Skip to content

Sky Abandon Facts In Favour Of Climate Propaganda

June 25, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

As far as climate change is concerned, Sky News have now abandoned all pretensions to factual accuracy, in favour of blatant propaganda.

They have a new 12-minute special report, to set off a week of special reports, but if this trailer is anything to go by it’s going to be the same old garbage the BBC have served up for years:

 

image

https://news.sky.com/story/science-storms-and-protests-behind-climate-crisis-11744227

 

The use of the word “storms” in the link title, along with the phrase “climate crisis” gives a good idea of the junk that is to follow.

Let’s go through the trailer’s claims and statements:

 

image

 

They refer to last year’s IPCC Special Report, which suddenly and conveniently found that we could not let global warming go past the 1.5C mark, when previously a figure of 2C had been plucked out of the air.

As we know, that report was nothing more than a politically motivated exercise, with very little substance in it.

Previous IPCC reports have all concluded that the degree of warming already seen since the end of the Little Ice Age has had no detrimental effect on the earth’s climate. Indeed, during the 2016/16 El Nino, global temperatures effectively reached that dreaded 1.5C mark, with no adverse effect whatsoever.

Rather than address these factual issues, Sky prefer to pay attention to a handful of schoolchildren and eco-loons.

 

image

 

Whenever you read words like “spew”, you know you are about to be conned.

They pluck out a figure of 4C, even though it is way above any serious projections, and is totally out of line with past temperature rises.

After throwing the usual rubbish about rising sea levels, they then claim that there is a” scientific consensus” about 1.5C. This simply is not true. There is a vast array of scientific opinion about how much more warming there might be, and its effects.

Instead of ridiculous claims about ice free Arctics, coral reefs and falling crop yields, it would have been nice to have actually been shown some real information, such as the fact Arctic sea ice extent has not declined since 2007, or that crop yields have been steadily rising as the climate has warmed.

 

 

There then follows this utterly ludicrous segment:

 image

 

If the climate scientist watching on really said that, that tells us all we need to know about his profession!

In this country, humans regularly experience temperature ranges from below zero to well above 30C. Globally, even bigger ranges can be seen, even at individual locations.

Indeed even this week, temperatures here in Sheffield are expected to vary between 15C and 25C during daytime. The idea that people cannot adapt to a half a degree of warming or so over a century is absurd.

And, of course, this is the very real problem that the climate establishment has faced when trying to scare the public.

This is why they have had to brainwash children into spreading their message:

 

image

 

Moving onto Paris, they then gloss over the fact that China never even agreed to cut emissions.

As for the comment about Chinese wind farms, it is grossly dishonest. Certainly, the amount wind power generated in China is bigger than other countries, but this is simply because China also happens to be by far the biggest generator of electricity in the world.

In percentage terms, wind power in China only supplies 5% of the country’s electricity, a pitifully low figure compared to the UK and other western countries.

There is no mention either of the fact that China is busy building hundreds of new coal power stations.

 image

 

Then comes the extreme weather lie:

 image

image

 

There is no evidence that wildfires are getting worse, or that global warming has any effect at all on them. According to the US Forestry Service, wildfires used to be much worse in the past:

image

https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/indicators/indicator-316.php

 

Experts also tell us that wildfires have decreased on a global level as well.

 

They mention Typhoon Manghut, implying that this was due to climate change. Yet the IPCC themselves state that hurricanes are not getting worse.

As for Storm Desmond, a month’s rainfall in one day is perfectly common in Britain. In 1955, for instance, the equivalent of eight months worth of rainfall fell on Martinstown, Dorset in one day.

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-extremes

 

As for the “worst floods in 600 years” claim, this is palpable nonsense. The history of Britain is filled with cataclysmic floods, far worse than anything  Desmond brought.

 

Then they present another fake video:

 

image

image

 

Quite why they quote Carbon Brief, I don’t know. They would have got more reliable information from Greenpeace!

There is of course an industry built up to “attribute” bad weather to global warming, and an extremely well paid one at that. But despite their theorising, the stubborn facts remain, that extreme weather is not getting worse in overall terms, as even the IPCC are forced to admit.

