James Delingpole

Here’s a BBC scandal that should really make you disgusted

17 November 2012

9:00 AM

17 November 2012

9:00 AM

How many of you reading this were abused by Jimmy Savile? Few if any, I would hazard. And while I don’t wish to play down the misery wrought over four or more decades by that loathsome perve, the BBC scandal I’m about to describe has resulted in damage, pain and destruction far more widespread than anything Savile managed.

It may have affected you, for example, if: you’ve had your view ruined and your property value trashed by a wind farm; you’re one of the 2,700 people killed in Britain last year by fuel poverty; you can’t get a job; you’ve lost your job; you’re skint; your kids can’t sleep because they’re so worried about the pets that are going to be drowned by the carbon monster; you’ve ever wondered why occasionally — even once would be nice — the BBC doesn’t make a programme about ‘climate change’ which isn’t relentlessly alarmist.

There’s a reason for all this — one that the BBC has spent six years trying to conceal. The story goes back to a seminar, held in January 2006, where the BBC (to quote one of its own reports) gathered ‘the best scientific experts’ who concluded that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ on anthropogenic climate change.

To give you an idea of the effect this conference had on the BBC’s programming, here is a sample from 2006: 24 May — David Attenborough launches ‘Climate Chaos’ season with a two-part documentary, Are We Changing Planet Earth? (his pained, breathy, earnest conclusion: YES!); 28 May — Songs of Praise — Sally Magnusson visits an environmental project in Oxford that has made a real difference to the local community; 28 May — Test the Nation — Know Your Planet: Are you aware of climate and environmental issues?; 6 June — Five Disasters Waiting To Happen: a study of potential climate disaster scenarios in London, Shanghai, Mumbai, Paris and Tuvalu; 2 June — The Money Programme spends a week with a family in Teesdale, the area with the UK’s highest CO2 emissions per capita; 6 June Panorama: Climate Chaos — Bush’s Climate of Fear.


Oh, and I haven’t mentioned the involvement of Blue Peter, which changed its name to Green Peter for the day, offering top tips on how to ‘plant a drought-resistant garden’ and ‘how to boil a kettle with a bike’. Not even the Proms were immune. In 2007, the BBC commissioned a music drama inspired by Hurricane Katrina. Said Controller Nicholas Kenyon: ‘Climate change is such a subject of the moment and the Proms does reflect what is going on in the world.’

Little has changed since. In 2011 the BBC published a defiant apologia — written by angry snails-expert-cum-climate-alarmist Professor Steve Jones — arguing that the BBC’s bias on climate change was more than justified by the science. And only last week, the BBC’s former director-general Mark Thompson delivered a very long speech at Oxford University excoriating ‘deniers’, implying that climate change scepticism was akin to disavowing the link between smoking and cancer, and attacking Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Now clearly, if you’re the kind of trusting soul who believes everything the BBC tells you, then none of this will be the cause for much concern. Others, however, might well wonder: who exactly were these ‘best scientific experts’ whose testimony at that January 2006 seminar was so persuasive that the BBC felt justified in disavowing its charter obligations to be fair and balanced, and to start coming over more like the official broadcasting arm of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace?

This was a question that also troubled North Wales pensioner and blogger (‘Harmless Sky’) Tony Newbery. So much so that he decided to make it the subject of an FOI request to the BBC. Though he knew that the seminar had been chaired by the (virulently alarmist) Lord May, formerly head of the (virulently alarmist) Royal Society, what interested him were the identities of the other 28 people known to have attended.

The BBC very much didn’t want him to find out. For a week this month, it has been spending perhaps £40,000 a day on a crack team of lawyers trying to persuade — successfully as it turned out — an information tribunal that this should remain confidential. Sadly for the BBC, another enterprising blogger called Maurizio Morabito unearthed the details anyway and published them on Monday via the website Watts Up With That?

So who were all these ‘best scientific experts’ who did so much to shape the BBC’s climate policy (and by extension, one fears, government policy too…)? Well, two were from Greenpeace; one was from Stop Climate Chaos; one was a CO2 reduction expert from BP; one was from Npower Renewables; one came from the left-leaning New Economics Foundation… Only five of those present could, in any way, be considered scientists with disciplines even vaguely relevant to ‘climate change’. And of these, every one had a track record of climate alarmism. No wonder the BBC tried so hard to keep the list of 28 a secret. Its claim that its policy change was based on the ‘best scientific’ expertise turns out to have been a massive lie.

You pay for this propaganda with your compulsory licence fee. You pay for it again — and how! — through the myriad costly measures which have been adopted by successive governments to ‘combat climate change’. If this doesn’t make you angry and disgusted and determined to see root and branch reform of this mendacious, incompetent and institutionally corrupt organisation, I should very much like to know why.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • http://british-news-portal.co.uk/ apt-get

    Doctor Who, time-lord… article printed 17th November 2012 and its only the 15th, nice. You don’t have this Saturdays lottery numbers do you..?

  • NickW

    It is doubtful whether Parliament would have passed the Climate Change Act in 2008 if the BBC had not thrown impartiality and integrity into the dustbin in 2006.

    The BBC deliberately misled the entire Nation. Perhaps we should have another enquiry to determine why?

    Every citizen of the UK now has a duty to stop paying their licence fee immediately; to cancel their direct debit and bring home to these charlatans at Broadcasting House the enormity of their calculated lies.

    • dicksanchez

      Well said. Why should they be forced to pay for a lie?

    • foxoles

      Agree with you – but note that the BBC had abandoned what Paxman called ‘the pretence of impartiality’ long before the 2006 meeting.

      in 2004, for instance, BBC environment correspondent Alex Kirby was penning headlines like “Doom warnings sound more loudly”.


      The same year, he wrote: ‘being the objective and impartial (hoho) BBC that we are’ (Climategate email 4894).

      His blurb says, ‘Alex has no scientific education’.

  • Charlie

    Always worth Googling ‘James Naughtie when we win the electiion’ when thinking about bbc bias of any sort!

  • http://twitter.com/billyblofeld Billy Blofeld

    The BBC can’t deny that it is an influential broadcaster. Since the BBC has now been found to be broadcasting idealogical propaganda 24×7 on all it’s channels then I have two initial questions:

    1. How many pensioners has the BBC killed? These are the people who were living in fuel poverty unable to pay to heat their houses as a result of energy bills being increased to pay to subsidise green energy.

    2. In the USA class actions were taken against the tobacco industry. Can similar actions be taken against the BBC in order to reclaim the excess we all pay on our utility bills and other taxes such as road tax and which have all risen in accordance with the volume and urgency of the BBC’s climate propaganda?

  • Joseph

    And also present was someone representing the US Embassy!, I would love to know what criteria the BBC felt inviting someone from a foreign country to help in deciding the BBC’s future coverage of climate related topics was in keeping with the BBC’s charter.

