Under the headline `Whatever happened to Global Warming?’, the BBC has reported that the warmest year recorded globally was 1998, and for the last 11 years no increase in global temperatures has been observed.Well, fancy…
The report by the BBC climate correspondent, Paul Hudson, which provoked a strong debate on the Corporation’s website, quotes a climatologist as saying there could be 30 years of cooling due to the falling temperatures of the oceans.
Some reader comments on the BBC's website said the broadcaster had made a "U-turn" over its readiness to acknowledge the views of scientists who believe cooling is here to stay.And the BBC’s reply?
However the BBC said: “We have always reported a range of views and this article is no different.Heh…
"The point the article is making is that views about climate change are hotly contested. To characterise this as some sort of change in position is simply wrong.”
Mark Wadsworth picks up on this too, and in the comments, Pavlov's Cat notes that the Liberal Conspiracy gang have their knickers firmly in a twist over it...
The Independent today has an article by Dominic Lawson reviewing Super Freakonomics (sorry no link). This book apparently raises some doubts about the consensus but Lawson article is surprisingly favourable.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC likes to imagine itself neutral. (They don't know anyone who thinks differently to them). In contrast the Independent openly admit drinking the Kool-aid.
I must admit that I found the BBC report refreshingly candid - particularly in admitting that the models failed to predict the stasis in global warming (the same models which the Met Office insist factor in all normal climate cycles - they don't and they can't because not all natural climate cycles are fully understood or even known). However, I don't see it as a sign that the BBC is backtracking on its pro-AGW stance - more of an arse covering exercise just in case us sceptics are proven to be right after all - which is looking increasingly likely.
ReplyDelete"The BBC likes to imagine itself neutral. (They don't know anyone who thinks differently to them). "
ReplyDeleteShades of the US columnist bemoaning the fact that Nixon ggot in because 'no-one I know voted for him!'..
"However, I don't see it as a sign that the BBC is backtracking on its pro-AGW stance - more of an arse covering exercise..."
Indeed. But as more and more 'evidence' is found wanting, that arse is soon going to be looking about the size of John Prescott's...
Ta for link.
ReplyDeleteThe LibCon thing was an absolute delight.
The rout begins...
ReplyDeleteWhich Commie taboo will be next - there are so many?
Shades of the US columnist bemoaning the fact that Nixon ggot in because 'no-one I know voted for him!'..
ReplyDeleteYes I had that in mind.