Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 13, 2013 17:57:23 GMT
The phrase 'an inconvenient truth', which was coined by Al Gore as the title of his book promoting the global warming agenda, has never been more aptly applied than when the real figures show that the predicted increases have not happened, and all those with Green agendas, including the BBC, prefer to ignore or minimise the facts.
Since here we're only concerned with the BBC, it highlights the insidious nature of this behemoth, which ethically, morally, and legally should be giving us the truth so that every person can make up their own minds, but instead uses this bogus disguise to pursue its own agenda.
In this particular case, first read the following story from The Commentator to see what it refers to.
Now since the Met Office is a partner of the BBC in promoting the Global Warming agenda, and previous predictions issued by them have been taken up by the BBC as gospel to the point where they justified making it unnecessary to present any counter view by way of balance.
So to be sure the BBC are aware of the recent admittance by the Met office that temperatures globally have shown no increase, nor are they likely to in the near future.
So how does the BBC cover this story?
They don't!
A search of the BBC website for any articles using the term 'global warming' within since the Met Office published their figures on Christmas Eve show the following:
So there's only one that acknowledges the Met Office figures
Australian wildfires add to growing confusion over climate and as one can tell from the headline, it's designed to downplay the figures.
The Daily Mail has more on this story:
Since here we're only concerned with the BBC, it highlights the insidious nature of this behemoth, which ethically, morally, and legally should be giving us the truth so that every person can make up their own minds, but instead uses this bogus disguise to pursue its own agenda.
In this particular case, first read the following story from The Commentator to see what it refers to.
Climate change at the Met Office
The Met Office lacks no certainty when it comes to climate change. But should it?
John Redwood MP
The Met Office lacks no certainty when it comes to climate change. It tells us that it now offers “weather and climate change forecasts for the UK and the world”. It seeks to forecast short term weather, 10 year general climate, and 100 year climate cycles. It belongs to the school of thought which says that we are living through a period of global warming, and argues that has been brought about by human generated CO2.
To reinforce this message its website is punctuated by the symbols of dangerous climate change. There is a picture of a baked landscape, clearly suffering from excessive heat and no rain; England in 2012 did not look like that anywhere. There is a thermometer obligingly showing 30 degrees C, a temperature we so rarely experience here in the UK.
Today I thought I would share with you some of their more interesting forecasts and statements from 2012.
In February 2012, in its “Climate change and drought” video, the Met Office was warning us about a serious UK drought.
This was followed up on March 23rd: “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June as a whole….the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period”
But by the end of the year we were informed that 2012 was in fact “the second wettest year in the UK dating back to 1910 … with April and June being the wettest on record.”
The Met Office added: “Throughout the year (2012) accurate forecasts and warnings from the Met Office have helped everyone…”
And let’s look at the other facts: The mean temperature for 2012 was 0.1 degrees C below the 1981-2010 average. Consequently, on December 24th, the Met Office lowered its ten year temperature forecast based on a new model.
This record invites a few questions:
Does the Met office agree there has been no warming for the last decade?
Does it agree that world temperatures can be increased or diminished by solar action? How do they model that?
Does it agree that the move to the Medieval Warm period and then back to the Mini Ice Age was unconnected with human CO2? How does it model for similar changes in the future?
Is its current forecast for mild wet winters and hot dry summers in the UK, as global warming progresses? That was what they were saying in their general climate change views.
Could the change in currents and winds that gave us cold winters and cool wet summers recently affect future years?
What is the role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas? What influence can human conduct have on water vapour and cloud formation?
And wouldn’t it be a good idea to concentrate its money and research on weather, and try to improve the accuracy of the forecasts for the next few months, rather than attempting ten year and 100 year forecasts?
The Met Office lacks no certainty when it comes to climate change. But should it?
John Redwood MP
The Met Office lacks no certainty when it comes to climate change. It tells us that it now offers “weather and climate change forecasts for the UK and the world”. It seeks to forecast short term weather, 10 year general climate, and 100 year climate cycles. It belongs to the school of thought which says that we are living through a period of global warming, and argues that has been brought about by human generated CO2.
To reinforce this message its website is punctuated by the symbols of dangerous climate change. There is a picture of a baked landscape, clearly suffering from excessive heat and no rain; England in 2012 did not look like that anywhere. There is a thermometer obligingly showing 30 degrees C, a temperature we so rarely experience here in the UK.
Today I thought I would share with you some of their more interesting forecasts and statements from 2012.
In February 2012, in its “Climate change and drought” video, the Met Office was warning us about a serious UK drought.
This was followed up on March 23rd: “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier than average conditions for April-May-June as a whole….the water resources situation in southern, eastern and central England is likely to deteriorate further during the April-May-June period”
But by the end of the year we were informed that 2012 was in fact “the second wettest year in the UK dating back to 1910 … with April and June being the wettest on record.”
The Met Office added: “Throughout the year (2012) accurate forecasts and warnings from the Met Office have helped everyone…”
And let’s look at the other facts: The mean temperature for 2012 was 0.1 degrees C below the 1981-2010 average. Consequently, on December 24th, the Met Office lowered its ten year temperature forecast based on a new model.
