Skip to content

Climate Change: Why Does Matt McGrath Still Not Get It?

December 9, 2018
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Robin Guenier

 

The BBC have given great prominence to this absurd video from Matt McGrath, who has spent the last decade spouting global warming propaganda without ever giving even a thought to a bit of objectivity:

image

image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-46496140/climate-change-why-are-governments-taking-so-long-to-take-action

 

This is the BBC blurb for the video:

Climate change: Why are governments taking so long to take action?

A UN conference is being held in Poland to discuss how the world is going to stop climate change.

Last month a report by leading climate scientists found progress is way off track, and the world is heading towards 3C of warming this century rather than 1.5C.

With the impacts of climate change already being felt in severe weather events like floods and wildfires, why is it taking so long to take action?

The BBC’s Matt McGrath explains what needs to happen to speed things up.

 

Poor Matt McGrath looks genuinely puzzled and can’t understand why governments are not doing anything “to save the planet”.

He still seems to think that this was all sorted out at Paris. This was what he wrote at the time:

 

image

I’m not a fan of hyperbole, but it would be churlish to say the adoption of the Paris Agreement was anything other than a globally, historic moment.

This carefully worded document that balances the right of countries to develop with the need to protect the planet is a truly world changing instrument.

It sets out, for the first time, a global approach to a problem of humanity’s own making: the recent rapid warming of the Earth that science says is mainly down to the use of fossil fuels.

The deal sets out a firm goal of keeping temperature rises well below 2C, and will strive for 1.5C.

This is no easy task as researchers say that this year 2015, the world has gone through 1C above pre-industrial levels.

It also sets out a means of getting there. It’s a little convoluted in terms of language, but that’s what you get when you try and get 196 parties to agree to a plan of action.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35085758

 

Those of us why actually bothered to read the Paris Agreement, analysed the various countries’ pledges, and worked out the numbers quickly realised that Paris was no more than a virtue signalling sham.

Whilst all of the world’s leaders beamed in front of the cameras and put their names to the meaningless and non binding goal of 2C, the Agreement changed little in practice, and simply kicked the can down the road. Business as usual in other words.

Even the Paris Agreement noted that, even if all of the pledges made were carried out, emissions would carry on rising up to 2030.

Just as importantly most ordinary people around the world have little interest in climate scares and have much more serious problems to worry about in their lives.

In this latest video he witters on about the “effects of climate change that we are already seeing” – floods, wildfires, heatwaves (all either fake or irrelevant). Then says there are three things needed to speed up action:

  • More money for poorer countries
  • Greater transparency, so richer countries can check what the rest are doing.
  • Greater ambition – quicker, deeper cuts in emissions now from the richer countries.

This however shows that McGrath still fundamentally fails to understand what has been going on.

There is zero chance that developed countries will cough up $100bn a year, which was set only as a “goal” in the Copenhagen Accord,  itself only a non-binding “political agreement”.

The Paris Agreement did not alter anything agreed at Copenhagen in this respect for a very good reason. Western governments don’t have this sort of money lying around, and certainly would not get voters’ agreement to hand it over to the UN.

Greater transparency is largely irrelevant. But it is the last item which really shows up McGrath’s lack of understanding. OECD emissions of CO2 only account for 37% of global ones, and this share will continue to fall as the developing world continue to grow theirs. If global emissions are to fall drastically and quickly all countries need to act.

The idea that China, India or a host of smaller countries will abandon plans to develop their economies as soon as they see the West commit economic hari kari is perfectly ludicrous.

If Matt McGrath really wants to see a rapid reduction in emissions, he needs to turn his attention to China, India and the wealthy oil states of the Middle East – all of whom are nonsensically still regarded as “developing countries”.

There is another problem which McGrath seems unaware of. Fossil fuels still account for 85% of the world’s energy, and with nuclear and hydro power unlikely to grow much the world has no alternative to carry on relying intensively on oil, gas and coal. Put simply, no other alternatives can replace them with the current state of technology.

 

McGrath’s partner in crime, Roger Harrabin, often writes about how renewable energy sources are now competitive with fossil fuels, and how this would lead to nirvana anyway, regardless of Trump or the Paris Agreement.

However, McGrath’s desperation, evident in his latest video, gives the lie to this. As does his insistence that richer countries hand over huge amounts of ransom money every year. Renewable energy remains little more than a niche market, expensive, unreliable and utterly incapable of running modern, industrialised economies.

 

One would expect the BBC News website to actually feature news items. Yet every day, it seems, another piece of barely disguised climate propaganda appears on it.

19 Comments
  1. December 9, 2018 6:24 pm

    Why? Well maybe it’s because he’s a journalism, not a science, graduate? His focus will therefore be on bylines and headlines; not evidence and objectivity. He will therefore automatically assume that a ‘scientific consensus’ is a good thing; not a sign that someone has their hand in your pocket.

  2. Michael Hutton permalink
    December 9, 2018 6:29 pm

    my iPad

  3. Ajax Ornis permalink
    December 9, 2018 6:35 pm

    Paul, I hang on your every word, graph and statistic as well as your oodles of well informed common sense. But to dsimiss McGrath’s rubbish as ‘virtue signalling sham’ is, I feel, too polite. ‘Mendacious bollocks’ would also be too polite ! I’ll defer to others to find the most appropriate nutshell, in which to accommodate a better description.

    • December 9, 2018 7:14 pm

      Lubos Motl likes to call the man-made-climate argument ‘stinky garbage’.