  • Torontory

    Strangely, I can find no reference on the BBC website on their costs to prevent release under FOI of the names, nor that these names are now in the public domain. The tragedy
    of course is that this will never get a substantive airing as the BBC will make no reference to it. Does this fall within Ofcom’s terms of reference?

    • M. Ackroyd

      I’ve requested it via FOI request to the BBC

  • therealviffer

    I thought Fergal Keane was listed as Chair, not May. Otherwise, a fair round-up of the politicisation of threadbare warmie ‘science’. They got away with it, just, when temperature and CO2 were both increasing; however, temperature ceased rising in 1998, yet CO2 ppm kept rising to today’s ~390 ppm. Any competent and impartial scientist would revisit the greenhouse theory in these circumstances.

    The warmies also didn’t factor in the power of the internet. This makes it possible to find serious work like this, which refutes the greenhouse effect according to the principles of thermodynamics and hydrostatics:


    If correct, the atmosphere isn’t a blanket; it’s a fridge. Worth a good read, at least.

    It is truly depressing that only 3 MPs saw through the scam and voted against the 2008 Climate Change Act. Well done to boys Chope, Lilley and Tyrie. The rest of you, stay behind …

    • HarryWiggs

      Still spreading disinformation, I see? Science moves forward, not your denier claptrap.

      Principia/Postma debunked.


      “Not warned since 1998? Bull, debunked here.


      All these links lead to peer-reviewed journals and article–not screball ones not listed in the ISI datasbase.

      • therealviffer

        Harry – 4 days to reply and you sent me a link to a skeptical science piece which ‘debunks’ a different paper. If you put yourself forward as an admin clerk for skeptical science it might help your credibility if you could get the basics right.

        My original link stands – http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

        I’d be grateful if you could point out to me where the science is wrong in that paper. By all means, stick to your mantra which requires a perpetual motion machine in the sky to produce the fictitious ‘back radiation’. Why don’t you build and sell ‘back radiation’ collectors which we could all have on our houses?

        This is going to have you faith-merchants passing pineapples. I’m going long on popcorn futures. I can’t wait.

        • HarryWiggs

          First, apologies for the mislink: however, give your very obvious bias towards ad homs and misunderstanding of the scientific method, (“Faith-merchant,” and the ever-popular “perpetual motion meme) I’m unsure as to the efficacy of me providing you the information to show how utterly bunk your referenced paper is. If someone following the discussion, who isn’t a denier cares to understand that, I’m happy to provide. You? Perhaps no so much. Bottom line? There’s a reason (many, actually) this junk paper was published in Principia, and not an ISI-listed journal.

          • therealviffer

            You still haven’t read the linked paper then.

            You are clearly not a scientist.

            The increasing blacklisting of the publishing of any scientific papers which contradict the CO2 fiction has necessitated the banding together of like-minded scientists such that their work can be published.

            Get used to it. It’s going to pop your CO2 balloon.

          • HarryWiggs

            I have read it: it’s crap. The abstract itself is shot so full of fallacies and errors that a high school student would double over in laughter at them; I am indeed a scientist, enough of one to know a denier when I see one, and smart enough to know not to engage with someone who clearly doesn’t understand scientific basics and cares only to do blog science. I don’t do blog science. So, prattle on, friend. your words do not make Miatello’s work of fiction any less so. have at it, for the state of the science itself, doesn’t support yours, or Miatello’s incorrect understanding of basics such as back radiation, thermodynamics, and the VERY well-understood effect of CO2 in her atmosphere.

          • therealviffer

            Your incredulous reaction to the paper will become typical, for a while, as people like you realise that you have been conned. Your paradigm is shifting.

            But we don’t need any fancy science for that. I think the difference between us can be summarised as follows: you believe a cooler object (say, the atmosphere) can produce nett warming in a hotter object (say, the earth’s surface). I don’t.

            The smarter warmies will be looking for an off ramp quite soon, and some plausible deniability that they ever supported this guff. Good luck with that. Out.

          • HarryWiggs

            “I think the difference between us can be summarised as follows: you believe a cooler object can produce nett [sic] warming in a hotter object . I don’t.”

            That’s an easy one: You do not understand the 2nd law, and have bought into the denialist’s standard pap about it. Since you enjoy blog sciencing, let me speak at your level: a link that links to SCIENTIFIC sources–by your preferred method of blogging–to data that shows you DO NOT understand the 2nd Law.


          • Drewski

            Harry, there is a perfect acronym for people like therealviffer — it is sCeptic (large “C”) = So Called Expert Perpetually Talking In Circles.

            They repeat themselves over and over again without ever attempting to educate themselves.

            I just find it incredulous that people like him would choose to believe unsupported drivel from a website hosted by a known fraud and liar over 150 years of peer-reviewed science done by people with multiple PhDs in representing a score of different scientific disciplines from scientists living in every country on earth.

            BTW, did you hear the one about the 2 sCeptics who were watching the news of flooding in the Amazon? When the the newsreader said that 3 Brazillians had died, the first sCeptic turns to the second and asks “How many is a brazillion?”

          • HarryWiggs

            Yep: all they have is tired, utterly-debunked personal OPINIONS, based on unsound pseudoscience, cherry-picked data from real science, always misrepresenting the real findings and ultimately they resort to ad hominems because they have *no* rational basis to their wild-eyed, tin foil-hatted nutter ideas. I won’t respond to it again. I’ve had a couple pvt emails from the exchange of those who WERE interested in the science, and that’s good. I like your definition of SCEPTIC!

          • HarryWiggs

            As it turns out, Miatello isn’t even a scienist.
            Principia is a NON-ISI-listed vanity “journal,” set up by leading climate denier (and thoroughly debunked) Tim Ball, and others of his ilk. The Miatello paper is chock full of incorrect crap, utterly unsupported by about 150 years of credible scidnce on the effects of CO2, and you, sir are only a troll, attempting to derail the conversation…and your ilk is *losing* that battle.

          • Bickers

            So you think Lindzen talks crap then?

          • HarryWiggs

            Yes, and his arguments have been taken apart by most climate scientists: Here’s a link if youa re interested in learning how he talks crap. Shame really, because at one point, long ago, Lindzen was a respected scientist.


          • Bickers

            “Skeptical Science – getting sceptical about global warming scepticism” – says it all really.Obviously a neutral website, keen to examine bothe sides of the argument, whose sole purpose is to use the scientific method – not. Look Harry, if it looks like an AGW advocacy site, smells like a AGW advocacy site then guess what, it’s an AGW advocacy site (especially when you have Michael Mann involved).

            I’ve followed the Lindzen links; it’s mostly opinion and ad homs.

