Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Bob spurned | Main | The Global Warming War »

No false balance at the BBC

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the BBC and the Guardianista types who take it seriously.

The Today programme's piece this morning on the 2-degree temperature target was a case in point: a hilarious example of the corporation's attitude to balance in the climate debate.

The discussion centred around the ideas of Petra Tschakert, an expert in the relationship between climate change and gender, and in particular her view that the 2-degree target should be reduced to 1.5°C.

And to counter this view, the corporation decided to invite none other than Lord Deben, trougher extraordinaire and a man whose tangled relationship with the concept of accuracy is a constant source of stories for this blog.

Too funny.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (26)

I'd never have known this except for your excellent blog.

The BBC are appalling and that's why I've stopped listening to them. I don't see why I should be paying money for their green propaganda.

Mar 27, 2015 at 2:27 PM | Registered CommenterMikeHaseler

My wife came downstairs as I was making coffee in a blissfully silent kitchen and asked if I had turned off the radio because of the climate change item. I was delighted to say that I had not had it on at all. She then asked what qualifications John Gummer had to be an expert in climate matters.....

Mar 27, 2015 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid S

That's the one that is under discussion now - could, most likely, keep sea level rise below 1 metre by the end of the century. Above that is certainly not liveable for communities in low-lying areas.

Did no-one question this extreme alarmism? It's entirely unfounded.

Here's what NOAA say about sea level rise:

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.

So that's about 30cm in a century at the very worst case.
I think the rise will be under a metre.

Actually, I think routine upgrades to infrastructure will cope with negligible expense.

Mar 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Too funny? Not at all

You certainly hear the most ridiculous rubbish on the BBC, but this item where the idiot from Penn State was allowed to say without any challenge that the obvious effect in terms of climate instability caused by a 0.3 degree temperature rise shows the 2 degree target to be dangerous is such complete stupidity it really takes the biscuit.

As to then bringing in Selwyn hot dog man Gummer, well I suppose that is standard BBC modus operandi with regard to AGW (let us not forget that however they change the label that is still what they mean) bring on an idiot to spout rubbish then find another idiot to agree with them and call it balance.

I would correct you in one thing, Tschakert wasn't advocating 1.5 degree, she grudgingly accepted Justin Webb's suggestion that maybe 1.5 degrees would be a better target. Judging by her tone I would suggest she sees ANY further increase as unacceptable.

Mar 27, 2015 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter C

Mike...why do you have a licence? You don't need one to listen to the BBC? Use your imagination.

Mar 27, 2015 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

I did write to the Today programme this morning, regarding balance, and pointing out that global warming (which has been insignificant for nearly 20 years) seems to be an area where they suspend normal practice. They wouldn't dream of putting an economic or other political PoV without a dissenting opinion, so why not climate..?

Mar 27, 2015 at 3:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

I feel that the BBC are close to the point where Jo Public will start laughing at them, not just us swivel-eyed loons, you can only bang on so long about something that nobody perceives is happening. Anyone with something to sell (e.g. The National Trust, The Church, the insurance industry, conservationists to name just a few recent examples) has only got to make a spurious link to climate change and a BBC limo will be on its way to whisk them off to the nearest news studio.

Mar 27, 2015 at 3:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikky

@ Mikky: What do you mean, "will start laughing at them"! I have been laughing at them for the last 7 or 8 years. I see our dear Petra resides in the State Penn along with her extinguished colleague, Michael Mann! I can't wait, before too long Aubtie Beeb will actually get someone on the Today prog who will actually state resolutely, & in ALL seriousness, that we should all hug a tree to prevent Climate Change! It's is only a mtter of time! Interesting though, I haven't heard anyof these trolls use the term "We all know that we have to cut our carbon footprint", for yonks. Anyone else heard it used of late?

Mar 27, 2015 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

I heard this latest alarmist rubbish on the BBC this morning. The first bit was bad enough but when burgerman came on to provide balance I doubled my blood pressure before turning the radio off.

How does on complain to the BBC about endless garbage?

Mar 27, 2015 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

How does on complain to the BBC about endless garbage?
I have no idea, S. Cat. I have tried; the last time, I contacted them about the inactivity on my latest complaint, to be told to lodge the matter as a complaint. Naturally, there was no subsequent activity on either. I have also tried on their “Points of View” site, to soon find that nothing short of adulatory praise is quickly consigned to the “under moderation” bin.

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Not directly related to climate, but the BBC's treatment of the people who publicised Saville's crimes doesn't inspire confidence.

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered Commenteranonym

The EU’s global temperature target of 2°C above pre-industrial was first promoted in 1996 during preparations for the Kyoto negotiations, it's history goes further back.

The 2 degree figure was first mentioned by the economist, William Nordhaus, in a discussion paper for the Cowles Foundation, in 1977. Nordhaus said: “If there were global temperatures more than 2 or 3° above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years.”