As for the Met Office’s joke predictions, we can safely ignore them given their track record in such matters.

 

Then comes the bill!

image

Nowhere do Sky explain how tiny the UK’s emissions are in global terms, or how quickly the rest of the world are still increasing theirs.

And, despite their claims that “it can be fixed”, there is no evidence that the world can run its economy and maintain its standard of living (never mind improve the lot of billions in the third world) if fossil fuels are abandoned, particularly on such a short timescale.

And if they really think other countries will be interested in importing our “green technology”, Sky really must be living on another planet!

 

This is a huge opportunity missed, I have to say.

There was a real chance to present the facts, minus the myths and hype.

They could have explained how floods, storms and droughts are not getting worse. How sea level rise is gradual and not accelerating. How temperatures at the poles are not high by historical standards. How Arctic sea ice has been pretty much stable for a decade and more, and how the ice mass on Antarctica has actually been growing. How climate models have consistently overestimated warming.

 

Above all, they could have brought the climate debate back to an objective, unemotional level. In doing so, the younger generation might have learned to become slightly less paranoid.

52 Comments
  1. John Kerr permalink
    June 25, 2019 10:13 pm

    A brilliant analysis, even by your own standards. Thank you.

    • Mack permalink
      June 25, 2019 10:54 pm

      Agreed. Well done Paul. For a so-called ‘factual news’ station Sky are remarkably useless at factual reports on climate change issues. Just like the BBC, and Channel 4 and ITV etc etc. What hope Channel 5 might be tempted to do an updated version of the ‘Great Climate Change Swindle’? (I think Ch 4 have gone too far over to the Dark Side to countenance a re-run). Think of the viewing figures as the entire MSM, Green NGOs, and bedwetting politicos howl in rage and try to get the broadcast stopped from informing the great unwashed of how they are being screwed in the greatest con in modern history. The ballyhoo surrounding such a programme that runs against the consensus would be enough to generate lots of juicy publicity and viewing figures. Is there a tv executive out there brave (or powerful) enough to buck the trend and blow the lid off this scam? Like many here, am always happy to help!

  2. Joe Public permalink
    June 25, 2019 10:15 pm

    “if this trailer is anything to go by it’s going to be the same old garbage the BBC have served up for years”

    Ultimate rubbish recycling!

  3. June 25, 2019 10:16 pm

    It seems more important for news outlets to chase the latest sensation, however ludicrous, than to think about what they’re saying.

    Sky News should look at a picture of a greenhouse and ask themselves what that has got to do with Earth’s atmosphere. Answer: very little, but climate science is all about radiation and has totally forgotten or ignored convection. Greenhouses work by preventing convection, but that’s too advanced for the likes of Sky News it seems.

  4. June 25, 2019 10:18 pm

    12-2pm today Mike Graham on Talk Radio calling out the complete utter climate change nonsense and the “idiots” in parliament.
    He was also angry at Sky

    Why are so few media pushing back like he does ?

  5. June 25, 2019 10:22 pm

    A quintessential analysis of the insidious misinformation published by the media. They are truly shocking. The outgoing Prime Minister should be able to rectify that for us… Or B)…

  6. Ken Pollock permalink
    June 25, 2019 10:33 pm

    Paul, one can gauge the competence and understanding of the whole piece by the statement that mentions 1.5 deg C, and then gives the Fahrenheit equivalent: 34.7. 1.5 deg C is a figure of the temperature increase since pre-industrial times. 34.7F is the Fahrenheit equivalent of 1.5C, a temperature just above freezing. They should have said 1.5deg C is equivalent to 2.7 deg F. After reading that, one might as well ignore the rest.

    The BBC makes a similar mistake when our friend John Humphries on R4 Today talks on several occasions about a 1.5% increase in temperature, as if percentages mean anything when measuring temperature…

    • Bryan Jones permalink
      June 26, 2019 1:42 pm

      Mathemtician Matt Parker highlights this in his recent book Humble Pi. Indeed he asked the BBC to correct the 1.5/34.7 mistake, which they intially did, then didn’t when they got all confused and stressed. What it shows is that the people that write the verbiage aren’t any good at maths (mistaking a difference for an absolute in this case) which, to the learned numbersman would immediately undermine the credibility, but to those who have hysterically bought the new religion hook line and sinker, it’s a mere typo.

      Given the same basic maths error appeared twice, from Sky and the BBC several months apart, it is highly probably that this mistake has slavishly been copied from a single source document, probably from the IPCC. And if their maths skills were to be suspect…? Oooh no surely not.

      I am drawn to getting in my car and needlessly motoring 50 miles in my despair.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      June 26, 2019 1:52 pm

      The corollary, Ken, is that they talk about being “twice as warm” when the temperature is at 10° as opposed to yesterday’s 5°. It’s sloppy thinking and it affects a large number of people, including some in my own family, because the concept of “temperature vs heat” has never been explained to them. So they think that differentiating between ‘1.5 degrees Celsius’ and ‘1.5 Celsius degrees’ is simply pedantry.

      And this is, almost literally, the tip of the iceberg. There is 90% more weather/climate ignorance out there, assiduously fostered by the watermelons with their socio-political agenda. Don’t blame the sheeple (which includes a lot of politicians, journalists, schoolteachers (unfortunately) and just ordinary working punters); they have lives to lead, they are quite happy to leave the mysteries of science to scientists. Whom they trust to be honest and unbiased. Ha-ha!

      When this scam — and it is a scam now, whatever it might have been 20 years ago — finally blows up the fallout will be horrendous. For the scammers and for science. I’m pleased I shan’t be here to see it.

  7. BLACK PEARL permalink
    June 25, 2019 10:47 pm

    Has someone emailed Sly News with Paul’s report telling them that its them who are ‘Spewing’ nonsense and causing panic.

    Anyway who has Commissioned them to do this piece as it it wont be volunteered .. nothing is on SLY News

  8. PaulB permalink
    June 25, 2019 11:04 pm

    Brilliant analysis Paul, but as ever with the MSM, they never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Have to say I’m really disappointed that Sky should choose to blindly follow the BBC climate change propaganda – I thought they were better than that, clearly I was wrong.

  9. Nordisch-geo-climber permalink
    June 25, 2019 11:55 pm

    It has gone much colder tonight here in the Lake District. France may be having “Summer”.
    We are having a pale imitation.

  10. John F. Hultquist permalink
    June 26, 2019 3:50 am

    The next 0.5C will take little more than 20.

    The correct term is ½ a Celsius degree.
    As Ken P. points out at 10:33, these folks haven’t a clue.

    However, because there is no way of reducing CO2 emissions except to build hundreds of nuclear facilities, there is Zero chance of curtailing the production of CO2 from carbon based fuels. As such things go, 20 years is a very short time frame.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ What is the future of these reports?

    Insofar as these reports are for broadcast, they will likely** disappear earlier than 20 years unless they get printed on acid-free papers and placed in a secure library. In the UK that is the British Library, in the USA there is the Library of Congress, and there are others. Hundreds of copies {250+} need to be secured or such things will become as rare as the Gutenberg Bible.

    **Remember floppy disks and 7 track tape drives?

    Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_tape#Data_storage

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      June 26, 2019 11:44 am

      Assuming that SKY know that climate can never be static, I’d love to know what they think the ideal climate is. Considering that these ‘journalists’ probably go on holiday to very much warmer climes I wonder how they ever survive the ordeal.

  11. June 26, 2019 6:47 am

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  12. Trevor Shurmer permalink
    June 26, 2019 7:40 am

    Brilliant, why is this not obligatory reading for our shameful politicians?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 26, 2019 1:35 pm

      They are not able to read. They require somebody with what they consider ‘prestige’ to talk to them. And if them invite them to a parliamentary committee, if you are utterly clueless how will you be able to ask any searching questions?