  4. Athelstan permalink
    December 9, 2018 6:45 pm

    I’m not a fan of hyperbole, but it would be churlish to say the adoption of the Paris Agreement was anything other than a globally, historic moment.

    what a bedwetting W-anchor, a climastrophist ‘chicken little’ mcgrath truly is and oh, a fan of preposterous hyperbole – a very very big one.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 9, 2018 9:45 pm

      I wonder if he felt the hand of history on his shoulder….

  5. MrGrimNasty permalink
    December 9, 2018 7:02 pm

    It’s a rare day that almost identical to BBC articles don’t appear in the Daily Mail now, in fact some days there are 3 or 4. There are manifestly powerful influences at work.

    As for Paris being non-binding – that’s a trick to circumvent democratic oversight and approval by the electorate. By the time all the rule-books etc. are agreed, the frogs will be boiled.

    The UN’s migration compact is also non-binding, the UK government’s response to the recent petition against signing – it’s a masterpiece of duplicity or stupidity – you decide.

    It is obvious that the consequences are more loss of sovereignty to the UN, less control of our borders, higher migration, migration as a human right, discussing it a hate crime, and censorship of media and internet – all of which obvious consequences the UK government explicitly denies.

    The ‘non-binding’ pact is how the UN aims to achieve global governance.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 9, 2018 9:44 pm

      Plus 101010

    • Athelstan permalink
      December 11, 2018 4:45 am

      Bound, more like hogtied and under the UN-EU-Multcutlists boots, trampled, kicked from pillar to post we will be because we’re supine. The French are getting the message, there’s a bit of fight in them.

  6. John F. Hultquist permalink
    December 9, 2018 7:16 pm

    nuclear and hydro power unlikely to grow much

    True for hydro, but nuclear could grow if society decided it should.
    Because society has not made that choice (yet), and continues to waste time and money on wind and solar, this tragedy is going to have a long tail.
    (The current non-plan is to pay for and construct two energy systems when one would be sufficient.)
    Electrical energy can provide much of the lighting, heating and cooling, and such. Many other things will require a carbon-based fuel for a long long time.

    Matt McGrath and friends are climate-cult kooks.
    Can such people be de-programmed?
    I don’t think so.

  7. MrGrimNasty permalink
    December 9, 2018 7:44 pm

    GWPF addresses McGrath’s question – ans: It’s not a lack of action, it’s the wrong action – promoting completely the wrong/uneconomic solutions (wind/solar).

    https://www.thegwpf.com/renewables-and-climate-policy-are-on-a-collision-course/

  8. Broadlands permalink
    December 9, 2018 7:44 pm

    “The [Paris] deal sets out a firm goal of keeping temperature rises well below 2C, and will strive for 1.5C.”

    Not exactly Mr. McGrath. The proximate goal to “strive for” is the technological capture and geological SAFE storage of hundreds of gigatons of CO2, with the assumption it can be done… and that would keep us below those values. The problem is reality. It cannot be done. There is no place to safely store such huge amounts of compressed CO2. And if the is, an earthquake or volcanic eruption (predicted or not) would be devastating , even if global economies were still solvent.

  9. Spencerlee permalink
    December 9, 2018 7:48 pm

    The increasingly strident and apocalyptic forecasts of the AGW lobbyists is evidence of their desperation to get some reduction in Co2 emissions. This I believe is so that, when they eventually have to confirm that temperatures are not rising as their models predict, they will claim it is because of reducing Co2 emissions. The last thing they will do is admit to having been wrong.

    • Colin permalink
      December 9, 2018 8:42 pm

      They’ll likely also claim it’s down to a temporary cessation of sunspot activity, having experienced a Damascene conversion to the solar climate hypothesis. They will then claim that the expected warming will come roaring back when sunspot activity returns to normal. I expect this in the works already, important people in the IPCC will realise that temperatures can’t be massaged for ever, solar cooling will conveniently explain the missing heat.

  10. December 9, 2018 9:08 pm

    Because acting now would put tens of millions out of work and make billions much, much poorer. And nobody who needs to get elected to keep their job is very keen in doing that.

  11. Harry Passfield permalink
    December 9, 2018 9:40 pm

    Seeing the face of Figueras (sp?) in that pic says it all. The hubris involved in saying: “to discuss how the world is going to stop climate change.” is too much for words. McGrath should have asked his English Graduate Harrabin how to write a headline.

    • December 10, 2018 12:24 pm

      I was looking to see if anyone else had identified Christiana Figueres, author of the Paris Climate Accord and a member of Costa Rica’s National Liberation Party.

  12. Dave Ward permalink
    December 9, 2018 9:44 pm

    “Western governments don’t have this sort of money lying around”

    Paul – don’t you mean “Western taxpayers don’t have this sort of money lying around”?

  13. Ben Vorlich permalink
    December 10, 2018 8:26 am

    Not entirely relevant but over the year or so it seems to me that the language of the warming has changed subtly. We seem now to want to limit temperature rise to 1.5’C rather than reversing it. I hope that this is tacit acknowledgment that the last century’s warming has been beneficial rather than catastrophic. There are also reports appearing in the press from time to time which again acknowledge the correctness of skeptical arguments, a recent example being on sea level changes being different in different locations because of climate change.

    I think this is a sign that whilst the believers still believe they are having to find more and more extreme theories to support their beliefs. I await with interest the first explanation of reducing storminess due to climate change.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: