Skip to content

Climate Change- The Facts Part II

April 19, 2019

By Paul Homewood



WARNING: Embargoed for publication until 00:00:01 on 22/03/2019 - Programme Name: Climate Change with David Attenborough (tbc)  - TX: n/a - Episode: Climate Change with David Attenborough (tbc) - announcement (No. n/a) - Picture Shows: ***STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL 00:00:01 FRIDAY 22nd MARCH 2019*** Sir David Attenborough - (C) BBC - Photographer: Polly Alderton



In Part I, we looked at Attenborough’s claims about the effects of climate change to date, most of which bore very little resemblance to reality.

The whole programme is clearly designed as an exercise in propaganda rather than establishing the facts. This is evident from the choice of “experts” wheeled on to provide the science.

Michael Mann, for instance, offered his views on hurricanes, flooding, heatwaves, droughts and wildfires, none of which is he especially qualified to talk about. Indeed, he probably knows no more than me about them.

The BBC could easily have invited a forestry expert, a meteorologist or hurricane expert, but it probably would not have got the answers it wanted.

Another “expert” is James Hansen, so you get my drift.

As a propaganda exercise, it is already working. Yesterday in the Express, the TV correspondent, in his preview, warbled on about how it was all much worse than he thought and how we “must do something”. Remember, this is the TV guy, who might know all about Eastenders, but probably knows no more about climate change than my dog!

In Part II, we look at the second half of the programme, which concerns itself with predictions of the future and what we should all do about it.

It starts with a rather pathetic section about how fossil fuel companies are subsidising “deniers”, which is apparently making politicians reluctant to do anything. Seriously?

There is then discussion of climate models, which predict that we hit 1.5C of warming between 2040 and 2050. At no point is there are mention of the fact that models have consistently overestimated warming in the past.

Neither is there any debate about why preindustrial temperatures, against which this 1.5C is measured, should be regarded as the norm.

Mark Maslin says crossing this threshold will mean increased storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves, which will make production of food more problematic. This is despite the fact that global food production has been increasing in leaps and bounds during the last fifty years of “climate catastrophe”:



This then morphs into warming of 3C and 6C by 2100, way above any serious projections I have seen. The graph shows how quickly the rate must accelerate:




There is also talk of 1 meter of sea level rise by 2100, which is equally ridiculous and would entail an annual rise of 12.5mm starting now.

Stott talks of storm surges in the UK “never seen before”:




Yet tidal gauge data for the east coast, which would be most affected, show that sea level rise has actually decelerated since the mid 20thC, and have been rising at just 1.54mm/yr in the last fifty years:





The discussion then turns to tipping points, with the example of methane released from permafrost in Alaska.

Despite being a potent GHG however, methane does not stay in the atmosphere long, about 12 years.

In any event, we know that the Arctic has been warmer than now for much of the last 10000 years, and that never triggered any tipping point. In Alaska, for instance, retreating glaciers are uncovering the remains of forests, carbon dated back to the Middle Ages, Clearly the climate was much warmer then.

None of this is discussed.


What can we do?

The programme informs us that, to hit the 1.5C target, we need to halve CO2 emissions globally by 2030, and then completely eliminate by 2050.

Attenborough then proceeds to give a free plug for renewable energy, without even attempting to explain how our electricity grid can work how 100% inherently unreliable energy, never mind the rest of the economy, such as heating our houses.

Significantly though, Chris Stark, CEO of the Committee on Climate Change, reveals that to make these changes will involve a “not inconsiderable cost”.

We are then lectured that we must all consume less, eat less meat etc.

All of this is, of course, aimed at the UK, who after all are the ones watching. Yet nowhere is it even mentioned that Britain only accounts for 1% of global emissions, nor that the rest of the world is fast increasing their own emissions.

Indeed, although Attenborough says that the Paris conference agreed to keep warming below 2C, he does not explain that the actual national pledges would result in a large increase in emissions.