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        June 26, 2019 5:58 pm

        Graffito next to the loo roll in my training hospital: Arts degree, please take one…..

  13. Pancho Plail permalink
    June 26, 2019 8:18 am

    They have a special report this morning. Shock horror – they have just “exclusively” discovered that China is building lots more coal power power stations.
    They showed satellite pictures of cooling towers being built and the tone of the broadcast was one of surprise – perhaps they should have been following Paul’s outstanding contributions, and they could have saved the expense and carbon footprint of sending a reporter to China.
    It would also help to be a sceptic, about everything in my view, as the b*********ds are all out to get you.

  14. June 26, 2019 8:54 am

    This approach to the climate debate is far different to SKY NEWS Australia with at least four skeptical presenters on several times per week.

  15. June 26, 2019 8:59 am

    In one of Sky’s later reports in A New Climate series they did showed a virtual graph of how much CO2 the Uk supposedly used compared to other countries at the start of the industrial revolution.
    Then going forward in time how other countries mainly America and China overtook us.
    But they did not stop there projecting into the future China increased so much it went off the top of the screen.
    This did not stop them going on about how important it was that UK reached zero carbon.
    Apparently the rational was this would so impress other countries that they would be eager to match us. Either as a result of shame or pride to show how good citizens of the planet they were.
    At this point I was feeling a bit green myself particularly around the gills.
    George Orwell Two Minutes Hate is not nearly enough. We need hours of hate against that evil Carbon dioxide.

  16. terryfwall permalink
    June 26, 2019 9:26 am

    1.We are polluting the planet.2. The climate is always changing.

    Why has this religion been created that is desperate to link the two?

    Shouldn’t those activists wasting their time and energy arguing and demanding pick one of those two incontrovertible facts and do something about it? Ideally at a local level so I don’t have to listen.

    It amuses me when they criticise China – we have exported our polluting industries to China and import the products. Whose fault is that?

  17. Henning Nielsen permalink
    June 26, 2019 9:27 am

    Well, when MSM itself admits that it is popcorn time, then it really must be…popcorn time!

    Future historians will love this, it will prove just how irrational and gullible our era was, and how far the elites could bend reality to serve their purposes. Hopefully they will also note how little most of the world cared and acted on the alarmist scaremongering.

  18. Oliver King permalink
    June 26, 2019 9:27 am

    I assume a complaint is about to be filed? I got this via a news alert on Sunday. Stopped reading after the settled science nonsense.

  19. Peter Evans permalink
    June 26, 2019 9:57 am

    Paul: An interesting piece by xmetman RegardsPete Evans https://xmetman.com/heatwave-hype/

  20. jack broughton permalink
    June 26, 2019 10:11 am

    The media have clearly succeeded in their virtue exercise in brainwashing the gullible and easily converted to the “Global warming” religion. Seeing the sheer amount of material being “reported” it is small wonder that so many active groups are now forming to protect us from the imagined risk.

    The difficulty is going to be to stop them wrecking havoc in the name of saving us from ourselves.

  21. europeanonion permalink
    June 26, 2019 10:16 am

    I note a mounting frustration with elements of frustration in the writing, Thanks to Paul, his statistical brilliance and his acuity, I have a belief that dare not speak its name, even in family circles. There are so many issues today that people attach to as they believe that they are part of the consensus which become irrefutable. I have no idea how you counter it and neither has Paul. Other than WordPress there is no platform and he is easily ignored. What is to become of us? Is it the impregnable Maginot Line, its circumvention, a lesson from history? Margaret Thatcher prompted climate research and then came to a realisation; in her own words, (climate change is) a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism”.

    • theguvnor permalink
      June 26, 2019 12:09 pm

      There does seem to be a huge ideological battle going on in our time and both are of a globalist nature, Corporatism v One World government. We are but spectators watching this horrible fight and the ultimate payer of the purse to the prize winner.

