Post by Teddy Bear on Dec 12, 2011 16:47:03 GMT
No surprise or revelation about BBC bias related to Climate Change. We've covered enough examples here, and barely touched the tip of the (rapidly melting :
iceberg. Naturally the related Durban conference offers the BBC endless opportunities to further the propaganda it generates on this issue. Steve Doughty in the Daily Mail analyses the real meaning of some of the agreements reached, as well as shows certain hidden agendas of those the BBC likes to present as impartial.
iceberg. Naturally the related Durban conference offers the BBC endless opportunities to further the propaganda it generates on this issue. Steve Doughty in the Daily Mail analyses the real meaning of some of the agreements reached, as well as shows certain hidden agendas of those the BBC likes to present as impartial.It is a mistake to take this £64bn climate change deal at face value
By Steve Doughty
What with being so isolated these days, you would have thought we could all do with a little warmth to cheer us up.
Fortunately, we have the Liberal Democrats to save us from making terrible mistakes and from being left out in a minority of one where it really matters.
I mean, of course, the climate change talks in Durban where Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne has exercised his ability to get people to agree.
Durban has been a tremendous triumph for all of us and all our children, no kidding. We have, according to Mr Huhne, brought ‘all the major emitters into a road map leading to a global overarching legal agreement’.
Come again? Mr Huhne is clever, so I’m sure he knows what he means. I was taught the correct way of folding a map in the Scouts, but I’m not clear how emitters and overarches fit in.
However, it seems China, India and the USA are all going to start cutting back on production of greenhouses gases by 2020. As I said, no kidding.
They haven’t yet said quite how far they are going to cut back, but let’s not be churlish about this. I’m sure they mean it very sincerely.
We must, of course, do our share. There is that £64 billion, to which we will have to contribute, to protect poor countries from the damaging effects of climate change which they will, the scientists say, feel first. And which, by chance, keeps them onside.
The money will be well used, we can be sure.
We will have to speed up our own curbs on greenhouse gases, increasing the pace of cuts by about half. This may not be good news for gas and electricity bills, but it will reassure the 26 per cent of the population found by the British Social Attitudes survey to be in favour of paying much higher prices to save the environment.
It will amuse those who saw the pictures from Scotland showing how wind turbines cope with gales. Don’t worry, the other windmills didn’t blow up because they were all shut down in time. They didn’t produce much energy while they were down, but a little sacrifice in terms of power cuts is not much to pay to save the environment.
If we have 40,000 wind turbines by 2020 instead of the 32,000 Mr Huhne wants to put up, who’s going to notice the difference?
As Mr Huhne said in Durban, ‘for the first time we’ve seen the major economies, normally cautious, commit to take the action demanded by science.’
Indeed, it’s the science that counts. We must stop world temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius this century, or else the world comes to an end, or something like it, according to the science.
Since the Kyoto Protocol was signed 25 years ago, China has become one of the worlds largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The picture shows Beijing shrouded in a smoky haze
Since the Kyoto Protocol was signed 25 years ago, China has become one of the worlds largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The picture shows Beijing shrouded in a smoky haze
Michael Jacobs, who is a visiting professor at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said of the Durban agreement on the BBC’s website: ‘The agreement here has not in itself taken us off the 4C path we are on.
‘But by forcing countries for the first time to admit that their current policies are inadequate and must be strengthened by 2015, it has snatched 2C from the jaws of impossibility.’
You may not have heard of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, so let me help you. It is part of the London School of Economics, a university which has been in the news recently for other reasons.
But the LSE is not swayed by big oil money, at least not sometimes. Climate sceptics, you will have heard, are often financed by big oil. This Institute, it appears, takes no money from oil companies or oil-rich countries.
However, the Institute – take the long title as read, would you, please? – does declare its aims as contributing to political responses to climate change and training climate change researchers. Call me a cynic, but it does not seem to me that the Institute has much of an interest in questioning climate change theory.
It does have a couple of sister bodies to help with the science. Down the road at Imperial College there is the Grantham Institute, shorter name this time, which is there to ‘drive forward climate change related research’ and ‘tackle the challenges of climate change’.
Why all these Granthams? Surely not a tribute to Margaret Thatcher?
No. These institutes are paid for, to the tune of many millions, by a bloke called Jeremy Grantham, the co-founder of Boston asset management firm GMO, which is said to control around $100 billion in assets.
Mr Grantham and his wife Hannelore have an outfit called the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, which does the paying, and which declares as its mission: ‘We believe that climate change represents the world’s primary environmental threat today.’
The BBC always reports these matters properly, so you would not expect it to rely on the views of people like Professor Jacobs, who, whatever the quality of his research, clearly has an interest in one side of the climate change argument.
On the flagship Today programme on Radio Four, the Corporation produceD Lord Stern, former adviser to Gordon Brown and author of a 2006 economic report on climate change. Lord Stern was asked by Today to analyse the Durban agreement for its listeners and say whether the deal went far enough.
What is Lord Stern doing these days? He’s chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
I am very happy for Mr and Mrs Grantham to spend their money as they wish, and if they want to finance climate change propaganda, that is for them. I am unhappy that major British universities, replete with taxpayers’ cash and student fees, should lend their names to this project.