This record invites a few questions:
Does the Met office agree there has been no warming for the last decade?
Does it agree that world temperatures can be increased or diminished by solar action? How do they model that?
Does it agree that the move to the Medieval Warm period and then back to the Mini Ice Age was unconnected with human CO2? How does it model for similar changes in the future?
Is its current forecast for mild wet winters and hot dry summers in the UK, as global warming progresses? That was what they were saying in their general climate change views.
Could the change in currents and winds that gave us cold winters and cool wet summers recently affect future years?
What is the role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas? What influence can human conduct have on water vapour and cloud formation?
And wouldn’t it be a good idea to concentrate its money and research on weather, and try to improve the accuracy of the forecasts for the next few months, rather than attempting ten year and 100 year forecasts?
Now since the Met Office is a partner of the BBC in promoting the Global Warming agenda, and previous predictions issued by them have been taken up by the BBC as gospel to the point where they justified making it unnecessary to present any counter view by way of balance.
So to be sure the BBC are aware of the recent admittance by the Met office that temperatures globally have shown no increase, nor are they likely to in the near future.
So how does the BBC cover this story?
They don't!
A search of the BBC website for any articles using the term 'global warming' within since the Met Office published their figures on Christmas Eve show the following:
12 January 2013
Bushfires rage on in Australia 'helped' by climate change
Asia / 12 January 2013
… commission says the heatwave and fires have been exacerbated by global warming. "Climate change is increasing the risk of more frequent and longer…
11 January 2013
Judgement day for NI's young scientists
Northern Ireland / 11 January 2013
Kyle Graham from Wellington College in Belfast are looking at the ecological effect of global warming on marine life in general and the brine…
9 January 2013
Australian wildfires add to growing confusion over climate
Science & Environment / 9 January 2013
I don't know about you, but the recent row about Met Office climate predictions and a slowdown in global warming has left me shrugging my shoulders.
8 January 2013
US 2012 heat record 'partly due to climate change'
US & Canada / 8 January 2013
… and a mild winter. Scientists said the heat was caused both by global warming and by natural weather variation. But they said the size of the…
4 January 2013
Thames Barrier engineer says second defence needed
London / 4 January 2013
… urgently. Dr Richard Bloore said the south-east London barrier, opened in 1982, was not designed to factor in global warming. A study by the Environment…
So there's only one that acknowledges the Met Office figures
Australian wildfires add to growing confusion over climate and as one can tell from the headline, it's designed to downplay the figures.
The Daily Mail has more on this story:
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?
By David Rose
Last year The Mail on Sunday reported a stunning fact: that global warming had ‘paused’ for 16 years. The Met Office’s own monthly figures showed there had been no statistically significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997.
We were vilified. One Green website in the US said our report was ‘utter bilge’ that had to be ‘exposed and attacked’.
The Met Office issued a press release claiming it was misleading, before quietly admitting a few days later that it was true that the world had not got significantly warmer since 1997 after all. A Guardian columnist wondered how we could be ‘punished’.
But then last week, the rest of the media caught up with our report. On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years.
This is hugely significant. It amounts to an admission that earlier forecasts – which have dictated years of Government policy and will cost tens of billions of pounds – were wrong. They did not, the Met Office now accepts, take sufficient account of ‘natural variability’ – the effects of phenomena such as ocean temperature cycles – which at least for now are counteracting greenhouse gas warming.
Surely the Met Office would trumpet this important news, as it has done when publishing warnings of imminent temperature rises. But there was no fanfare. Instead, it issued the revised forecast on the ‘research’ section of its website – on Christmas Eve. It only came to light when it was noticed by an eagle-eyed climate blogger, and then by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the think-tank headed by Lord Lawson.
Then, rather than reporting the news objectively, Britain’s Green Establishment went into denial. Neither The Guardian nor The Independent bothered to report it in their paper editions, although The Independent did later run an editorial saying that the new forecast was merely a trivial ‘tweak’. Instead, they luridly reported on the heatwave and raging bushfires in Australia.
One of the curious features of Green journalism is that if it gets unusually cold, this will be dismissed as mere ‘weather’ of no significance, while a heatwave or violent storm will be seized on as a warning that catastrophic climate change is already here.
Where the new forecast was mentioned on the BBC and other websites, experts were marshalled to reassure apocalypse-hungry readers that the end of the world was just as nigh as before. A warming hiatus of a mere 20 years, they said, was nothing.
This would all be faintly humorous, if it wasn’t so deadly serious. Back in 2007, when the Labour Government was preparing what became the Climate Change Act, far from being neutral, the Met Office made a blatant attempt to influence political debate.
In a glossy brochure, it revealed it had a ‘new system’ that could predict the future, by combining analysis of natural variability with long-term trends. The system, it warned, showed that by 2014 ‘global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998’.
It boasted that this showed how the Met Office used ‘world-class science to underpin policy’. No doubt some of the MPs who voted for the Act, with its hugely expensive targets to replace fossil energy with ‘renewables’ such as wind, were swayed by it. Barely five years later, it is clear this forecast was worthless. But the Met Office is unrepentant. ‘Climate models do predict periods of little or no warming, or even cooling,’ a spokesman told me. Despite the pause, the long-term projection that the world is likely to warm by about three degrees if the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles was still on course.