  22. Mack permalink
    June 26, 2019 10:39 am

    Nick Bridge, the UK’s ‘Special Representative for Climate Change (aka Head Honcho for exporting green madness to the rest of the world) has just given a very interesting, ‘fact’ filled interview with Adam Boulton on Sky News this morning. Alas, the facts he spouted on current green technology costs, government cost benefit analysis of green strategies, fossil fuel ‘deaths’ (up to 10 million apparently!), China’s Belt & Road policies, and the wholesale conversion of U.K. transport and domestic heating would only be recognizeable as actual facts if you were a pixie, sitting on a unicorn in a La La Land. Definitely worth a watch if you can overcome the irresistible urge to put your boot through the tv screen whilst watching a senior government diplomat in waffling overdrive mode.

  23. June 26, 2019 10:57 am

    Does anyone know what has happened to Energy Matters by Euan Mearns? It slowed down a lot after the recent death of Roger Andrews, but it is a great archive, currently Account Suspended.

  24. Harry Passfield permalink
    June 26, 2019 11:14 am

    Just found a quote from a ‘climate scientist’ (very loose attribution) by the name of Michael Le Page. He wrote an article for the New Scientist in 2007, in which he claimed:

    “More than 100 per cent of the warming over the past century is due to human actions”

    >100%? He probably advises SKY now.

  25. Harry Passfield permalink
    June 26, 2019 11:48 am

    Sheesh!!! Who is the Greenie on Politics Today saying that 2050 will be too late: ‘It is death; it is genocide if the gov does not bring forward 0-C to 2030’!! Words fail me.
    And then the usually sound Andrea Leadsom tends to agree with him!!

  26. Jackington permalink
    June 26, 2019 11:53 am

    Another national broadcaster missing the real story that the UK is planning to throw £1Tn down the drain in order to keep CO2 emmisions exactly the same through to 2050 while the rest of the world is looking the other way. Sky must know something about this scandal, the chancellor Philip Hammond gave everybody a clue with his announcement of what this crazy policy would cost! Don’t Sky have any investigative journalists? They are sitting on the scoop of the year if only they would open their eyes and have the courage.

  27. John Medlock permalink
    June 26, 2019 12:06 pm

    Following on from the BBC’s initial response to my complaint about the Attenborough Climate Facts programme I took it to the next level and have finally received the following response.
    Reference CAS-5434231-ZN6JJL
    Thank you for contacting us again about Climate Change – The Facts. We are sorry you remain unhappy following our previous response.
    In producing its Fifth Assessment Report in 2014 the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) drew on the expertise of a large number of the world’s top scientists to assess the scientific evidence of climate change and concluded: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
    All the national academies of science agree on the existence of man-made climate change and the vast majority of international and national bodies involved in the study of climate change are also in agreement on this point. We note however that you disagree with these assessments.
    While we note you would have liked to see the programme address several areas of this subject in greater depth it was simply not possible to cover every aspect of this complex subject within an hour long programme. However we believe the programme accurately reflected the most up to date research currently available. The content that was included was based on evidence from multiple interviewees, on multiple sources of peer-reviewed research, and was rigorously checked by an independent scientific consultant as well as by specialists in each specific area.
    You suggest that the programme overstated the link between climate change and events such as floods, storms, fires and cyclones. We believe the programme was very clear that while climate change does not play a role in all weather events the science of attribution means that scientists are able to quantify the role of climate change in certain weather events.
    We believe the programme was also clear that the extraction of oil and gas and sea level rise have both played a role in Louisiana land loss. However, evidence suggests that climate change is often a threat multiplier in already vulnerable places and for already vulnerable communities. Hence the inclusion of the Isle de Jean Charles as an example of this. We have noted your belief that sea level rise of 1m by 2100 is “almost impossible”. However, up to date research suggests that sea level rise of higher values (~2m) are physically possible.
    Having offered the above, I’m afraid we cannot correspond with you further at this first stage of the complaints process. If you are still dissatisfied, you can contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU is stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process.
    Details of the BBC complaints process are available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/ where you can read the BBC’s full complaints framework.
    If you wish to contact the ECU, please write to it directly within 20 working days of receiving this reply. Please explain to it why you believe there may have been a potential breach of standards or other significant issue for it to investigate.
    You can email ecu@bbc.co.uk, or write to: Executive Complaints Unit, BBC, Broadcast Centre, London W12 7TQ. Please include the case reference number we have provided above in this reply. If you have a disability which means you cannot write to the ECU and may need the BBC to provide a reasonable adjustment for you to access stage 2, you can telephone the ECU on 0303 0806145.
    Kind regards
    Sarah Firby
    BBC Complaints Team
    I don’t know if I can be bothered to waste my time taking up to the Executive complaints unit as I am sure I will receive the same response. What would Ofcom say do you think?

