anonymous posting going on in another thread here at WUWT. It doesn’t matter if BCBill never talks about it directly with his customers, if one of his customers sees him talk about it online or overhears him talking about it with friends or family, that’s all it takes for them to give his business a hard time (see: cancel culture).

  15. I recall some time ago when Richard Tol walked away from an IPCC event in disgust, he got invited onto TV back then (wouldn’t be allowed now), up against Bob Ward. It was very striking how it was suit versus hippy, but no longer as in the early days of hippies, Ward was the one in the sharp suit, Tol was dressed like a hippy. Follow the money.

  16. Well done Susan. I have done the same, inter alia complaining about the parading of Mikey Mann, a ‘Disgrace to the Profession’ as some sort of climate hero. Received a long polite reply which was largely off the point.
    Am now complaining about lack of coverage of BP chief Dudley’s farewell. And a complaint about Child Abuse – Greta’s editing of the flagship Today programme last Monday. We must all keep it up.

  17. Has anyone calculated the volume of ice in Greenland and the total
    volume of water in the Earth’s ocean?
    Just look at a globe. See the total area of Greenland and compare it to the total area of oceans. We can leave “depth” out, because there are certain parts of the oceans that are 20 miles deep.
    I think Greenland ice is just a drop in the ocean, no pun intended!

    • No part of the ocean is 20 miles deep. A quick look on line found this: The Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench is the deepest known point in Earth’s oceans. In 2010 the United States Center for Coastal & Ocean Mapping measured the depth of the Challenger Deep at 10,994 meters (36,070 feet) below sea level with an estimated vertical accuracy of ± 40 meters.
      So 6.83 miles is the deepest point.

    • Doesn’t matter how deep the ocean is. Those spaces are already filled. All that matters is the total surface area.
      Using made up numbers. If the oceans had a surface area of 1000 meters square, and Greenland had 1000 cubic meters of water. When that water melted, the oceans would go up by 1 meter. Whether the existing oceans were 1 meter deep or 10,000, the rise would still be one meter.

  18. BBC is the home of paedophiles and rapists which they covered up for 50 years… they use terrorists from antifa to do their dirt work… they support and protect muslim extremism, their mantra of being fair and unbiased is a ludicrous joke…. they need dismantling and prosecuting… Someone needs to educate Boris Johnson about climate change (right now he is an virtue signalling green weasel). if he is smart he will understand… if he is dim… expose him…

  19. The Australian and Califorian wild fires have cleared huge areas of combustible materials. If humans don’t mess it up by helping then in today’s CO2 enhanced atmosphere in a decade or so then the burnt areas will be back to normal. But for getting for two decades there won’t be enough combustible materials for anything other than small easily controlled fires. What are the Chicken Little going to panic about?

    • They aren’t panicking. They’re trying to stampede a herd.

      I may be wasting my time countering the ‘facts’ they’re using. “Half the Greenland ice sheet melted last summer” is true, if you mean that half of the area reached the melting point. But it’ obvious, misleading propaganda when 99% of the ice sheet is still there, and snowfall replaced the meltwater.

  20. Don’t underestimate the impact speaking out against the ignorant predictions and declarations of alarmists. I read the comment sections of several news and economic (stock market) websites.

    There was a time when you would get multiple commenters on both sides of the argument when climate change was mentioned. If someone made an ignorant statement, like there is more CO2 in the air than ever before in Earth’s history, and was called out for it, you would see another responder writing something like, “She meant in recorded history, and she’s right. And it has never risen so fast in Earth’s history, nor has the temperature risen as fast. The oceans are rising and are more acidic, blah, blah, blah.”

    I’m not seeing that anymore. Such comments are blasted for being ignorant, and actual data is provided by multiple commenters. No defense, no debate, no other comments trying to support the global warming meme. A true believer could claim the evil oil companies are paying people to respond, but that doesn’t explain the total lack of support of anyone promoting climate change.

    I think a critical mass of educated people have learned enough on this topic to become skeptical of the entire issue, all of the predictions, and most of the proposed solutions. ‘True believers’ are becoming associated with radical groups like XR, and fewer people trust the BBC to be balanced (on any issue, at all).

    The tide has turned. Unless mother nature throws us a curve ball, the collapse of the economies of Germany, California, and other areas will be the beginning of the end. Trying to ban fossil-fueled cars, meat, air travel, etc., plus unreliable electric power will bring about a swift and total end to the scam. Too many people no longer feel threatened by climate change.

  21. ‘a failure to manage increasingly luxuriant vegetation in fire-risk areas leading to a build up of tinder’

    utter nonsense.

    you are telling me that every last bit of Australia currently affected by devastating and unprecedented fires is only burning because of ‘a build up of vegetation’?

    I have to say, that’s a lie and it is quite right the BBC shouldn’t put that out

  22. Agreed, trying to implement the policies that are mistakenly advocated will precipitate the movement’s downfall. We have already seen a precursor snapshot of this when XR activists got pulled from tube trains in London.