            When you have empirical data showing a correlation between CO2 levels and climate change let me know – using the scientific method of course. Oh! and you might like to think on the following: in a non linear dynamic system (our climate), if you don’t know the initial state of the system predicting its future state is nigh on impossible.

          • HarryWiggs

            Clearly, you have not, because all the links I referenced are linked to peer-reviewed papers, that put tht elie to most of what Lindzen asserts, not to mention how much in variuance he is toi EMPIRICAL data. Lindzen’s wrong, plain and simple.
            Attacking a theory, or an incorrect conclusion, is not an “ad hom,” a mistake made much of the time by those who do not understand that science, by its design, is a contact sport.
            The correlation between CO2 and the change in climate is *extremely* robust, and some has withstood the test of time, to the tune of about 150 years. ever hear of a place called Venus?
            Methinks you’re not interested in the science, but rather more interested in flinging ideology: If that’s the case, you can go on your merry way, for I follow the data: data don’t lie

          • Bickers

            Data is not the same as doing science using the scientific method. Data can be wrong; just look at the GIGO computer models.Unlike you I remain sceptical of the more extreme claims made by many who support the AGW position. There remains a significant amount of scientific research to be enacted before we can be arrogant enough to claim we can predict the climate 50>100 years from now.

          • HarryWiggs

            “Data can be wrong;: This statement again lays bare the fact that you do not fully grasp the scientific method: Data are NOT ever wrong, data are data. Facts and observations that are empirically collected are data: *intepretations* of the data can be wrong.
            I too, remain skeptical–it’s what I’m paid to do, as a earth systems scientist–of those who claim extreme things about the state of the science. I assure you, those are in the minority of the fileld, and again, read the BEST study. That was done *specifically* with any to disproving AGW, and it sicceeded only in reinforcing the robustness of the theory, as it stands.
            There also remains what appears to be your misunderstanding of the difference between “predictions” and “probabilities.”

          • Bickers

            I don’t think I’ve ever met a scientist who claims that data is infallible.

            “There also remains what appears to be your misunderstanding of the difference between “predictions” and “probabilities.”

            Nope, I fully understand the difference.

        • HarryWiggs

          Here’s how “not even wrong-wrong” you are: h/t to Da Yooper.

          The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations. We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).

          Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesn’t get as cold as the moon. The answer is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no water vapour or other greenhouse gases, because of course it has no atmosphere at all. Without our protective atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be as barren as our lifeless moon; without the heat trapped overnight in the atmosphere (and in the ground and oceans) our nights would be so cold that few plants or animals could survive even a single one.

          The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, that less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gases.

          Disputing that the greenhouse effect is real is to attempt to discredit centuries of science, laws of physics and direct observation. Without the greenhouse effect, we would not even be here to argue about it.

          Don’t believe me? Here’s some testimony from the side of the dissemblers (a veritable Who’s-Who):

          1. Christopher Monckton

          “Is there a greenhouse effect? Concedo. Does it warm the Earth? Concedo. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Concedo. If carbon dioxide be added to the atmosphere, will warming result? Concedo.”


          2. Roy Spencer

          “infrared-absorbing gases warm the surface and lower atmosphere”



          “I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect.”


          3. Richard Lindzen

          “There is a greenhouse effect”


          4. Roger Pielke, Sr.

          “The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate. We do not need to agree on the magnitude of its global average radiative forcing to see a need to limit this accumulation. The biogeochemical effect of added CO2 by itself is a concern as we do not know its consequences. At the very least, ecosystem function will change resulting in biodiversity changes as different species react differently to higher CO2. The prudent path, therefore, is to limit how much we change our atmosphere.”


          5. Fred Singer

          “One of [deniers’] favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics…One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.”


          “Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly.”


          6. Jo Nova

          “Technically, strictly, greenhouse gases don’t “warm” the planet (as in, they don’t supply additional heat energy) but they slow the cooling, which for all pragmatic purposes leaves the planet warmer that it would have been without them. It’s a bit like saying a blanket doesn’t warm you in bed. Sure, it’s got no internal heat source, and it won’t add any heat energy that you didn’t already have, but you sure feel cold without one. Instead of calling it “global warming”, I guess they could have called it “less-global-cooling”. I can’t see it catching on.”


          7. David Evans

          “The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. ”


          8. John Christy

          “carbon dioxide is a thermal gas so it will cause warming to some extent…that’s one about which there really is a consensus about [with] most people.”


          9. William Kininmonth

          “The greenhouse effect is real, as is the enhancement due to increasing carbon dioxide concentration.”


          10. Richard Tol

          “The enhanced greenhouse effect is a plausible explanation for the observed global warming. Long term natural variability is another prime candidate for explaining the temperature rise of the last century. Analysis of natural variability from paleo-reconstructions, however, shows that human activity is so much more likely an explanation that the earlier conclusion is not refuted. But, even if one believes in large natural climatic variability, the odds are invariably in favour of the enhanced greenhouse effect.”


          For those actually interested in learning the ins & outs of the GE, the Science of Doom has an excellent (and mostly accessible) series on it, here:


          • therealviffer


            I see you are now acting as post boy for ‘Da Yooper’. Congratulations. If you, and ‘Da Yooper’, had actually read Miatello’s paper in question, you would have seen, in Section 14 (et al) that he “concedo’s” a warming contribution from CO2, per the greenhouse effect. You would also have seen he calculates that the magnitude of this ‘radiative forcing’, as stated by the IPCC, is wrong by a factor of up to 80, ie – plain wrong. Maybe this goes some way to explain why even the least doom-mongering temperature scenario in the last IPCC Assessment Report has never been observed in reality. Note that this is despite the skewing of data towards warming by cherry-picking source temperature sites in UHIs.

            You, or ‘Da Yooper’, can send me a list of ‘supporting’ references and theories as long as you like. As someone once said, any number of beautiful theories are immediately killed by one ugly fact. The ugly fact is there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1998, yet the supposed culprit, CO2, has risen by ~7% in the period to 391 ppm. In fact, there is a very slight cooling trend.

            Any self-respecting scientist would admit that the CAGW/GHE theory has been proven to be incorrect because its predictions are impossible to verify by observation, despite an increasing abundance of the supposed warming agent (CO2).

            Please don’t even bother letting me know what ‘Da Yooper’ wants you to say in reply. You stick to the faith. I’ll stick to the observed evidence, you know, like a scientist. See below for sources: Scripps/NOAA/Mauna Loa for CO2, UAH for temp record (UAH is one of the 4 approved global temp record sources).



            (Don’t bitch about Spencer in the round, look at the data).

          • HarryWiggs

            “If you…had actually read Miatello’s paper in question, you would have seen,…that he “concedo’s” a warming contribution from CO2, per the greenhouse effect. You would also have seen he calculates that the magnitude of this ‘radiative forcing’, as stated by the IPCC, is wrong by a factor of up to 80, ie – plain wrong.”