    • Ken Pollock permalink
      June 26, 2019 1:24 pm

      Congratulations on getting a response from the BBC on this programme. I wrote a 10 page analysis of it, pointing out some of the holes in the arguments and the wrong implications – wildfires in California increasing because of climate change, etc. – and I sent it to Prof Chris Rapley, the consultant on the programme – probably the one referred to by the BBC.
      I received no reply from him, or Prof Maslin, also featured, or from the programme producer.
      Speaking as a retired BBC TV producer, it was a travesty of a programme, seeking only to convince the undecided and not inform the ignorant. Who else would interview Prof Michael Mann or Naomi Orestes in what was promoted as a “factual” programme?

    • dave permalink
      June 26, 2019 1:37 pm

      “…the science of attribution…”

      Technically, it cannot be a ‘science’ since it is pre-scientific, magical, thinking.

      When something unpleasant happened in the past, the immediate question was, “What God did this?” Does it seem the work of Zeus or Apollo or Yahweh…? Then, having attributed it – to Apollo, say – the proof would be sought in an examination of whether Apollo’s rites had been badly skimped, or polluted. Special rites of groveling apology would then be made, including perhaps a human sacrifice.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 26, 2019 1:48 pm

      No scientist that is pre-eminent in their field will be involved with the IPCC. Most quit after they saw the political changes made to AR2 and even demanded their names be removed from the report. Nobody with an independent mind will be proposed to work with the IPCC. After all they rejected the leading person on disease for a student who had never written anything on the subject. Since the IPCC is dedicated to finding a human cause it would be strange if it didn’t.

      Peer review – how they love that – is often pal review where mates you have worked with give your paper the nod. Anything for the cause. Even if it had a more independent review, peer review never includes checking of all the data and methodology. Probably never provided anyway if you recall the fight Steve McIntyre had over Mann’s Hookey Stick paper.

      The one independent consultant may not be a BBC employee but was certainly selected for their views on the subject. It is unlikely there is anyone independent to be found since if you are beholden to the myth for your income you will be a warmist and if you are not then you most likely would be a denier.

  28. June 26, 2019 12:42 pm

    In the affairs of humanity little changes and history often repeats itself, albeit in a different context.

    Back in the 1940s my brother age about 6, came back from church one Sunday and announced that “Mummy was the root of all evil”. We all had a giggle

    Back in the medieval periods “Heresy was the root of all evil”.

    Back in the “1900s in Russia “Capitalism was the root of all evil “. ( This Meme prevails today) China followed suit later.

    Back in the 1930s+ in Germany “ Jews were the root of all evil”

    Today “CO2 is the root of all evil.”

    Apart from my brother’s Meme, all the others have had similar consequences which resulted in gross hardship, brutality, and distress and took years to put right (If ever?).

    If one needs to indulge in stress and worry due to fears of the future, the danger of the above is the real factor you should be thinking about.

  29. Eoin mc permalink
    June 26, 2019 1:25 pm

    Brilliant summary Paul of what Sky have been shamelessly peddling all week. They have been trailering this week of doom-laden propaganda for a fortnight. I watched the reports and interviews from Fairbourne with anger. Time and again the Sky presenter allowed government employees indicate, in a succession of interviews on the sea wall and shoreline, that the proposed so-called “decommissioning” of that, and many other coastal UK villages, from 2045 is going to be necessary due to sea levels supposedly rising by a factor of 1,000% over and above what has been the rate of sea level rise over the past century. The unchallenged narrative was that sea levels would rise by at least one metre (39 inches) by 2100 and that half of that rise would occur by 2050; when the reality is that the likely rise will be, at most, an eighth of that alarmist prediction. The ultimate plan for villages such as this is to demolish everything and return them to their natural status prior to reclaimation etc. Keep up the great work.