We all get things wrong, and by definition futurology is a risky business. But behind all this lies something much more pernicious than a revised decadal forecast. The problem is not the difficulty of predicting something as chaotic as the Earth’s climate, but the almost Stalinist way the Green Establishment tries to stifle dissent.
There is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who deny the Holocaust.
Yet the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.
Some scientists are revisiting some basic assumptions of climate prediction models, such as the effects of clouds and smoke particles in the atmosphere. They now think that the claim that the warming effect of CO2 is ‘amplified’ by things such as cloud cover have been seriously exaggerated. In their view, doubling CO2 may only warm the world by 1.5 degrees or so, giving us many more decades to develop lower carbon energy sources.
How have the Green deniers been so successful in concealing such debates?
Partly it is the web of commercial interests that both fund and are sustained by Green climate orthodoxy. But it is also their dissenter-trashing machine.
A day before the revised Met Office forecast broke, US blog site Planet 3.0 awarded me its Golden Horseshoe award for the ‘most brazenly damaging and malign bad science of 2013’.’
I’ll be clutching it when they burn me at the stake.
By David Rose
Last year The Mail on Sunday reported a stunning fact: that global warming had ‘paused’ for 16 years. The Met Office’s own monthly figures showed there had been no statistically significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997.
We were vilified. One Green website in the US said our report was ‘utter bilge’ that had to be ‘exposed and attacked’.
The Met Office issued a press release claiming it was misleading, before quietly admitting a few days later that it was true that the world had not got significantly warmer since 1997 after all. A Guardian columnist wondered how we could be ‘punished’.
But then last week, the rest of the media caught up with our report. On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years.
This is hugely significant. It amounts to an admission that earlier forecasts – which have dictated years of Government policy and will cost tens of billions of pounds – were wrong. They did not, the Met Office now accepts, take sufficient account of ‘natural variability’ – the effects of phenomena such as ocean temperature cycles – which at least for now are counteracting greenhouse gas warming.
Surely the Met Office would trumpet this important news, as it has done when publishing warnings of imminent temperature rises. But there was no fanfare. Instead, it issued the revised forecast on the ‘research’ section of its website – on Christmas Eve. It only came to light when it was noticed by an eagle-eyed climate blogger, and then by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the think-tank headed by Lord Lawson.
Then, rather than reporting the news objectively, Britain’s Green Establishment went into denial. Neither The Guardian nor The Independent bothered to report it in their paper editions, although The Independent did later run an editorial saying that the new forecast was merely a trivial ‘tweak’. Instead, they luridly reported on the heatwave and raging bushfires in Australia.
One of the curious features of Green journalism is that if it gets unusually cold, this will be dismissed as mere ‘weather’ of no significance, while a heatwave or violent storm will be seized on as a warning that catastrophic climate change is already here.
Where the new forecast was mentioned on the BBC and other websites, experts were marshalled to reassure apocalypse-hungry readers that the end of the world was just as nigh as before. A warming hiatus of a mere 20 years, they said, was nothing.
This would all be faintly humorous, if it wasn’t so deadly serious. Back in 2007, when the Labour Government was preparing what became the Climate Change Act, far from being neutral, the Met Office made a blatant attempt to influence political debate.
In a glossy brochure, it revealed it had a ‘new system’ that could predict the future, by combining analysis of natural variability with long-term trends. The system, it warned, showed that by 2014 ‘global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998’.
It boasted that this showed how the Met Office used ‘world-class science to underpin policy’. No doubt some of the MPs who voted for the Act, with its hugely expensive targets to replace fossil energy with ‘renewables’ such as wind, were swayed by it. Barely five years later, it is clear this forecast was worthless. But the Met Office is unrepentant. ‘Climate models do predict periods of little or no warming, or even cooling,’ a spokesman told me. Despite the pause, the long-term projection that the world is likely to warm by about three degrees if the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles was still on course.
We all get things wrong, and by definition futurology is a risky business. But behind all this lies something much more pernicious than a revised decadal forecast. The problem is not the difficulty of predicting something as chaotic as the Earth’s climate, but the almost Stalinist way the Green Establishment tries to stifle dissent.
There is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who deny the Holocaust.
Yet the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.
Some scientists are revisiting some basic assumptions of climate prediction models, such as the effects of clouds and smoke particles in the atmosphere. They now think that the claim that the warming effect of CO2 is ‘amplified’ by things such as cloud cover have been seriously exaggerated. In their view, doubling CO2 may only warm the world by 1.5 degrees or so, giving us many more decades to develop lower carbon energy sources.
How have the Green deniers been so successful in concealing such debates?
Partly it is the web of commercial interests that both fund and are sustained by Green climate orthodoxy. But it is also their dissenter-trashing machine.
A day before the revised Met Office forecast broke, US blog site Planet 3.0 awarded me its Golden Horseshoe award for the ‘most brazenly damaging and malign bad science of 2013’.’
I’ll be clutching it when they burn me at the stake.