    The trick of course is stopping these charlatans (and fools) from getting that close in the first place.

  23. I actually think that the organs of state propaganda, such as the BBC, CBC, ABC, etc., are useful for determining the real truth, or story. Whatever they tell us, believe the obverse.

  24. Ridley: ‘the BBC and others have such a cosy relationship with the alarmist green pressure groups (the fraternisation on Twitter is in plain sight) that they keep making mistakes.’

    I guess this disease has taken over all the western government medias such as the BBC, ABC in Oz, CBC in Canada.

    They don’ t need to take heed, as they’re funded anyway. So they only mind the ‘tolerant left’ as journalists tend to be interested in lecturing others on politics.

  25. Re BBC

    Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. BBC has produces many wonderful programs. I recall one night in a tent in the desert of Darfur. A staff member had a tiny radio. We listened to a very crackly BBC world service.

    Being public funded BBC can be influenced by politics and has some responsibilities. We have the same situation with Radio New Zealand. They are as woke as the rest of them but I can legitimately make complaints, through politicians if necessary. They are a good target for our cause.

    BBC is a deeply entrenched British institution of the kind that the classic conservative should try to preserve. Keep up the pressure for internal change. That’s the key IMO.

    Public funded media have another very important function as the voice for authorities during a genuine catastrophe such as the Christchurch earthquake. When something big goes down here everyone tunes to RNZ. This is why over-air radio must be maintained. I read somewhere that a Scandinavian country (Norway?) had closed down all radio, relying entirely on cellphone and internet coverage. That is crazy. Don’t throw away your radio.

    Cheers

    M

  26. I agree that Radio is important but the BBC is not a particularly useful for consensus. The commercial stations have proved resilience and now offer a fair range of political views (LBC). On the other hand the BBC distort the news to such an extent (Climate-gate) + political bias that a Royal Warrant (or Charter) seems perverse (when many other British independent companies are more suitable and carry more weight. LBC diverse range of interesting and counter political views. You cannot say that about the BBC. The BBC is beyond reform, but cutting its funding and putting VAT as a tax on its media subcriptions (like NetFlix or Sky) model and asking it to pay ‘Corporation’ Tax’ (as Amazon or NetFlix) is a step in the right direction. Public finding should have been removed from the BBC twenty years ago.

  27. Those of you who get adverts should try ‘GHOSTERY,. I have that and ADBLOCKER and get no adverts at all on my Windows 10

  28. Re: The ads.

    Take a look at Pi-Hole. It fixes most ads on any device on your home network.
    Doesn’t get the embedded ones served up directly by the web-page you may be looking at, but it does get the most nasty and prolific ones.

  29. Despite all the hype of the “threat” of global warming / climate change, the bottom line is that most people are unwilling to make the massive sacrifices in their lifestyle to give up completely on fossil fuels in order to avoid some future disaster, of which they see no evidence in their daily lives. Ask anyone over 30 years old who lives near a coast to say whether they have noticed the sea level rising over the last 20 years, and they will probably say they didn’t notice anything because the difference between high and low tide is much greater than any difference they remember from 20 years ago. Even at the same location, the difference between high and low tide depends strongly on the phase of the moon within the same month, so how would anyone notice a one-inch variation in the average over 20 years? Most people have no desire to go to Greenland or Antarctica twice to see whether the ice caps are melting–they are frozen wastelands largely unfit for human habitation.

    The same goes for the average temperature on land–in temperate latitudes air temperatures can increase by 60 to 80 F from January to July, and decrease by the same amount from July to the following January, so who would notice a difference in the average of a few tenths of a degree over 20 years? There are year-to-year variations, but someone who endured a snowy winter last year might welcome a mild winter this year.

    When the AGW alarmists claim that temperatures will rise by X degrees or sea levels will rise by Y meters by the year 2100, the point should be made that those predictions are based on computer models, which over the past 40 years have over-predicted the actual temperature rise by a factor of 2 or 3 (depending on the model). From a scientific point of view (based on experimental data), a model that failed to predict the past cannot be trusted to predict the future. What, if any, changes in the weather have people observed over the past 20, 30, or 40 years where they live? If not much, why should they worry about climate change?

    Al Gore’s misleadingly-named movie “An Inconvenient Truth” tried to scare people into thinking that half of Florida would be underwater if sea levels rose by 20 feet (about 6 meters), but at the current 3 mm/yr, it would take 2,000 years for sea levels to rise 6 meters, when everyone alive now will be long dead and gone. Historians have documented that the climate in Europe was warmer in AD 1 to 400 and 1000 to 1350 than it is now, each warn period followed by a sharp cooling of the climate. If the climate has cooled twice in the past 2,000 years due to natural causes (unrelated to CO2), there is strong reason to believe that it will cool again during the next 2,000 years, which would lead to increased glaciation and lower sea levels, so that Al Gore’s Florida drowning may never occur.

Comments are closed.