As for the BBC’s willingness to pump out Grantham propaganda pretending it is genuine scientific opinion, that is a disgrace.
You may be willing to pay inflated energy bills, see your local countryside despoiled, and suffer ever-higher green taxes, to support Mr Huhne’s deal in Durban. But, call me a sceptic if you wish, I think you would be very foolish to take Durban at face value.
By Steve Doughty
What with being so isolated these days, you would have thought we could all do with a little warmth to cheer us up.
Fortunately, we have the Liberal Democrats to save us from making terrible mistakes and from being left out in a minority of one where it really matters.
I mean, of course, the climate change talks in Durban where Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne has exercised his ability to get people to agree.
Durban has been a tremendous triumph for all of us and all our children, no kidding. We have, according to Mr Huhne, brought ‘all the major emitters into a road map leading to a global overarching legal agreement’.
Come again? Mr Huhne is clever, so I’m sure he knows what he means. I was taught the correct way of folding a map in the Scouts, but I’m not clear how emitters and overarches fit in.
However, it seems China, India and the USA are all going to start cutting back on production of greenhouses gases by 2020. As I said, no kidding.
They haven’t yet said quite how far they are going to cut back, but let’s not be churlish about this. I’m sure they mean it very sincerely.
We must, of course, do our share. There is that £64 billion, to which we will have to contribute, to protect poor countries from the damaging effects of climate change which they will, the scientists say, feel first. And which, by chance, keeps them onside.
The money will be well used, we can be sure.
We will have to speed up our own curbs on greenhouse gases, increasing the pace of cuts by about half. This may not be good news for gas and electricity bills, but it will reassure the 26 per cent of the population found by the British Social Attitudes survey to be in favour of paying much higher prices to save the environment.
It will amuse those who saw the pictures from Scotland showing how wind turbines cope with gales. Don’t worry, the other windmills didn’t blow up because they were all shut down in time. They didn’t produce much energy while they were down, but a little sacrifice in terms of power cuts is not much to pay to save the environment.
If we have 40,000 wind turbines by 2020 instead of the 32,000 Mr Huhne wants to put up, who’s going to notice the difference?
As Mr Huhne said in Durban, ‘for the first time we’ve seen the major economies, normally cautious, commit to take the action demanded by science.’
Indeed, it’s the science that counts. We must stop world temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius this century, or else the world comes to an end, or something like it, according to the science.
Since the Kyoto Protocol was signed 25 years ago, China has become one of the worlds largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The picture shows Beijing shrouded in a smoky haze
Since the Kyoto Protocol was signed 25 years ago, China has become one of the worlds largest emitters of greenhouse gases. The picture shows Beijing shrouded in a smoky haze
Michael Jacobs, who is a visiting professor at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said of the Durban agreement on the BBC’s website: ‘The agreement here has not in itself taken us off the 4C path we are on.
‘But by forcing countries for the first time to admit that their current policies are inadequate and must be strengthened by 2015, it has snatched 2C from the jaws of impossibility.’
You may not have heard of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, so let me help you. It is part of the London School of Economics, a university which has been in the news recently for other reasons.
But the LSE is not swayed by big oil money, at least not sometimes. Climate sceptics, you will have heard, are often financed by big oil. This Institute, it appears, takes no money from oil companies or oil-rich countries.
However, the Institute – take the long title as read, would you, please? – does declare its aims as contributing to political responses to climate change and training climate change researchers. Call me a cynic, but it does not seem to me that the Institute has much of an interest in questioning climate change theory.
It does have a couple of sister bodies to help with the science. Down the road at Imperial College there is the Grantham Institute, shorter name this time, which is there to ‘drive forward climate change related research’ and ‘tackle the challenges of climate change’.
Why all these Granthams? Surely not a tribute to Margaret Thatcher?
No. These institutes are paid for, to the tune of many millions, by a bloke called Jeremy Grantham, the co-founder of Boston asset management firm GMO, which is said to control around $100 billion in assets.
Mr Grantham and his wife Hannelore have an outfit called the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, which does the paying, and which declares as its mission: ‘We believe that climate change represents the world’s primary environmental threat today.’
The BBC always reports these matters properly, so you would not expect it to rely on the views of people like Professor Jacobs, who, whatever the quality of his research, clearly has an interest in one side of the climate change argument.
On the flagship Today programme on Radio Four, the Corporation produceD Lord Stern, former adviser to Gordon Brown and author of a 2006 economic report on climate change. Lord Stern was asked by Today to analyse the Durban agreement for its listeners and say whether the deal went far enough.
What is Lord Stern doing these days? He’s chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
I am very happy for Mr and Mrs Grantham to spend their money as they wish, and if they want to finance climate change propaganda, that is for them. I am unhappy that major British universities, replete with taxpayers’ cash and student fees, should lend their names to this project.
As for the BBC’s willingness to pump out Grantham propaganda pretending it is genuine scientific opinion, that is a disgrace.
You may be willing to pay inflated energy bills, see your local countryside despoiled, and suffer ever-higher green taxes, to support Mr Huhne’s deal in Durban. But, call me a sceptic if you wish, I think you would be very foolish to take Durban at face value.