The public deserves to see a proper debate about climate change, which this programme has failed to provide.

The real facts about the impact of climate change need to be given to the public, and an honest assessment of what the future might hold.

Above all, we need to be told the truth about the horrifying costs involved in meeting government climate policy in this country, and its total irrelevance in global terms.

It may just be that this latest blatant piece of BBC propaganda will trigger a backlash, which will lead people to start questioning what they hear from the BBC.

  1. jack broughton permalink
    April 19, 2019 11:08 am

    The gullible enviro-babbling groups are already convinced that “The end is nigh”. They are the targets of this programme as they can be brainwashed into revolution. Justifies the actions of Extinction Rebellion nicely.

    The gross dishonesty of this programme was frightening as was the political twisting of how Lawson and Trump were represented: reminiscent of the Hitler assassination-attempt trials in which those involved were humiliated physically and mentally.

    No doubt the BBC in its infinite fairness will have a programme to balance this hype!!!

    • Curious George permalink
      April 19, 2019 3:26 pm

      This propaganda influences mostly young people. How many teenage suicides does the BBC hope to achieve?

      • Tom O permalink
        April 19, 2019 4:19 pm

        Your statement is true about it influencing mostly those that have not had time or opportunity to gain knowledge and experience enough to comprehend and react properly. I would expect one reaction from them will be to choose not to have children, thus putting Britain on an even steeper slope to racial oblivion.

        Depopulation is a target, and requirement, for this scam to continue – be it forced through sterilization programs in regions of high growth, or, in the case of the west, getting people to decide against traditional sex and for those that still prefer it, to get them to use medical processes to avoid pregnancies. I’m not sure who is supposed to survive the population purge, but it is my guess European stock, if you will, is the #1 target NOT to survive..

      • quaesoveritas permalink
        April 20, 2019 8:41 am

        I afraid for the future of children like Greta Thunberg.
        She is so psychologically disturbed that unless she obtains help in the near future she may self-harm, even to the point of suicide,
        Organisations such as the BBC and her school teachers will be responsible.

      • quaesoveritas permalink
        April 20, 2019 10:03 am

        “Depopulation is a target, and requirement, for this scam to continue – be it forced through sterilization programs in regions of high growth, or, in the case of the west, getting people to decide against traditional sex and for those that still prefer it, to get them to use medical processes to avoid pregnancies.”

        Commonly known as contraception!
        There is no need for sterilization or for people to stop having “traditional sex”.
        All that is required is for people to limit their family size to 2 children, which should be sufficient for most people, together with the fact that many people chose to have no children at all.
        To have more than 3 children is irresponsible and unnecessary.
        IMHO there is no doubt that human population growth is placing major stress on the natural world and is responsible for many of the problems blamed on “climate change”.

  2. Immune to propaganda permalink
    April 19, 2019 11:08 am

    Well said Paul. I think there has been a back lash on the Beeb and it’s climate nonsense. For several years the Daily Mail’s comments page is full of people fed up with having to fund state sponsored left wing propaganda. I’m surprised that nobody has launched a legal action about having to pay the licence fee when many choose not to watch it. I’d be straight down the High Court if I had the money, but most of it is taken paying expensive green subsidised utility costs!

    • Lezz permalink
      April 19, 2019 11:52 am

      If Attenborough and his BBC paymasters told us that the moon was made of Camembert, most of these loony lefties would believe it. I despair at how gullible some people can be.
      The Company I work for is involved in research and development and employs a significant number of people with advanced scientific qualifications.
      Very rarely do I find anyone who is in any way influenced by the brainwashing garbage spouted by the BBC.

  3. April 19, 2019 11:38 am

    BBCnews has just started phase2

    • April 19, 2019 11:53 am

      BBCNews = ExtinctionConformity
      The #BiasedBBC’s & #Attenbollocks reputation for impartiality has gone Extinct
      ..due to the way they constantly spit metroliberal groupthink agenda in our faces like an activist bot-army.