            Read it: Show me ANY corroboratory paper–published in a recognized ISI-listed journal, not the vanity faire that is Principia–that supports the “lawyer”s” considered opinion. I’ll wait.

          • therealviffer


            If you hadn’t noticed, the Eco Taliban and their acolytes, one of which you resemble, have engineered a virtual ban on the publishing of any material which disagrees with the ludicrously simplistic killer plant food meme.

            What the Eco Taliban failed to take account of was the power of the internet, which means we are all publishers now. This will be their eventual undoing. Be assured, someone, somewhere, will be taking careful records of the sites, blogs and documents which have whipped up the hysteria about a harmless, vital, trace component of the atmosphere, which also happens to be a by-product of the very fuel of western economies (big clue there Harry).

            They got away with the scam (just), when both temperature and CO2 were increasing (from the 1970s to the late 1990s). It’s what is known as plausible bollocks. Now that CO2 is shooting up and, inconveniently, temperatures are slightly heading the other way, the entire scam is revealed. This is the ‘ugly fact’, which you are incapable of dealing with. Your ripostes amount to no more than personal attacks on an author or a publisher, or incessant boring appeals to authorities which have been rendered invalid by the ‘ugly fact’. ‘Hide the decline’. ‘Can’t explain the missing warming’. You really need to read some Climategate emails to understand that you don’t have to take my word that the predicted warming isn’t there. It is admitted by the very people who contribute to and edit IPCC reports. Incidentally, I believe many of those email originators/recipients publish on your ‘gold standard’ ISI list.

            In parrot parlance, the CAGW/GHE Nobel-winning theory is a Norwegian Blue. Maybe ‘Da Yooper’ could explain that to you.

            It’s good that you care, but you can lose the guilt, and enjoy your life. This is not the rehearsal, my fellow orb dweller.

            PS: ‘kin freezing here.

          • HarryWiggs

            The ONLY scam is your assertion that “CO2 is shooting up and, inconveniently, temperatures are slightly heading the other way,…”

            The rest of your screed is just warmed-up, recycled puke from you DENIERS. Science, unlike your tired old, debunked memes, moves on…and the world grows inexorably warmer.

          • therealviffer

            It’s taken a year for that last comment to appear Harry. You state “the world grows inexorably warmer”.

            That statement demands evidence. Send me a link to any officially recognised global temperature monitoring organisation showing data which supports that preposterous claim, or shut up and enjoy your looney religion.

            Clue: even the warmist-riddled UK Met Office had to admit there has been no warming since 1998. They sneaked out the admission in a hard to find part of their website on Christmas Eve 2013, but the newspapers found it. I know you’re smarting. The truth hurts.

          • HarryWiggs

            *IF* you’re not too intellectually lazy or you’re really interested in finding the scientific truth of my statement, you can find hundreds of links of PEER REVIEWED articles that show what I asserted is correct. This isn’t the old ‘models are unreliable’ meme: to put that old shibolleth to the lie, try here.


            Also, the 97% consensus you deniers so hate is robustly the case: The only “studies” (and I put that in quotes, due to the dubious and non-peer reviewed nature of them) that go against them are ones that were written by known climate science deniers, all of whom have been robustly and roundly debunked for YEARS.


          • therealviffer


            75/77 = 97%.

            When Doran/Zimmermann was debunked, SkS had to go in to overdrive to maintain the meme.


            Question for you: for most of the last 500 million years, has atmospheric CO2 been higher, or lower, than 400 ppmV?

          • HarryWiggs

            “…the warmist-riddled UK Met Office had to admit there has been no warming since 1998. They sneaked out the admission in a hard to find part of their website on Christmas Eve 2013, but the newspapers found it. ”

            Really? Please show your work, otherwise, no soup for you!

          • therealviffer
          • HarryWiggs

            Gotcha. You cannot back up your BS. Got it.

          • therealviffer

            Harry – look up GISS, UAH, HadCRUT and RSS. What you are calling BS, is actually officially recognised atmospheric, land and sea temperature records. The most ‘adjusted’ is the HadCRUT data set which feeds the Met Office. None shows any warming since 1998. This is despite plant food in the air increasing by ~8% in the relevant period.

            To a faith monkey, or a cretin, this is irrelevant. He will continue to wilfully ignore scientific, real-world data, preferring instead to issue endless appeals to authority to ‘justify’ his faith in climastrology. To a real scientist, this is key. It means the GHG theory is falsified, pure and simple. No amount of bed wetting about minute proportions of plant food will ever demonstrate the provable singular cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature in an open atmosphere, which the failed hypothesis sought to prove by observation.

            It’s a tax scam Harry. The governments, banks and corporations want even more of your money. If you don’t pay tax, you might not care about this; however, a lot of low paid people are constantly struggling to get by. The last thing they need is higher taxes occasioned by plant food which we breathe. They’ve managed to tax breathing Harry, and you are all in favour of it. That is a truly special kind of stupidity.

            You’re welcome.

          • Bickers

            The Warmist’s predictions of the last twenty years haven’t come to pass. That usually results in a hypothesis having to go back to the drawing board.

          • HarryWiggs

            Actually, Bickers, the majority of what was predicted 20 years ago has indeed come to pass: in fact, where the “warmists’ have failed is in not predicting the results high enough, wrt to temperature and sea level rise. You might want to take a science comprehension class…

          • Bickers

            Hmmm! like the claims that Artic ice would disappear, no more snow to be seen in the UK, blah, blah, blah!

            Even Phil Jones said, when interviewed on the BBC after Climategate, that there had been no statistically significant warming since 1998. Now, HW that’s from the proverbial horses mouth.

            I’ve been following the Global; Warming/AGW debate for years and started with a neutral view. I don’t doubt that mankind effects the environment (looks at land usage over last 3000 years), however I think the global warming claims have been over egged, by the media (scare stories sell newspapers), vested interest groups and politicians.

            I always try to ‘follow the money’; it more often than not identifies those that piously claim to believe to be two faced, do as I say charlatans. Al Gore is a good example of this (funny how he’s built a mansion by the coast despite his claims that the sea levels were going to rise by many feet)

          • HarryWiggs

            Bickers, there are the “predictions” that the media made–many of which were dead wrong, even at the time–and what the scintists said, which are almost always misrepresented by the MSM. In fact, the disappearance of the ice in the arctic was predicted, and has come to pass, at an even greater rate then the worst *scientific* possibilities.
            Science, true science, *rarely* makes predictions: rather, it posits probabilities, and there is a distinct difference between the two. Science of 20-30 years ago made some incorrect proabalistic conclusions and just as science does, it self-corrected those. Science moves forward, day by day, as we gather more data: There are orders of magnitutde more climatological data now then even 10 years ago.
            You’re welcome to think what you will, and voice an opinion, but you do NOT get to have your own set of facts. If you’re truly interested, the empirical data are all out there, all open and available to see, that the planet has *incontrovertibly* warmed, at a rate unprecendented in the historical record, which is now reliably documented back ~400Kya.
            Did you read the links about Lindzen? If so, you must be a *remarkably* fast reader! Al Gore? Gore’s certainly not my favorite actor, but he is also not a scientist: I am, and and I follow the data. Data don’t lie.

