Oct 24 2007
The Today programme fluffs its lines on climate change
On today’s daily climate change show we were told that there have been three "greenhouse" periods in a 500 million year period of earth time. A study has revealed that in each of these 3 periods more species became extinct than in periods when the earth experienced global cooling.
At no point did the BBC interviewer ask the obvious question - what caused these three previous periods of global warming, which predated motor cars and planes? Climate change scpetics - who seem to be multiplying because the BBC and other media are so relentless in their insistence on climate change theory - want to know how we can be sure previous periods of global wamring were caused by natural phenomena whilst the present one is caused by man.
Nor did the BBC interviewer seem to understand what the interviewee was saying on numbers of species. I think he was trying to say that the numbers of species expanded during periods of global warming - the numbers of new species created exceeded the numbers lost. This was clearly an inconvenient truith which the BBC did not wish to explore. Although they did not say so, the inference seemed to be that people who go on holiday by plane and insist on driving the car are knowingly signing the death warrants of much cherished flora and fauna.
Come on - try harder. Climate change theory like all others has to stand up to some tough questioning, otherwise you will persuade people against it, the opposite of your intention.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
The BBC has previously admitted that it has a “line” on the issue. I think it’s outrageous that a supposedly serious news organisation which is supposed to be independent and balanced has been pushing so hard on this issue.
[Reply]
Thank you John, a sane post on this topic.
There is in geological history the term “cambrian explosion”, this refers to the period about 530 million years ago when the number of distinct species on the planet as witnessed by the geological record, simply exploded.
I think it must have been because General Motors cut back on production during the precambrian geological period. Probably due to a socialist government.
JR: “Come on - try harder.”
Now would you use your influence with Mr Cameron to drop his silly ‘green tax’ proposals and promote private sector economic activity.
“Public sector economic activity” is an oxymoron.
[Reply]
Not really a response to this piece, but a more general ‘thank you’ for the sustained effort you are putting into this blog. It gives those of us who feel disenfranchised some hope. I have no idea of your readership, but I expect, and hope, this blog is proving a powerful tool of getting your point of view across. Thanks.
[Reply]
I get sick and tired of the constant bombardment of the “climate change” message by our media. Yesterday on Sky, the reporter said while reporting on the wildfires in California, that he was concerned about “The size of the fire’s carbon footprint”
Every day we have the same message rammed down our throats, it is not proven and there is not a scientific consensus of opinion about the causes of climate change. The only agreement is between those that rely on Government funding for their research.
John, is there pressure being put on broadcasters to get over the governments’ pro climate change message?
I will ask my question again that I have failed to date to have answered: If climate change is down to man’s activities, why are the ice caps on Mars melting at about the same rate as our own? (Source: NASA’s website)
Reply: When I heard Al Gore talk he explained why the bandwaggon is rolling so strongly. Practically all the money available for research in these areas of enquiry is awarded to those who accept the prevailing theory and wish to find new ways of proving or extending it. The climate change theorists control the main scientific outlets and institutions and the main academic faculties covering these matters. They put out a constant stream of material, backed up by very effective political campaigning organisations. There is an absence of scientists trying to disprove the theory, and no political campaigning groups putting forward a sceptical view which the media can use to balance the argument.
[Reply]
Every time a tough question is asked it is either ridiculed or ignored. The questioner is ridiculed or ignored also but keep asking the tough questions because they need asking and who knows - someday you may receive a considered answer. By the way, have you been reading Emeritus Prof Philip Stott’s blog “A Hot Topic Blog”? He talks about a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature during three geological periods.
[Reply]
But if it can’t stand up to tough questioning then they have to ensure it doesn’t get any.
Having given over a complete day to Gore’s music show they could, if they wished, easily give a few hours to a serious broadcast debate but when that was tried in New York recently the alarmists lost badly. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20938
Instead the BBC decide to push any alarmist news they can, even, as you point out, seriously distorting what scientists say, while absolutely censoring any reporting of the recent discovery that, at least in the US, the temperature has actually fallen since 1934
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
[Reply]
It is always a good policy to study both sides of a theory before arriving at a conclusion.
I would suggest those considering man made climate theory shouls obtain the DVD The Great Global Warming Swindle readily availabe.
Harry
[Reply]
Well said indeed, if the people espousing a theory cannot stand up to rigorous questioning and actually prove their theory, but instead revert to name calling, (climate change denier etc) then they cannot expect us to significantly modify behaviour to our own detriment (which coincidentally is in line with their own nihilistic views).
And how sick are you of hearing the BBC/Pravda line that the very significant majority of scientists support this theory
[Reply]
The Today team have even less of a feel for science than for economics. Parochial politics is all they’re good for.
[Reply]
Dear Mr Redwood,
Anthropogenic climate change is indeed a theory, like Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and Newton’s theory of gravitation. And like those theories, there is a great deal of scientific evidence to support it. I suggest reading the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) for an up-to-date and authoritative assessment of the latest evidence. And if you have any remaining doubts, I suggest that you seek the advice of the Royal Society, the UK national academy of science (of which Darwin and Newton, among others, were Fellows) - the switchboard number is 020-7451-2500.
Reply: I am well aware of who supports the theory and the evidence they produce. My point is that if the scientists are to be more successful in persuading people that this theory is a universal truth there needs to be more vigorous debate and tougher questioning to show it can handle the doubts and doubters. Scientific method predicates theories constantly tested by scientists seeking to improve or disprove the exisitng theories. Newton’s view of the world has been substantially modified by subsequent physicists
[Reply]
Well I don’t understand why any climate change has to be caused by one or the other and not a combination.
The people who peddle the man-made GW greehouse gas theory rubbish all the solar/cosmic ray/cloud theories and vice-versa.
I’m no expert on these things but I don’t see any reason why changes in temperatures cannot be caused by a complicated combination of the different things the opposing factions in this debate bring to the table that none of them actually understand entirely.
They spend too much time rubbishing each other’s theories. Not only this, the amount of contradictory statistics and data that is out there suggests someone is lying.
Even if the media can make better arguments I would find it difficult to believe any of the climate change statistics they use when presenting their findings.
[Reply]
Steven_L: “I’m no expert on these things but I don’t see any reason why changes in temperatures cannot be caused by a complicated combination of the different things the opposing factions in this debate bring to the table that none of them actually understand entirely.”
Indeed so, but that is not what the Global Warming fanatics are telling us, the cause of global warming is exclusively anthropomorphic, and whats more, pretty much exclusively a western phenomena. Additionally, the only way to combat the supposed problem is by hobbling western industry and commerce with taxes and regulation which *I* am sure, and I know they know will cause a rise in unemployment and poverty in western countries.
Now *if* there is an anthromorphic component to supposed global warming, neither of which we are sure of by the way, we should use our wits and technology to combat it, not cut back on those things.
Anthropomorphic Global warming fanatics are little different in philosophy from Pol Pot and his screwed up year zero doctrine. It is just a matter of degree.
[Reply]
I wish these climate change fanatics would stop using the word anthropogenic instead of man-made. If many people are sceptical of your case it simply means it’s not compelling enough - sprinkling it with fancy sounding jargon only makes it sound less convincing.
Regarding the IPCC, if you set-up a quango to investigate climate change it’s hardly likely to come back with the following conclusion: “Well we’ve looked into this climate change seems to be a natural cycle of the earth’s climate, not a lot we can do about it. Anyway we’ve filled in our own P45’s and we’re cycling off to the Job Centre; actually might as well take the car I suppose”.
[Reply]