      OpenTheDebate, tolerate diversity of viewpoints

  4. Athelstan. permalink
    April 19, 2019 11:39 am

    I forced myself to watch it.

    it was so shamelessly wrong headed, I could only think that, if that’s the best they’ve got……….but it isn’t about that, is it? The science is not made at all, and yet propaganda can do so much, see it in action last night.

    The only thing missing, blaming realists for the Holocaust, they got the (tobacco) smoking analogy in, they missed out, the true tale about wrongheaded received ‘wisdom’, concerning the heliocentric orbit and Galileo telling it how it really was, though, I wonder why?

    I’m glad in a way, now everybody can see that ALL the Climate Emperors have untruths, no ammunition and barely all that they own, gone a wailing and walking about in no clothes, and it ‘the great scam’: all reliant on just fluff its foam flecked drool and spital.

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      April 19, 2019 5:22 pm

      ‘Galileo telling it how it really was’
      Galileo said the Earth circled the Sun when, in fact, the planetary paths are ellipses – and he was a professor of Mathematics! In addition, he had no data! It was Kepler, using Tycho Brahe’s data that showed the correct geometry of the solar system.
      Galileo was, by many accounts, an obnoxious fellow: at the request of the Pope, he wrote a Socratic pamphlet to explain the arguments on both sides, but the sidekick asking the questions was made out to be stupidity personified – and closely resembling the Pope himself!
      This is unfortunate because Galileo’s experiments with balls rolling down inclines allowed him to understand Earth’s gravity and calculate g. Using this and Kepler’s Laws allowed Newton to formulate his own famous laws.
      Galileo also measured time in his experiments which introduced a different concept from just traveling through time. It is a pity this early work is forgotten as it was one of the first steps of modern Science and more worthy of praise.

      • Bill Carter permalink
        April 20, 2019 11:05 pm

        I believe Hawking explained that Heliocentric and Geocentric theories are both correct and neither correct at the same time. It all depends on your point of view.

        A person standing in a moving train is standing still relative to his immediate surroundings; however, to an an observer standing beside the track, he is moving at great speed. Point of view.

    • April 19, 2019 11:55 pm

      Respect – I tried but couldn’t watch it.

  5. April 19, 2019 11:40 am

  6. tomo permalink
    April 19, 2019 11:56 am

    Paul – the claims about trimming off 30 minutes on the piece run time look very suspicious – if true – I wonder what’s on the cutting room floor (or hard drive)?

    • April 19, 2019 12:07 pm

      Needs looking into
      CarbonPants and all previously tweeted that it would be a 90 minute special

  7. It doesn't add up... permalink
    April 19, 2019 11:57 am

    This petition needs to get to 100,000:

  8. John Doran permalink
    April 19, 2019 12:10 pm

    The average age of BBC TV watcher is a startling 60 years old. This is a cynical campaign by the BBC to attract ‘the young’. They are the ones facing extinction if they don’t achieve it but of course they won’t. This unscientific rubbish makes me angry but the wonderful sting in the tale is that by crying wolf and obsessing about it so much what few young people look at the BBC will switch off. Young people like to have their own causes to fight for not ones the BBC puts on a plate for them.

  9. Oliver King permalink
    April 19, 2019 12:23 pm

    Are you putting in a complaint Paul? They’d have to prove their ‘facts’ then wouldn’t they?

    • April 19, 2019 12:29 pm

      I’m working with GWPF on a major complaint over this

      • April 19, 2019 12:44 pm

        Well done Paul. It’s a pity we no longer have Christopher Booker to give this some good publicity. No doubt James Delingpole will cover it.

      • MrGrimNasty permalink
        April 19, 2019 1:37 pm

        Thank you for fighting for the truth Paul, I wish I had your stamina.

        Phillip, Delingpole has indeed responded “BBC’s Biggest Lie Ever”, quoting our host.

      • Trevor Shurmer permalink
        April 19, 2019 4:07 pm

        Well done again Paul, keep at ’em!