          • Bickers

            Lindzen is only one of hundreds of (reputable) scientists who have grave concerns about the ‘data’ you mention. I have seen no evidence, subjected to the scientific method, that shows warming to be outside of natural variation.

            I’m not sceptical of climate change (it happens all the time); I’m not even sceptical that we might contribute to it, however I’m sceptical that we have reached a point of knowing what makes the climate change or how we might play a part in that. I’m sure you’re aware that cloud modelling and attributing the causes of possible positive or negative feedback is not well understood. Given that this could have a massive influence either way it seems crazy that so many people spout the unscientific ‘the science is settled’ mantra.

          • HarryWiggs

            ” I have seen no evidence, subjected to the scientific method, that shows warming to be outside of natural variation.”
            that shows you haven’t really done the research: there are thousands of studies that show precisely that.

            Here’s one, funded by the extreme climate change-denying Koch Brothers, who didn’t get the answer they paid for.


            Among many of their findings, which examined ~1.6 BILLION pieces of data?

            “Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.”

            Basically, the BEST study brought the skeptics–true skeptucs, not the fake ones–up to date, to about 1985, whena great deal was already inferred about extant data.
            The science is *inded* settled, wrt to the Earth having warmed up, at a rate not found in the past 400Ky, and that without anthropogenic influences, it should have *cooled* in the past 40 years: it has not.
            Data don’t lie.

          • Bickers

            Oh! dear – ‘climate change denying…….’. No one taking a serious interest in our climate denies it changes, so why use that deliberate ad hom language.

            Given there are serious concerns about the way temperature data has been collected over the last 20>30 years, never mind a lack of full understanding of clouds and positive & negative feedbacks, a good scientist would keep their gun powder dry until their knowledge and ability to falsify their hypothesis could be shown.

          • HarryWiggs

            OK, this will be my last response to you: Clearly you’re more interesting in slinging blind ideology at me, rather than actually doing the hard work of research. Had you the interest, you’ve have taken the time to read the links provided, which you did not. so, believe what you will: science will win.

          • Bickers

            “……science will win”. On that you and I can agree 100%

          • Dogzzz

            WOW! it has the ocean really risen 20 feet as predicted by Dr Hansen??? I thought it had risen a couple of inches and that the rate of increase had slowed. Funny, all those pacific atolls are still there and none of them has seen a reduction in land mass due to sea level rise.

            OK Harry, one year on from your claim, tell me, which of the alarmists predictions have come true, and which have the alarmists been too conservative on? You state temperature… The actual temperature, according to the average of all official data sets, is now below ALL of the IPCC’s CMIP-5 model predictions for this date and the divergence between prediction and reality is growing.

            Sea level rise. Hansen predicted 20 feet. He only has 19.9 feet to go.

            You say Bickers needs a science comprehension class? I would suggest you look up the scientific method and what happens when the prediction from a hypothesis is falsified by factual empirical observation and measurement.

          • HarryWiggs

            Here’s some science, one of many that put your lack of knowledge of the filed in a clear, bright spotlight: Hansen also did NOT predict the seas would rise by 20 feet WITHOT the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and a good part of the WAIS (that’s science talk: look it up.)

            Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let’s review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

            • That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

            • That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

            • That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

            • That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

            • Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

            • That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

            • The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

            • They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

            • They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

            • The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

            • The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

            • The expansion of the Hadley cells.

            • The poleward movement of storm tracks.

            • The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

            • The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

            • The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

            • That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

            Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.



  • LB

    And the head of comedy said it was OK.

    And Entwistle? Hmmm, we now know about his ability to make judgements.

  • gelert

    The BBC abandoned impartiality on a number of important topics years ago as well as AGW.

    Visceral hatred of margaret Thatcher,Labour’s role in the financial crisis, EU and euro,Israel and “Palestine”, its hatred of Bush and adoration of Obama while demonising the USA in general,

  • Keith

    It doesn’t make me angry and disgusted and determined to see root and branch reform of this mendacious, incompetent and institutionally corrupt organisation because I already held that view.

  • http://twitter.com/FrenchNewsonlin FrenchNews

    It’s even more disgraceful given the worldwide and long-held reputation of the BBC, based entirely on its claim to respect impartiality and to air excellence. Many in the world will be unaware of the scandal and degraded image dogging the organisation domestically and continue to be misled into believing its climate change propaganda is indeed impartial and factual. These are surely aggravating factors in any court case that might be brought against the broadcaster?

  • CM11

    Yeah James, maybe you should have been on the panel – because your brand of cherry-picking data and ‘scientific’ ‘evidence’ based reasoning really is the pathetic best the deniers can muster. Thank god, there’s only about 12 people listening… significant improvement on those who would vote for you in a by-election mind you! every cloud.

    • Aled Lumley

      Maybe you could be too. Have you ever read the ‘holy bible’ of climate change science? The AR4? Perhaps you could remind us of the outcome? The final outcome is “it is 90% likely that half of the warming over the last 100 years was caused by carbon”. That warming was itself minimal (less than 0.3% or so in absolute %) and arguably background noise. While the report completely ignores water vapour except to say that warming caused more water vapour. While water vapour is the main component of greenhouse gas effect.

      • HarryWiggs

        AR4 does NOT ignore water vapor…only the deniers see that ridiculous assertion.

  • John Mann

    “. . . that loathsome perve”

    I am aware that accusations have been made. I was unaware that Saville had been found guilty in any court of law. Of course, I am aware of the Paedofinder General principle that every man is innocent until speculated guilty, but I was unaware that Mr Delingpole held this principle.

    It seems to me that he would enhance his credibility if he did not, in his opening paragraph, behave in the manner of Sally Bercow and George Monbiot.

    • M. Ackroyd

      Please read Jimmy Savile’s own (1976) biography. He leaves no room for doubt.

      • John Mann

        I have little inclination to read it – and even if I did, second hand copies on Amazon are rather pricey. Perhaps you could provide quotes from the relevant passages?

  • Hayek was Right

    The BBC: Wrong on Climate Change, Wrong on Europe, Wrong on Austerity, and Wrong on its own Child protection measures. That’s a record to rival Blair and Brown’s.

  • Kerry

    These debates are poles apart. Don’t take away the powerlessness of those allegedly abused. Give them some hope that some justice may be coming their way? I sensed this debate was taking their empowerment away again, Two separate issues here both equally important.

  • Michaelmph

    And all this while nobody bothered to ask why respected scientists like David Bellamy weren’t asked their view. Easy, he’s a sceptic and must be kept off the air at all times. If any young graduate tried to get a job at the BBC and held even mildly sceptic views, he wouldn’t get near a job. Not just at the BBC, too, but throughout business and the professions, such has been the relentless propaganda of the BBC’s output. Hitler and Stalin would have given their right arm to have had such a powerful propaganda machine.

  • Torontory

    Tangential, but one of the other areas of the BBC’s lack of impartiality is the steps they have taken (and costs incurred) to prevent publication of the Malcolm Balen report on the BBC’s Middle East coverage written in 2004. It bears all the same characteristics of the climate change approach.

  • Mike Waller

    For decades Big Oil and BIg coal (like Big tobacco before them) paid dodgy academics to churn out findings that supported “business as usual”. My guess is, not even a peep you guys. The precautionary principle (“If there is a good prospect that you are are heading for disaster, stop) alone justifies the stance taken by the BBC. Yet most of the respondents below seem to want to see that as some kind of treason. What strange people!

    • braqueish

      Of course, now that big oil (BP), big Renewables, and big carbon-trader city types are paying dodgy academics to churn out findings that support closing down industrial society and returning us to mediaeval poverty you’re quite happy.

      How precautionary is it to increase fuel poverty? Cold kills many more people than warmth. How precautionary is it to prevent industrial development in Africa by threatening to withdraw aid if they use their abundant coal to generate cheap electricity?

      Still, if you believe that human beings are a “cancer” on the planet you’ll probably cheer the many deaths the “precautionary” principal causes.

    • Philip

      The precautionary principle is complete garbage, a generic excuse for anything. There are people that leave their homes with the intent of robbery and causing harm. The precautionary principle would dictate that we make it illegal to leave your home unless your trip and the exact route you will take has been pre-authorized by the police. This way, much harm to people and society in general can be avoided.

      Anyone sprouting “precautionary principle” is a moron, or someone wanting to implement an otherwise indefensible policy.

    • Mike


      1.The temperature has largely been constantsince 1998 but the CO2 has risen. Balloons measuring T at the equator in the troposhere and satellites have shown little of noincreases in the last 30 yrs.

      2. We understand fluid dynamics well but colloids and clouds are not so well understood.

      3. The Medieval Warming Period of about 950-1250AD was warmer than today.

      4. The mini ice age of 1650-1850 coincides with the industrial manufacture of thermometers in NW Europe and NE USA. Consequently we would expect tempratures to rise post 1850. Before 1850 there are few temperature records in the industrial partsof the World which is only a fraction of the Earth’s surface.

      5.The Urban Heat Island starts to make an impact with more than 20 houses and since 1950s many of thermometers have been moved to airports. Consequently about a third of the temperature rise of 1945-1998 is due to UHI.

      6. The output of the sun varies , as does strength of Earths magnetic field , distance from the Sun, and it’s orientation.

      9. Currents in the Pacific and Atlantic oscillate .

      10. Climate appears to vary o n 10, 30, 60, , 100s , 100s , 10,000s and more cycles.

      11. We are probably due for another ice age.

      12. Plants like warm , moist and CO2 rich environments and disike ,cold, dry and ,low CO2 environments. Increase in CO2 increases root depth and increases tolerance of drought in plants. Some growers pump CO2 into greenhousetoincrease growth.

      13. More people die from the cold than heat.

      14. Increase in T in N hemisphere would increasee area of cultivation in Canada and Russia enabling more crops to be grown.

      15. The climate varies far more than we realise and we do need to understand this. The medievel abbey at Tewkesbury was built on land which did not flood by people whounderstood the risks.

      16. The computer models have not predicted the actual temperature since 1998 and are therefore wrong.

      19. It is likely that the earths climate is too complicated to model accurately , that is whyMet Office predictions for summer and winter have so often been wrong.

    • manicbeancounter

      The claim that alarmists are right because those who oppose them have alleged ulterior motives says something about those who make the claims. They are unable to assess evidence. Not only is it extremely tangential to the debate, but it clearly ignores the much bigger funding and possible ulterior (e.g. ideological) motives of the others.

      The precautionary principle needs an economic justification. If it is a catastrophic global warming is a risk, then the expected outcome must be better taking out the ‘insurance’ than not. There are two issues with this. The certain policy costs of ‘combating climate change’ are likely to be worse than any risk-weighted catastrophe. Second, the policy of constraining the rise in CO2 is next to useless. So even if catastrophe is looming, humanity in general (and certainly Britain in particular) could be better off not trying to constrain CO2, but instead adapt.

  • geoff Chambers

    Among the “best scientific experts” there was also the delectable Eleni Andreadis “of Harvard University” (in fact a student at the Kennedy School of Business) whose expertise consisted of a number of interviews she’d conducted for green organisations, and a paper she was to go on to coauthor with one of the organisers of the seminar.

  • Jenny Keal

    This might explain their biased broadcasting. (Shamelessly stolen from the Biased BBC website from 2010 but still relevent today I believe)

    man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and
    girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an
    international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in
    ‘climate change’ schemes. He’s called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the
    £8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis
    about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about
    ‘ethical investments’, is also
    of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which
    has 47 members and manages four trillion euros’ worth of investments;
    yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many ‘climate change’
    investment opportunities as possible:
    The IIGCC Investor Statement
    on Climate change was launched in October 2006. Asset owners and asset
    managers who signed the Statement committed to increasing their focus on
    climate change in their own processes and in their engagement with
    companies and governments.
    So now we really know why BBC staffers
    are so fanatical about ‘climate change’. It’s naked self-interest. In
    2008, there were 18,736 contributors to the BBC pension fund; every man
    jack of them benefits from climate alarmism.

    I’ve been going through the latest BBC Pensions Trust report, and it
    reveals that Helen Boaden, who is the overall boss of the BBC’s news and
    current affairs operation, was appointed to the trust in 2008. So the
    woman who tells environment reporters such as Roger Harrabin and Richard
    Black that the science is settled also works to maximise the returns of
    the pension fund with Peter Dunscombe. I thought that needed spelling
    out fully, just in case any subtleties might be missed.”

    Now, surely it is illegal to influence the outcome of financial investments! Helen Boaden was in a position to influence the financial interests of the BBC Pension fund by controlling the content of the news and the opinion of millions of listeners. Surely there is a legal challenge in there somewhere?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/T2YYAPY6TGBNSUHS5PJROODQ7E Camana

    I nominate the BBC for “Upper Class Twit Of The Year” standing.