The statement is of course non-scientific and quite nonsensical, because quite clearly "observations" have not been made over several thusands of years. However, historical record and proxy determinations have shown warmer temperatures than today in relatively recent times.

In 1990, the UN AGGG (United Nations Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases), was asking for no more than a 1degree rise in global temperature, as if there is a single thermostat that can raise it or lower it. That in turn traces back to the Villach Conference of 1986, and the subsequent Bellagio Conference in 1987, when the main proponents of the AGW meme were present, and have been driving it ever since.

Real time observations have shown that the claims of an ever increasing global temperature due to CO2 emissions have not manifested and that there were temperature falls in the 60's and 70's and currently no rise in temperature since 1995, in spite of increasing CO2 levels.

However, as usual this is not about science, but the pursuit of a global "carbon" price to be set by the UN and managed by Global Financiers such as Goldman Sachs, Rothschilds, KPMG, Soros et al.

Why, for example, is Sir Evelyn Rothschild on the advisory board of the Grantham Institute, an institute set up and funded by a hedge fund billionaire and which seems to be the main source of advice for the government, via for example, Fankhauser at the CCC, where Deben is chairman.

Both are major players at Globe international, where some of our politicians are conniving behind our backs, (but with the full knowledge of government via the FCO), with other politicians across the world, to agree draconian curbs on CO2 emissions at Paris in December, without any reference to any electorate. This will not likely be in any manifesto for the coming election. I have never seen any reference in the MSM to the machinations that take place behind the scenes with Globe. Remember that it was at Cameron's behest that Deben was given the CCC job.

Whilst the BBC luvvies happily do the government's job, other broadcasters are little different and Channel 4 with John Snow, is if anything, worse.

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Schrodinger's Cat:

How does on complain to the BBC about endless garbage?

Someone posted this info a while back:


Channel Four and ITV News -0207 833 3000 and ask for liaison line (recorded messages checked hourly)
BBC TV and Radio Complaints Line-08700 100 222 (someone staffing the line 24 hours day)
Channel Five Complaints Line – 0845 7050505

“And if you want to be more personal, you can usually ask for any programme news editor or a specific journalist through the switchboard.”

BBC Radio Switchboard 0207 580 4468

ITN Switchboard 0207 833 3000

Channel Five Switchboard 0207 550 5555

BBC TV Switchboard 0208 743 8000

Mar 27, 2015 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Dawkins

What the heck is "an expert in the relationship between climate change and gender"? Gordon bleedin' Bennet. I bet she's great fun at parties.

Mar 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh


Remember that it was at Cameron's behest that Deben was given the CCC job.
Mr, or Mrs?

Mar 27, 2015 at 5:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

today another million was clunked in the pockets of this marxist vermine.

amillion that could be used for better things than their goebbelsian propaganda

Mar 27, 2015 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered Commentervenusnotwarmerduetoco2

Presumably the idea here is that as the limit on climate sensitivity is lowered, it becomes more and more important to shriek that even such a small change would be devastating in order to keep the show on the road. The problem comes as the change tends to zero.

Mar 27, 2015 at 9:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

Nothing false about something that does not exist.

Mar 27, 2015 at 10:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunterter

The BBC will claim that endlessly recycling the same rubbish, demonstrates how Green they are.

Mar 27, 2015 at 11:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

What else could you expect? Petra Tschakert comes from Penn State.
Now who else has made that place infamous?

Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Of course, there will be increasing calls to reduce the 2°C.

Because, quite simply, it is increasingly obvious that we are never going to hit 2°C by the end of the century.

As this becomes more obvious, alarmists' research streams are threatened, because if 2°C is the target, and we can meet that target WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING, it's sayonara alarmism.

Hence a pressing need to lower the target.

To keep the gravy train rolling.

Mar 28, 2015 at 9:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterAngusPangus

'Too funny..'..?

Sorry, Bish - can't agree. Climate alarmism is, in my view, right up there with ISIS as a threat to Western democracy....

Mar 28, 2015 at 10:25 AM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

The BBC will claim that endlessly recycling the same rubbish, demonstrates how Green they are.
-Mar 27, 2015 at 11:15 PM Golf Charlie

Green in a nutshell.

Mar 28, 2015 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul in Sweden

I agree with @Sherlock
I do not directly laugh at warmist actions .. their effects are very very serious
Though I do find Josh's cartoons funny is the cleverness of the cartoon that is funny rather than the actions they mock.
- When warmist blogs talk about skeptics they do laugh directly at us.

Mar 29, 2015 at 6:44 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

quack wuack quack 2 degrees quack wuack 1.5 degrees now quack quack
you dont know quack what scienc quack is quack quack i have thought a lot quack quack
and it must be 1.5 degrees quack quack

Apr 1, 2015 at 12:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterVenusNotWarmerDueToCo2

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>