      • April 19, 2019 4:45 pm

        Unfortunately, Breitbart doesn’t get much coverage. Dellers will probably put it in the Spectator, but again, limited coverage. The MSM won’t touch this with somebody else’s barge-pole

      • April 20, 2019 12:02 am

        If it helps, the stand-out falsehood for me was the claim that Greenland is losing ice faster than ever. Isn’t this completely false? Earlier in the day yesterday I happened to read this online (with ref to 2018):

        “The net change in mass of the [Greenland] ice sheet overall, including this higher discharge of ice directly into the ocean, is not clear at this point but may be a smaller loss or even a small gain.”

      • europeanonion permalink
        April 20, 2019 8:45 am

        Many hands make light work. The Guardian is recruiting school children and Scandinavian mystics to prove the point. One would have thought that there has not been a time in history when so many believe something and therefore it must be right. And yet we have Hook and flogiston; had you opposed that theory in the day you would have been laughed out of scientific circles.

        The Metropolitan connection cannot be overlooked. London with conspicuous everything is dying on it feet through over-use whereas the rest of the country is worth saving. It is a strange philosophy that, in succession, sees the acquisition of everything to be forward thinking and progressive only to suddenly flip-over and suggest a return to some natural state or other, which none can elucidate as to its characteristics and support-ability.

        Life is taking on the demeanour of those murmurations of starlings demonstrating how, at the merest twitch, masses can be influenced; more of a stampede than a consideration. The fact is that the BBC is still believed to be a reliable source and, having access to every drawing-room in the country, cannot be ignored. But what sort of national media entity will not entertain the broad swathe of opinion of the people who pay for its services (by force). What sort of discrimination does it practice when it only recognises voices that are compliant with some shady editorial imposition?

        If this was a state run by a junta you would take what the media tell you with a pinch of salt. You would expect to hear falsehood that only flattered the incumbents. But here you have a case in Britain where idealists and romantics have taken over the broadcaster, the first target in any coups d’etat, and no one bats an eyelid.

        Does this mean that any assertion can now be promulgated if the BBC editorial has a preference? Wherein lies the truth? What are people to believe? The final calumny is then to take a pleasant old duffer who we like for his quiet spoken elucidation of zoological observations and turn him into a Hindenburg figure. Put the old chap forward as irrefutable proof of some leaning or national exemplification, straightness, constancy. Poor Attenborough, he knows not what he does. The business of national icon is that of the stamping of coins, the rest of us are more concerned not with the establishment of saviours or saints and more attached to the representation of more earthly, if lesser, persons.

      • A man of no rank permalink
        April 20, 2019 5:46 pm

        Thanks once again Paul, but does it ever feel like you are the only bloke with his finger in the dyke?

  10. April 19, 2019 12:32 pm

    Although this lecture to Hillsdale College was given in 2014, Steven Hayward of Pepperdine University is spot on for today. Some 20+ minutes into the hour long lecture, he gets into the actual effects of lowering the CO2 levels based on our lives–no heat, no electricity, etc. He has the facts and figures and as an added bonus has a great sense of humor.

    Hillsdale College in MI was founded in 1846 and takes NO government money in any form including scholarships. They make a number of their courses available to the public for free on YouTube. They cover the US Constitution, The US Presidency, World History, Great Books, Winston Churchill, and many other topics. Each course is a series of lectures and once you sign in you are good to go at your own pace.

  11. john cheshire permalink
    April 19, 2019 12:42 pm

    Boaty McBoatface Attenborough is an entertainer and nothing more. It’s a pity the poorly educated children and incorrigible older lefties who buy into this garbage don’t realise this.

    • April 20, 2019 12:04 am

      Do you mean the older lefties with double-barrelled surnames?

  12. April 19, 2019 12:42 pm

    The last realistic programme about “climate change” (global warming) was “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on Channel 4 way back in 2007. The alarmists, the Greenblob and the MSM have made sure that such an unbiased programme has not been aired since.