  • a6 master

    Old Entwistle, being so clearly in the know about the flagrant disregard and breach of the Charter, still accepted the DG post without declaring it or making any attempt to abide by the law. That alone would have made his position untenable if he hadn’t have already resigned. Same goes for Patten. He cannot have not known about this, and yet has made no attempt whatsoever to insist the BBC abide by its Charter. For this reason, Patten too must go.

    I’m surprised, but also not, about Helen Boaden’s involvement with the BBC Pension Fund. To be able to directly influence national policy and therefore commercial businesses performance (as evidenced by the commercial representatives at the seminar) and also be in control of or a controlling influence in investments in those businesses, must surely be in breach of insider trading laws.

    Just waiting for the other MSM to pick this up. It’s been slow, but will happen. Task is for everyone to write to their MPs, write to the DCMS and to the BBC Trust, and to also withhold their TV Licence fee until such time as this corruption has been completely rooted out.

  • YacoubA

    There is a precedent for the BBC’s using the courts to hide information that it finds inconvenient getting a public airing. The Corporation spent £333,000 on legal fees, fighting all the way up to the Supreme Court, in order to prevent the world learning that the Balen report, which it had itself commissioned, had found that the BBC reporting on the Palestine/Israel conflict was strongly biased against Israel.

  • brossen99
  • Julian
  • antoinepgrew

    Peter Rippon, Steve Mitchell, Helen Boaden, and George Enwistle were at the January 2006 meeting as BBC representatives.

    These are the four who were asked to resign or step aside in the last two weeks over the Lord McAlpine false accusations scandal.

  • dodgy

    I’ve just been watching the WUWT 24-hour TV show – the McIntyre Extreme Weather presentation. It was a good one – the major message being that Global Warming seems to add little if any strength to extreme weather, but extreme weather happens, and the major means of surviving it is standard technological preparation; be it drought-resistant grain or sandbags to mend embankments.

    He kept his major hitting point for the end – it appears that NYC was poorly prepared for Hurricane Sandy in part because defence was deemed to consist of cutting CO2 emissions to lower the chance of storms. If no efforts had been diverted into that pointless activity, there would have been more resource to deal with what did happen.

    A point which I think needs to be made to local politicians all over the world…

  • Rosco

    The atmosphere acts like a blanket protecting us from the terrifying cold of space – without greenhouse gases Earth would be 33 degrees colder on average – greenhouse gases “trap” infra-red radiation and backradiate a percentage warming the surface more than the Sun can. As we add more greenhouse gases we heat up the planet even more.

    Isn’t that the “settled science” ?

    Well I think it is nonsense !

    Firstly – how can the vacuum space around the Earth be considered “cold” ? It is literally awash with about 1370 watts per square metre of Solar radiation – capable of heating objects to over 120 degrees C in short order.

    If the space around the Earth was cold why do astronauts wear white shiny reflective space suits ? If preventing freezing were the problem surely they’d wear black ones to absorb as much of the energy available ?

    Secondly – why does the Moon’s regolith cool so slowly if space is so cold ?

    I can put water at about 100 degrees C in my freezer and it will freeze in about 8 – 10 hours at a minimum of about minus 15 C temperature in the freezer – it certainly never gets cooler in there.

    Look at the real figures of cooling on the Moon – it is about 1 degree per hour – from lunar noon to lunar midnight the temperature drops from a maximum of about 117 degree C to about minus 173 degrees C in half a lunar day – 354 hours.

    So 290 degrees C drop in 354 hours is less than 1 degree per hour versus 10 degrees per hour for cooling water at minus 15 degrees C.

    What this demonstrates is that vacuum space is a fantastic insulator – far better than double glazing – and that to make claims like psace is cold is absurd not scientific !

    Temperature only applies to mass.

    It is also interesting that the Moon NEVER cools down to the background “temperature” associated with the background radiation of deep space which is a couple of Kelvin – perhaps the Moon has its own “greenhouse effect” ?

    • loftytom

      Sorry mate but you know nowt.
      To answer your first point . Space is cold because it does not absorb heat well, our atmosphere is warm because it is heated by direct contact with the ground.
      Plainly you know sod all physical science, my 14 year old pupils would laugh at your questions.

    • HarryWiggs

      Clearly, you are armed with JUST enough information to be dangerous and zero understanding of blackbody radiation. FAIL.

  • Rosco

    Meant to add – water has a much higher thermal capacity than the Moon’s regolith – about 4 to 1 – so the regolith should cool much quicker !

  • Rosco

    Put an empty pot on the stove and it will soon be glowing red hot.
    Fill that pot with water and its temperature will not exceed 100 degrees C.
    And that’s all you need to know about climate science !

  • Aardvark

    Some would consider it strange that the BBC published the names of the panel on the interweb, but then later declared that these names were secret. Some might think that the BBC were lying, and that this was not really a scientific forum, but instead a greeny/lefty forum, and that it was only in hindsight, after being hassled by bloggers, that the BBC decided it was a secret meeting.

    Lies upon lies from the BBC. It stinks.

  • http://twitter.com/Ingram10Richard richard ingram

    plus it encouraged the indoctrination of a generation of schoolchildren with compulsory viewing of Al Gore’s incredible work of fiction. And some may still be.

  • Mark Raven

    BP and Npower were in the room too. This is a big yawn I am afraid.

  • http://twitter.com/borderlinefools borderlinefools
  • Tristram Torrance

    The BBC has grave accusations to answer about so many issues. As though rape and paedophilia on its premises (Our premises, that is to say) were not enough (Savile et al), the corporation has to answer charges of being complacent (delays in acting and getting a grip) completely out of touch (Entwistle’s pay-off), incompetent (Newsnight – v –management – Savile), unmanageable (Entwistle’s excuse for his failures was that it was “ too big”), and out of control (Newsnight –v – Lord Ashcroft).

    All of this might have been able to be overcome. Aunty has after all, been our constant, reassuring sofa companion for decades and, with the exception of a bit of metro-liberal bias, she is above all, impartial and fair, isn’t she?

    Seemingly not. The latest accusation is quite the most shocking of all. The BBC now stands accused of making a deliberate policy decision to abandon the principle of fair
    and impartial coverage in the matter of climate change, and by association, with
    its coverage of this country’s policies concerning the security and independence of the energy which will be needed by our children and grandchildren.

    Little more proof of the charge is needed that that the BBC tried to stop a relevant FOI request by employing a team of lawyers at our expense, to prevent us from knowing the facts.

    If this is true, the BBC has shown itself to be entirely untrustworthy at the most fundamental level – that of the future security of the country whose citizens involuntarily pay for it. The last vestige of a reason for the very existence of the corporation would have been destroyed.

    If this accusation cannot be satisfactorily answered, then the BBC should be broken up and sold forthwith, and the money made on the sale should be returned intact to the taxpayers as a direct individual payment.