  30. Gerry, England permalink
    June 26, 2019 1:55 pm

    Sky News is no more competent at journalism than any other legacy media outlet.

  31. JerryC permalink
    June 26, 2019 1:58 pm

    I like how they say a 1.5C rise in temperature is equivalent to 34.7F. Journalism!

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      June 26, 2019 3:54 pm

      I commented on that, as well as the woolly thinking that 10°C is “twice as warm” as 5°C, in a reply to Ken Pollock earlier. The comment seems to have gone AWOL. It’s a relatively common misunderstanding. People don’t recognise the difference between ‘degrees Celsius’ and ‘Celsius degrees’.

      • John F. Hultquist permalink
        June 26, 2019 5:22 pm

        And: People don’t recognize they need a true zero point (ratio scale) if they want to do all mathematical operations. Kelvin Scale works.

  32. BLACK PEARL permalink
    June 26, 2019 4:43 pm

    This might have something to do with all the recent escalation in climate hype & Skys most likely paid for propaganda piece and why they want to remove Trump from the picture.
    https://www.dw.com/en/investors-with-26-trillion-in-assets-urge-g7-leaders-to-act-on-climate-change/a-44062907

  33. June 26, 2019 6:24 pm

    I have complained to OffCom. I hope others do the same.

  34. Ian Cook permalink
    June 26, 2019 6:34 pm

    They say ’45 years ago we knew….’, well in the 1966 Britannica Year Book it says that scientists had looked into whether emissions by humans could cause a change in world climate. Their conclusion was that the emissions were too small to have any noticeable effect. Then I guess someone said, think about the money….

  35. Mark Winthrop permalink
    June 26, 2019 6:52 pm

    I feel we are in danger of winning the odd skirmish but losing the entire war, as the torrent of Climate change purveyors has reached Tsunami proportions.

    I am a big supporter of this website but feel the way it is laid out becomes self defeating in that the spurious claims are put up in full for all to read in detail and then having read sometimes long articles you have to click onto Pauls excellent rebuttals. By laying the site out in this way many of the readers (including the press) are likely to have been lost before getting to the rebuttal.

    I feel that the claim and rebuttal headlines should be put up first. In the case of the Met Offices ridiculous claim of unprecedented flooding would therefore be headed as follows;

    MET OFFICE CLAIMS UNPRECEDENTED FLOODING.

    MET OFFICE OWN IN HOUSE MAGAZINE OF 1960 TOTALLY CONTRADICTS THIS CLAIM.

    Bushell and light come to mind. The climate change sect depend on people not reading any source material so I feel it is essential to make the excellent work of Paul be more easily accessed.

  36. Vernon E permalink
    June 26, 2019 7:03 pm

    Brilliant Paul – how on earth do you do it. But you didn’t mention that there is not one shred of forensic quality evidence that5there is a connection between climate (weather) and carbon dioxide.

  37. June 27, 2019 9:11 am

    Sky put out this tweet
    It got well ratio-ed
    454 clicked the Like button
    1.7K people chose to show they disagreed by replying

  38. Joseph Sharp permalink
    June 27, 2019 12:25 pm

    The boob over the Fahreenheit equivalent of 1.5°C reminds me of the frequent journalistic error over equivalents, e.g. 5 shillings in pre-decimal money equals 25 pence. In fact, it is more like £3.50 due to inflation. Journalists can not only be illiterate but innumerate and scientifically dumb.

  39. swan101 permalink
    June 27, 2019 4:29 pm

    Reblogged this on UPPER SONACHAN WIND FARM and commented:
    Required reading for everyone trying to understand the climate change facts and fiction …and how far removed issues being peddled have become from fact.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: