The BBC’s latest climate coverage makes XR look moderate
By Paul Homewood
Finally the Telegraph seems to be growing a pair of balls:
.
Keir Starmer’s abandonment of the pledge to spend £28 billion a year on green projects is a terrible idea which will deprive Britain of the massive wealth which Joe Biden has created with his Inflation Reduction Act. It will fry us and drown us.
I know it must be true because I heard it this morning on the Today programme. There were no fewer than five separate items on it, by my count. First we had Justin Rowlatt telling us we are all going to go to hell in a handcart because global temperature last year averaged 1.5 Celsius above 19th century levels.
Then we had Prof Sir Bob Watson, former chair of the IPCC, telling us that the Earth’s weather “far exceeds anything that is unacceptable” – as if it were somehow something that is decided by world leaders. That comment says much about the mentality of people who populate these international global non-government organisations: they really do see themselves as gods. Watson went on to claim that climate change is damaging agricultural productivity when data from the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation shows the direct opposite – that yields for most of the world’s most important crops are increasing.
Then there was Barry Gardiner, Labour’s former climate change spokesman, hauled on the show and invited by Nick Robinson to say that Starmer had got it utterly wrong, and allowed to spew out spurious guesstimates on how much climate change is costing the UK. “Storms are getting bigger,” he said, again directly contradicting the evidence – the State of the Climate report published annually by the Royal Meteorological Society shows a distinct downwards trend in average and extreme wind speeds in the UK in the past 30 years.
It has come to something when Dale Vince comes across as the – relative – voice of reason, suggesting that it might actually be bad thing for the Labour Party first to review public finances before it piles another £28 billion a year on the massive debts that face future generations. In vain did I wait for someone on the Today programme to make the point that previous attempts by UK governments to subsidise green industries – like the infamous Britishvolt factory in Northumberland – haven’t exactly created wealth or jobs. I waited, too, for someone to argue that actually Biden’s green bungs aren’t the only story behind the US having faster economic growth than Britain.
Another somewhat crucial matter is the much lower price of energy in the US, which has come about mainly because US administrations – Biden’s included – have unapologetically pursued a policy of energy security and self-sufficiency, built on huge expansion of shale oil and gas. Nor, by the way, did I hear anyone make the point that Britain’s carbon emissions are less than one per cent of the global total – and that Starmer will not have his fingers on the Earth’s thermostat even if he reaches Downing Street.
Global temperatures are clearly rising. It will be in everyone’s interest if the world reduces carbon emissions – even if it is far from obvious why the climate of the 19th century represented optimum conditions for human civilisation. Investment in green technology should be encouraged, but preferably not through government ministers trying to pick winners – lower taxes would be a good start, to encourage the market to separate the good from the bad. But no, Labour’s £28 billion a year pledge wasn’t going to save the world, and no, Starmer is not condemning us to a long, painful death by extreme weather by dropping it. That is just a little fantasy of the Today programme.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/08/the-bbcs-latest-climate-coverage-makes-xr-look-moderate/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
It’s a pity that Ross has to ruin an excellent article with the last paragraph. No Ross, we should be looking to increase, not decrease, our carbon (dioxide) emissions and we should not be encouraging investment in so-called ‘green’ technologies.
The last paragraph contains this very true statement which is overlooked by those advocating reversing climate change
even if it is far from obvious why the climate of the 19th century represented optimum conditions for human civilisation.
So although making the obligatory nod to emissions there’s a caveat included.
19th century climate? Wasn’t that the period of the Dickensian Christmases, with the snow deep and crisp and even?
Absolutely.
I also noted the BBC claim the oceans are warming far faster than the atmosphere. As the oceans must contain many times the mass of the air, how could this happen? Clearly CO2 could not cause this disparity. If (???) the claim is true, the only explanation I can think of would be increased under-ocean volcanic activity, which would also warm the air in due course, but I have seen no reports of this happening.