  • newarthill
  • newarthill

    Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, The very large and severe drought in the US MidWest this year – Is it not becoming very obvious? – it’s reckoned that 100 million people were impacted by the climate this year in the US alone – why don’t you ask some of them?

  • http://twitter.com/FunfYears FunfYears

    Hilariously stupid article. Even if the people involved in preparing the report were not experts, which Delingpole has merely asserted and not proved, that does not mean that their conclusions are wrong. Ask some bona fide climate experts and you’ll get the same answer. The scientific consensus is that it is happening and needs to be dealt with. News outlets do not have a responsibility to be impartial when impartiality means giving equal time and space to views supported by the weight of scientific research and views expounded by crackpots, unsavoury hacks and fossil fuel industry lobbyists.

    • oldnik007

      impartial eh? with all the hype about bin laden and al Qa’ida the BBC put out “The Power of Nightmares” which proposed that al Qa’ida does not exist and was cooked up to frighten us all.

      sometimes they let something slip through the propaganda smokescreen.

  • CO2ishealthy

    Harrywiggs, what you quoted
    regarding the Moon temperatures is just junk science by the pseudo-scientific
    blog called “skepticalscience” (who normally uses to censor many
    readers who disagree with their “arguments”)

    “The greenhouse effect is standard physics and confirmed by observations.
    We only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like
    without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s
    surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees
    F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost
    immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C


    Of course Skepticlascience is
    HIDING a very important point: on the Moon the days are lasting 29.5 times more
    than on Earth! So, it is RIDICOLOUS to say that that on the Moon “the
    temperature drops almost immediately”, it is the most ignorant statement you
    can read, even tragic that many readers are believing such crass astro-physics

    On the moon surface it takes 358 hours at the equator to cool off from 390K
    (117° C not 130) to 100K (-173° C not – 110).

    So, on the Moon the temperature is not “dropping” at all, but the
    cooling rate is very slow, just 0.8K/hour, whereas a cubic meter of boiling
    water (100° C) is cooling off, in a hot summer’s night here on Earth, at a rate
    around 5°C/hour!

    So, our atmospere is cooling, and without the atmosphere temperatures would be
    very much higher (also because our days are lasting 29.5 less than on the Moon)
    and there would no time, in 12 hour in the night, to cool enough the surface.

    Please, read this paper and you will know what REALLY happens on the Moon


    2) You have no idea of what the
    concept of temperature is, temperature regards MACROSCOPIC variables, where
    there are no macroscopic bodies (as in the vacuum of space) there is no
    temperature, this is basic thermodynamics, that you ignore of course.

    See wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

    is the branch of natural science
    concerned with heat and its relation to other forms of energy
    and work. It
    defines macroscopic variables (such as temperature, internal energy, entropy, and pressure) that describe average properties of
    material bodies and radiation, and explains how they are related and by what
    laws they change with time. Thermodynamics does not describe the microscopic
    constituents of matter, and its laws can be derived from statistical mechanics.”

    This is
    confirmed also by this page, in the NASA’s website:


    in the outer vacuum of space there’s no temperature, so our atmosphere cannot
    be neither a “blanket” nor a “greenhouse” protecting our Earth surface from
    cold, because there’s no “cold” space
    outside our atmosphere.

    GHE is a false theory, violating
    the basics of physics, and it was supported JUST by political interests.

    3) Of course you ignore that many
    scientists and physicists had educations as philosophers, historians, lawyers
    (George Hadley), etc. before studying physics. There’s no hindrance or limit
    for anyone to study very well a topic and make discoveries, even when he/she
    had a different education/background. Many great scientists (like Tesla,
    Marconi, Morse, Edison, etc.) didn’t have ANY academic education at all. So, I
    think you should seriously take care of your poor knowledge of Physics, it’s
    what you (and not Miatello) write that make people laugh.

    • Icarus62

      Incorrect. Observations of the moon’s surface during a lunar eclipse show that it cools off extremely rapidly –

      “Pettit and Nicholson observed the temperature of the Moon during the Lunar eclipse of 1927, using the Mt. Wilson telescope. They found something even more remarkable: over the span of the few hours of the eclipse, the Lunar temperature fell from 342K at the point of observation to 175K.”

      Principles of Planetary Climate, R. T. Pierrehumbert.

      • Alberto Miatello

        “Totally incorrect is what you wrote, dear Icarus62 : in 1927 there were NO technologies to find precisely the temperature on the surface of a planet, just through telescopes.

        Furthermore: even in 1962, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 23, p. 72), on the Venus surface: ” …Radiometric measures on the temperature of Venus were made in 1923 and 1928 at Mount Wilson by S.B. Nicholson and E. Petitt, but the details were not published until 1955. They found a mean temperature of – 33° C for the night side, and – 38° C on the daylight side.

        Now, even school children know that on Venus you find a mean BOILING temperature of 460°-470° C, both on the dark and on the daylight side.

        But in 1927 Venus was believed to be a COLD planet, because no direct observation with more advanced techonologies could be made…

        So, dear Icarus, your 1927 data by the 2 old men (Nicholson and Petitt) are clearly and totally wrong , sorry, find something more up-to-date please.

        • Icarus62

          In the first place we were talking about the moon, not Venus. In the second place, the very large greenhouse effect caused by CO2 on Venus means that it is extremely hot at the surface but cold at the effective radiating level of the atmosphere, which is the observed source of infrared radiation.

  • newarthill

    Carbon Math Made Simple (with thanks to Jeremy Grantham of GMO)

    1) Our emissions of greenhouse gasses have increased global temperature by
    0.8˚C since 1850.

    2) A 2.0˚C increase is the limit that gives us even a modest hope of avoiding
    very serious climate damage.

    3) We can calculate how much CO2 it would take to incur that incremental
    1.2˚C: 565 gigatons.

    4) We can also calculate how many gigatons would be produced by the proven
    reserves of the hydrocarbon industry: approximately 2,800 gigatons, 5 times
    our target allowance. (Behind the “proven” are terrifyingly larger “probable”
    and “possible” reserves.)

    5) Thus, we know that to be even a little safe we need 80% of these proven
    reserves to be left in the ground. The market value of oil companies is
    about equal to the perceived value of their reserves. The odds of the
    energy companies being enthusiastic about having 80% of their value left in
    the ground: nil.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.mellor1 Mike Mellor

    The Bare Bottoms Club strikes again.

  • global city

    Is it possible to establish a royal commission into these three connected subjects? The EU, Climate change and the BBC have an incredible impact on the UK. Are Royal commissions uncoruptable?

  • burningbeardy

    Here’s a fascinating piece – “Climate researchers working for the United Nations have issued an astonishing plea for immunity from prosecution”


  • DP111

    Climate Change is now part of BBC DNA. If they staged a Verdi opera, they will sneak in something about Climate Change.