  13. Mack permalink
    April 19, 2019 1:19 pm

    Brilliant analysis yet again Paul. And, nowhere, of course is there any mention that 95% + of global Co2 emissions are entirely natural in origin. So the UK’s man made1% contribution to the remainder is so pifflingly insignificant as to be merely noise within the error bands of their statical estimations. And on that basis they want to drag the U.K. economy back to the Dark Ages. Virtual signalling with bells on methinks. And, in the meantime, the tiger economies of the Far East power on, no doubt sniggering at our collective insanity in the West. Everyone on the planet can do more to counter the twin evils of pollution and habitat loss but imagining that trampling on the anthropogenic Co2 bogeyman will change the climate is hubris with stilts on.

  14. tomo permalink
    April 19, 2019 1:21 pm

    I see the BBC web site has categorised this program under “Entertainment and Arts” – looks like it should also attract the tag “Drama”.

    I do hope that if the BBC are challenged on this that they follow that taxonomy – yes – that would be honest and accurate.

  15. Saighdear permalink
    April 19, 2019 1:25 pm

    Aye, I did “watch” it – nearly could have ruined my new Screen!
    But then, Later BBC4 Storyville …… I Couldn’t belieeeeeve it …. Looked like a Part II Billed as ‘…. The Age of Stupid. Contains some strong language. Drama-documentary-animation hybrid ….’

    And then in this Morning’s Mail: about Co2 and Plants:- Rising carbon dioxide levels will impact crops negatively ” wot yo say….WTF ?

  16. Kestrel27 permalink
    April 19, 2019 2:18 pm

    Thank you Paul. This is semi OT but it seems to fit here. I don’t often listen to the BBC these days but tuned in yesterday afternoon to a show on Radio5 run by someone called Nihal Arthanayake. He nailed his colours to the mast early by labeling anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy as a ‘nutter’. He went on to introduce Angela Terry as an ‘environmental scientist’ and CEO of ‘One Home’ to talk about what was being done to tackle climate change and what we as individuals could do.

    Even by the standards of the BBC what followed, starting from just after 44 minutes in, was abysmal. She said that green initiatives have helped bring down electricity bills and that wind and solar mean that we are paying less for our electricity ‘all the time’ and don’t have to import expensive fossil fuels. This 100% wrong dribble went entirely unquestioned by Nihal and the net effect of the interview was to allow yet another climate alarmist a platform for spouting entirely inaccurate propaganda. Lord Lawson gets hauled over the coals for one minor inaccuracy but spouting nonsense from the other direction is perfectly all right it appears.

    As for Angela, I’m not sure whether she is deeply deluded or deeply dishonest or, for that matter, which of these she would consider the greater insult. But it’s all OK because according to the One Home website she ‘strongly believes in the power of the good’. I’m sure that’s a comfort to all of us.

    Here’s a link but I advise taking a deep breath before clicking!

    • Saighdear permalink
      April 19, 2019 3:00 pm

      Aye right enough, as they say here, that Gadgie-koff wason CH5 Germy Vinestuff wi Anne Dimmer – the two together a least on the show… but of course the Paanel wants NOT to disagree wih them and the audience monkeys cheer them on. However! ONE Pnelist , I believe, did have a barney with him about something like that ,,, aye, Lucy Beresford …”Nihal and Lucy have a heated exchange over how climate change protests have hit businesses on Oxford Street……..”