More likely increased sunlight, which means reduced cloud cover in the tropics where most of the incoming energy is received.
Does seem to be happening under the western antarctic ice shelf.
And water has a far higher thermal inertia. Thus it is quite impossible for the oceans to be warming more quickly than the atmosphere if only CO2 is the culprit.
Given the amount of water in the oceans I don’t see how an increase in volcanic activity could cause anything more than very localised warming. The warming trends according to the UAH satellite data are 0.18 degrees/decade over land and 0.11 degrees per decade over the oceans. No doubt the claim that the oceans are warming faster than the land is based on a reanalysis, aka fixing the figures so they show what you want them to show.
There is inadequate data to tell if the oceans as a whole (rather than isolated spots) are warming. To claim so is just speculation and ‘modelling’!
Ross seems to be trying to straddle two horses at once – in favour of reducing CO2 but against the results or methods of trying to do so. Perhaps his job depends on it……
never mind the global warming …..
UK site breaks record for most power produced by nuclear fusion (telegraph.co.uk)
we are saved ………………..
A UK-led experiment has broken the world record for the amount of energy produced from nuclear fusion.
Not Castle Bravo?
Not Tsar Bomba?
The whole thing is fake BS. No power was produced. Substantial energy was consumed to produce considerably less energy.
No fusion experiment has yet created a net gain of energy
Then how can there be a record for the amount of energy produced from nuclear fusion?
Experiment hailed as a major step towards near limitless clean energy
That’s just stupid.
Twitter contradicts your claim
It will take many many years to commercialize but there was net positive energy.
https://power-technology.com/news/scientists-achieve-second-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough
“The experiment in December (2022) achieved fusion ignition by generating 3.15 megajoules (MJ) of energy output from 2.05MJ of input.”
The news is the peer review publication of the year old experiment
Oh you are talking about the BBC report about The Joint European Torus (JET), an experimental fusion reactor at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in Oxfordshire,
generated 69 megajoules of energy over five seconds from a mere 0.2 milligrams of fuel
That’s a bit more than they got in 2021
but I don’t think that’s actual ignition that the different laser fusion driven experiment got in the US
The linked article itself says:
No fusion experiment has yet created a net gain of energy
JET achieved Q = 0.67 in 1997.
The previous ‘record’ from 2021 which produced (sic) 59 MJ had a Q factor of 0.33. Less than 1997.
The Q factor for this new ‘record’ is unpublished.
Does this mean that a commercially viable fusion reactor is now only 19 years away rather 20 years away as it was in the 1970’s?
BWTM: How much energy is needed to come up with their fuel?
You won’t find deuterium and tritium laying about.
Another affirmation of my policy of not listening or watching any BBC content. It may as well be owned by the Guardian.
Clearly Baroness Parminter and Sir Bob Watson have some more reading to do. This to include some of Paul’s graphs on food production that he reproduces. The alarmism is starting to seem like only those of the true faith may enter the true knowledge and that is only available in a darkened room somewhere where opinions are in perpetual echo..
For an up-date on the failings of Electric Vehicles see “Harry’s Garage” on You Tube.Harry is unfortunately partly captured by the emergency apostles but see him out to the finish. Harry is also a farmer and you may see my comment about that business’s reliance on photosynthesis
Harry’s conclusions are a good place for B. Parminter to start her studies which , I gather , were so evidently fragile during her recent outing in the H. of Lords.
The BBC news has been showing a graph that refers to “pre-industrial” temperatures, the “x” axis starting in 1940
Pre-industrial ought to mean “before smelting”, that is, prior to about 8,000 years ago (10th century BC). This started slowly, with an important find at Khirbat en-Nahas in Jordan [a continuation of the false King Solomon’s Mines story] and culminating with wood chips and Drax.