  17. Neil Hampshire permalink
    April 19, 2019 3:01 pm


    China is the real “elephant in the room”
    It is the absolute size of their emissions which are the problem

    At the height of the UK’s emissions, prior to “the dash for gas”, we were emitting 600 Mte per annum (We have now reduced our emissions by 40% to 360 Mte per annum)

    China emits 13,000 Mte. (35.6 Mte/day).
    The Paris Agreement allows them to INCREASE this to 15,000 Mte (41 Mte/day)

    If the UK were able to become carbon neutral tomorrow we would save 360 Mte of CO2 per annum. It would take China precisely 10 DAYS to put all this back into the atmosphere

    This is a very big elephant

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 19, 2019 6:01 pm

      Yes it is. One query: China’s NDC allows it to peak its emissions “around 2030” – but where does your 15,000 Mte come from? (Not a big deal: even if they didn’t increase at all, it would still take only 13 days to put the UK’s savings back into the atmosphere.)

  18. John F. Hultquist permalink
    April 19, 2019 3:51 pm

    The BBC could easily have invited a forestry expert,

    Here is one, with others of like mind:
    Dr. Paul Hessburg (Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service) Wenatchee, Washington

    The Era of Megafires (EOM) is a multi-media presentation that combines the research of many.

    Your average Klimate Kult member has likely never been in a real forest.
    Have them get in touch. I’ll take them on a hike.

  19. Thomas Carr permalink
    April 19, 2019 4:54 pm

    See also in today’s The Times page 25. The odour of nihilism and pseudo anarchy seems stronger to me than the writer would recognise or admit.

  20. Coeur de Lion permalink
    April 19, 2019 6:11 pm

    Earlier this week I sent a ‘Complaint’ to the BBC in the form of a Warning Note which briefly rehearsed the ice cap, polar bear, sea level, floods, storms,droughts etc etc situation with pointers as to where to find the kosher data (Ridd, Crockford, GWPF etc etc. I warned them not to upset the Australian Tourist Board! I mentioned that Mikey Mann won the Nobel Prize!
    Here is the BBC reply:
    “Thank you for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘Climate Change: the Facts’ on 18 April. We understand you are concerned about the programmes approach to climate change.As the programme has yet to be broadcast, we are unable to respond to any specific scenes.We would like to assure you however that the programme will offer informed analysis of climate change.
    Interviews with some of the world’s leading climate scientists will help explore recent extreme weather conditions and forecast further changes. Our news and factual programmes take their editorial responsibility seriously when reporting on climate change.
    We acknowledge the weight of scientific consensus around climate change and this underpins all of our reporting of the subject. The scientific community has reached a significant consensus on man-made global warming. We therefore reflect that with due weight when reporting on the science involved.
    This does not mean, however, that we should never interview someone who opposes this consensus, especially if they are influential in the political debate about how to tackle climate change. There are times when it is editorially appropriate to hear from a dissenting voice.
    We value your feedback and hope you find the programme enlightening. All complaints are sent to senior management and programme makers every morning. We included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes.
    Thanks again for taking the time to contact us”.
    Kind regards
    Alastair O’Donnell
    BBC Complaints Team
    TODAY I have filed a second complaint (quoting as required the serial number of the first complaint.

    Complaint Summary: As forecast, the entire programme was untrue

    Full Complaint:
    My previous ‘complaint’ was a WARNING NOTE about the likely content of this programme with rebuttals enumerated. Alistair O’Donnell sent me a polite reply with a couple of worrying phrases – he cited ‘scientific consensus’ supporting catastrophic ‘climate change’ and talked about ‘extreme weather events’. ‘Consensus’ is unscientific. (Take Helicobacter Pylorii, Einstein and Galileo. Look it up) There have been no ‘extreme’ weather events – do please look at the statistics! (oh, there has been a slight diminution in hurricanes and tornadoes and northern hemisphere snow cover has increased….) But thank you for the reply. All my forebodings came true with this travesty. You’ve looked at Paul Homewood’s NOTALOTOFPEOPLEKNOWTHAT post I’m sure-which has gone viral and destroys every single fact adumbrated in your programme. Where did you get those people from – especially Mikey Mann from Penn U, the most discredited scientist in the business. (See Mark Steyn “A Disgrace to the Profession”. You must take time out to do some research instead of just publishing Greenpeace press releases.)
    The worst thing is that you have trashed the reputation of lovable Sir David Attenborough. You will never be forgiven. Best wishes

  21. mjr permalink
    April 19, 2019 6:36 pm

    as we now have a fifth day of Extinction Rebellion actions in London, should not the lies and fake news of the BBC in this programme lead to the BBC being prosecuted for incitement. After all these idiots are just acting on what the BBC have been telling them.