Europe and the North American Colonies** managed to deforest much of the land. The wood and peat would have produced CO2 indistinguishable from that being produced by coal, oil, and gas.(not considering modern chemistry)
**canals were built to bring wood into Boston as the adjacent forests were harvested
” Pre-industrial ought to mean “before smelting”, ….. “
After some skim reading, I can’t find a definitive date that the believers have identified as the commencement of the industrial revolution.
The x-axis on the graph suggests that the believers who created the graph were attempting to head off the question: “Where is the accurate temperature date from the start of the Industrial Revolution ? “
Attempt at posting the graph
[url=https://postimg.cc/4KQmCVyF][img]https://i.postimg.cc/hGHxd0Bg/BBC-temperature-graph-industrial-revolution-to-date-2024.jpg[/img][/url]
^^
That didn’t work, must try harder.
Link to BBC news article that carries the graph
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310
Also, typo in previous post ” accurate temperature date” should read “accurate temperature data”
Global Arsoning
Chile : Chile forest fires: President indicates arson suspected
Australia NSW : Arson Unit detectives have charged two men following an investigation into a deliberately lit bushfire in the state’s north last month. https://police.nsw.gov.au/news/article?id=110382
I was sent this link:
In a ‘monumental shift’, EU coal and gas collapse as wind and solar ascend (electrek.co)
I think I will have a drink and then lie down.
Has anybody thought to run this by “BBC Verify?”
Well, I find it hard to believe they ever ‘verify’ Justin Sane’s hysterical contributions.
Another alarming consequence of all this green self virtue is the ‘growth’ of solar panels on agricultural land. Whoever thought paying landowners more to host these useless eyesores, rather than growing the nation’s food needs locking up. Food and energy security anyone?
What’s more remarkable is the absence of any basic Economic analysis. The BBC claim Truss “crashed” the economy with £2 billion of extra borrowing but somehow Labour borrowing over twenty times as much would benefit the economy. And of course there’s no mention of the fact more state spending is simply the state allocating more of our resources, not actually increasing how much is produced.
the massive wealth which Joe Biden has created with his Inflation Reduction Act
It looks easy to ‘create wealth’ by printing money and increasing debt, so why doesn’t everyone do it? Maybe it’s the inflation, cost of borrowing and other nasties that follow.
The Truss/Kwarteng growth plan didn’t end well.
Gamecock’s theory is that the US has run out of lenders, and can’t borrow anymore. So they print.
How much money is Joe going to have to print to end inflation?
I just love this headline – Reeves’s humiliation of Ed Miliband
Just shows who wears the trousers in this relationship.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/08/labour-u-turn-on-28bn-shows-power-of-rachel-reeves-analysis/
This article confirms my earlier postings that suggested that the BBC have now moved from climate alarmist output which is technically true but highly misleading to outright lying.
” climate alarmist output which is technically true “
There is no proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change. The climate and the weather have been changing for approx 4.5 billion years.
They would frequently make statements that were in fact true but without the context that would mean that something pretty unremarkable sounded like a harbinger of doom. But yes, I agree that the underlying climate narrative is false.
”Global temperatures are clearly rising. ”
Yes and no. There is no such thing as ‘global temperatures’, just lots of different, constantly varying temperatures across the Earth’s surface.
What is ‘clearly rising’ is the hysteria, but in fact the numbers – not temperatures – out of the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly faux-science have ‘clearly’ not been rising since the late 90s, prompting the abandoning of ‘tangible global warming’ to be replaced by abstract ‘climate change’.
On the other hand, global temperature clearly has been rising for about twelve thousand years – Britain no longer under an ice sheet.. clue – all before the end of last century and all independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
heard yesterday on BBC news re Iceland eruptions. Newscaster ‘ it shows man cannot control nature’. Contra all other BBC attitudes. WTF are they doing pi$$ing themselves and encouraging waste of £millions about CO2 and climate change’?
Could he become the new Booker? He’s had several ‘realistic’ articles including in the Spectator. How can we encourage him ?
The idea that Bazza *Uphill* Gardiner could have anything sensible to contribute to any debate shows the BBC in its true light