    • mjr permalink
      April 19, 2019 6:43 pm

      And in case you missed this further example of BBC bias … you can now get brainwashed on a weekly basis

    • April 19, 2019 8:22 pm

      You don’t know how the game works
      Libmob can go on an on about how nasty Brexiteers are and that they caused a Brexit murder in Harlow, and then after that is disproved in court, they don’t bother to apologise.
      .. Then they can send their offence-archaeologists to dig through years of a non-lib-mobbers tweets to look for ONE un PC comments to get outaged about and start an outage bus
      .. that can get the guy fired.

  22. April 19, 2019 7:57 pm

    Alex Cull has started transcribing the whole programme at
    While he’s having a break I’m continuing his work in comments at
    We hope to have the whole thing up at Alex’s site this weekend. A transcript has the immense advantage of eliminating the irrelevant visuals and soundtrack and revealing just how few facts there are.

    While Paul Homewood and others will no doubt do an excellent job of tracking down the numerous false claims, the mendacity goes much deeper. When the vast majority of quotes from scientists are about ten seconds long, the lies by omission become the main ingredient in fabricating a catastrophic narrative. Take Attenborough’s statement, about eleven minutes in, that:

    Scientists believe that 8% of species are now at threat of extinction solely due to climate change. This isn’t just about losing wonders of nature. With the loss of even the smallest organisms, we destabilise and ultimately risk collapsing the world’s eco-systems, the networks that support the whole of life on earth.

    Even if the statement about what scientists believe (what scientists? How many?) is true (and how would you find out?) The follow up statement, which, it is suggested, follows logically from what scientists believe, manages to conjure up the collapse of life on earth from the disappearance of some unnamed small organisms. This is lying on a massive scale.

  23. Vernon E permalink
    April 19, 2019 8:10 pm

    mjr: I’m with you. This is now serious at a national level and its no good whatsoever ranting to ourselves. This propaganda is all linked and the opposition needs to be stepped up a gear – people need to be prosecuted and face the force of law. Paul, you do wonderful work and I hope you alliance with GWPF brings some movement. My heartfelt thanks.

  24. April 19, 2019 8:17 pm

    9pm Radio4 a repeat of How to be a Better Activist
    What with Tommy Robinson and James Goddard ?
    Blurb “Co-founder of the global Occupy protests, Micah White, explains how the failure of his movement showed him how activism needs to be redefined.”
    first broadcast in 2017

    Here’s a recent impartial tweet from the programme maker
    Calling for a Corbyn Remainer government

  25. April 19, 2019 8:24 pm

    Paul, there’s only 91 comments on your last post.

  26. Harry Passfield permalink
    April 19, 2019 9:30 pm

    Like a gambler whose bluff is being called, BBC and others are doubling down on their need to push AGW because they know that cooling is coming in the next solar cycle.
    Then again, if (when) cooling comes, they will no doubt claim that all their admonishments have worked and more taxes are the answer (says, Sadiq Khan the incumbent Chancellor).

  27. April 19, 2019 10:49 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  28. John Williams permalink
    April 20, 2019 8:18 am

    Poor old sod; Lord Attenbugger. Would be nice if he gave some real facts, like there are far too many people on the planet. The WHO estimated in the eighties that the World could adequately supply and sustain 4.5 billion humans Currently there around 8 billions and by 2050, when everyone on this email is dead, they reckon over ten billions. Of course if we all follow China’s example in the sixties and seventies and restrict couples to one child, which seemed like a good idea, until the bean counters got stroppy and worked out that there wouldn’t be enough taxpayers to keep us old bastards in gin and slippers. The same WHO popped across to sub Saharan Africa with 2 billion condoms to try and educate the serial shaggers to be a bit more responsible. The Catholic church got cross and sent missionaries to go and burn/bury/puncture the balloons. A nuclear war, a huge Ebola outbreak or some other fun event might help.

    Happy Easter

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      April 20, 2019 10:39 am

      “The WHO estimated in the eighties that the World could adequately supply and sustain 4.5 billion humans Currently there around 8 billions and by 2050, when everyone on this email is dead, they reckon over ten billions. ”
      And how many of the other species on the planet could the world support?
      They have as much right to space as we do, and they require more space than we do.
      It is a very humanocentric view of the world.

  29. April 20, 2019 8:32 am

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  30. Brian permalink
    April 20, 2019 9:36 am

    I have out a complaint into the BBC I suggest every one does the same.
    This program Breaches BBC Editorial guidelines on a Controversial Subject
    “We must apply due impartiality to all our subject matter. However, there are particular requirements for ‘controversial subjects”
    The program forgot to mention that big yellow object in the sky
    FACT: The Sun is the main driver of temperature and thus the climate.
    FACT: The Sun can vary depending on sun spots and other factors
    FACT: The Earths variable tilt and wobble can effect climate.
    FACT: There are many things that effect the climate and interact with each other.
    As Mandelbrot showed you only need three variables for CHAOS theory.
    Why did they re-brand the scary sounding “GLOBAL WARMING” to the all inclusive “CLIMATE CHANGE” oh yes every time there is a storm they can wag there finger and go look look CLIMATE CHANGE
    Only looking back 100 plus years. How about including the The Medieval Warm Period 300 years 950-1250.
    Consensus over hundred scientist agree FACT over a hundred scientists disagree.
    As for the kid sitting in the snow and all the other kids being brainwashed SAD.
    We only have 10 years to save the EARTH. That was Flash Gordon’s line.
    This madness leads to this crazy protest with people gluing them selves to objects.
    Like the story of King Canute you can not control the tides. To think otherwise is vain glorious.
    The brief clips of President Trump and Nigel Lawson, Do not balance David Attenborough
    repeating that these are facts and that we are certain about them.
    I do not want propaganda. CLIMATE CHANGE is the new religion.
    It is also a great money making opportunity for some.
    It leads to our politicians making stupid decisions like closing coal and gas electricity generators and replacing them with wood burning generators or Fracking.
    Will the BBC be making an equally long and authoritative documentary putting the opposing
    view. I doubt it.
    BIAS plain and simple.

  31. Pat permalink
    April 20, 2019 2:56 pm

    This nonsense will only end when either the costs become too high to hide- the Gillets Jaune seem to be catching on, and as the costs rise further others will.
    Either that or the solar minimum produces sufficient cooling that the.warming forecasts are discredited without reference to a thermometer.

  32. Gladiatrix permalink
    April 20, 2019 5:27 pm

    I agree with this article and its predecessor, however until the BBC is held legally accountable nothing will change. I do question why Paul, James Delingpole etc haven’t engaged a criminal and media law practitioner and presented a case to the police/DPP of breach by the BBC of its charter obligation of impartiality – a criminal offence, and using public funds to produce a programme it knew or ought to have known was misleading to the point of being wilfully untruthful – the common law criminal offence of misfeasance of public funds, and finally the failure by Lord Hall and Sir David Clementi to ensure the BBC complied with its charter and common law duties – the common law criminal offence of misfeasance in a public office.
    The only thing that is going to stop this kind of programme being made and make BBC employees start telling the truth about climate change is the prospect of being sent to prison and/or bankrupted by fines.

  33. alistair Pope permalink
    April 22, 2019 6:25 am

    I hate it when you use facts to contradict post-modern beliefism

  34. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen permalink
    May 1, 2019 2:48 pm

    I agree, but propaganda for what ?..for whose benefit.? Your political analysis remains weak. Sonja

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: