Letter: Warming show was packed with lies
Thursday 14th January 2010, 6:15AM GMT.
Letter: I just watched the BBC video “how the big freeze fits theories of global warming”. Once past an irresistible chuckle, I took some notes of the half lies present in their argument.
First, it’s not “one winter”, it’s three cold winters in a row. Then we are told it’s the long term that counts. But they choose a period of 30 years not 50 years. Why? Because before that, from 1945 to 1980, the climate was cooling. That’s what is called cherry picking. Anyone knows that by choosing the dates one can make statistics tell anything.
Besides, it’s not 30 years of warming, it’s 20 years because it’s been cooling in the past 10 years.
A favourite argument often heard on the BBC is the following: “This year is the xxth warmest on record.” It’s another white lie. Of course it’s warmer today than 30 years ago, but what they are hiding from the public is the fact the trend has reversed, and the climate is now cooling due to the sun entering into a new cycle. The sun drives climate, not CO2.
They are also hiding the fact that it was warmer 1,000 years ago, in the Medieval Warm Period. That’s the period the CRU scientists planned to make disappear from temperature records.
But the BBC can’t possibly admit they’ve been wrong about climate. Many could lose their jobs for the bias they have shown over the past 30 years.
Mark Duchamp
Spain
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
It is all a big myth .
Report abuse
In response to your ‘one winter’ theory, although there was widespread disruption from ice and snow the winter temperatures in the west midlands were above average(Source met office weather station shawbury and its regional averages).
Just as you would say that one hot summer doesn’t prove global warming, neither does one cold winter.
Report abuse
Hang on, is the climate changing or not ?
One sentence it’s not, next sentence it is.
If I read this right – you’re (MD) saying that the climate isn’t changing & it’s complete lack of change is caused by the sun.
What’s more it’s the BBCs fault because they’re reporting what some scientists have said without adding a laugh track – because that’s how everyone else reports it don’t they.
Well, I hope you’re correct – if these boffins have got it right instead then the alternative where we’ve doomed our children and we can’t wheedle our way out of it for them isn’t a pretty one.
Report abuse
Sorry Mark, but your personal opinion isn’t consistent at all with established scientific evidence. According to instrumental data that’s been recorded since around 1850, the average global temperature has risen by approx. 0.8C.
There have been periods during this time where downward trends have been recorded (it seems you “cherry picked” one of those for your letter and chose to ignore the 0.6C rise that took place between 1910 and 1945), but overall the indisputable fact is that global temperatures are on the up, at least as far as can be determined from reliable data collected over the last 160 years. Temperature data before this had to be reconstructed from other sources, including during the Medieval Warm Period – which, incidentally, was around 0.4C – 0.5C cooler than today’s global average temperature and is only built on reconstructed data from some parts of the globe. It’s been determined that other parts of the planet were significantly cooler during the same period.
The phrase Global Warming can be misleading. What we’re dealing with is Climate Change due to Global Warming. The current rise doesn’t mean that every point on the planet will become 0.8C warmer than 160 years ago. Trapping additional heat inside the vastly complex system that is the Earth gives rise to all kinds of changes at a local level, including localised warming, localised cooling and greater weather extremes.
Sadly we don’t have the luxury of examining accurate recorded global data from the last 1,000 or 10,000 years to be able to see the bigger picture, but while the current evidence points to changes in our climate that could be detrimental to the long term survival of the Human Race on this planet, then it would be wise to pay attention and take it seriously.
Report abuse
The BBC is being investigated (albeit by its own BBC Trust) for biased reporting of science particularly with regard to “climate change” (previously called global warming).
What a scam. CO2 is a harmless trace gas that is essential for life.
Report abuse
Mark
Just a question, you say it was warmer a 1000 years ago.
Have you got the Met office data to prove this.
Conjecture???
Report abuse
Who cares – this is a none issue – the earth’s temperature has always gone up and down – long before coal was burnt etc.
Report abuse
notice how global warming had to change and become climate change? just so that it would fit the weatehr at any given time and fit the control pattern.
which is all it is, its a way of stopping the masses enjoying what was once the preserve of the wealthy, air travel, cars and central heating for example.
now they can tax us into submission, making the jet set more exclusive, the roads more carefree for their swanky cars and kill off a few old poor people that are cluttering up their views.
if you can afford expensive fuel and congestion charges you can drive what you want when, where and for a long as you want.
if you can carbon offset and pay various other tax’s you can fly daily round the world for a new pair of socks.
if you are rich enough i suppose you don’t have to worry about pollution at all…i bet Bono doesn’t.
Report abuse
Who cares – its still too chuffing cold at the moment!
Report abuse
I don’t believe that KarenK is right however the point she makes is that wether you believe in global warming or not the climate is going to change.
How are we going to prepare for that?
Report abuse
what’s your evidence for your assertion that the trend has reversed in last 10 years? Its the first I’ve heard about it!
Report abuse
ITs not only the BBC infected by fashionable reporting styles – there might be an element of ‘warming’ which might be effected by what we’ve done over the past few hundred years – but the media in general is lazy – its a sound-bite world, because we’ve been taught over the past 40years that that’s all that is necessary – now we don’t want to fund decent in-depth programming, ITV.
A once decent alternative channel now doesn’t even want to fund the comedy-mega-graphics version of news, just rubbish thats in style and wont be in a gfew years, then what? We-reap-what-we-sow.
Report abuse
Since the industrial revolution we have unlocked more C02 into the atmosphere than at any point in history. Nobody knows the long term effect, but C02 is a greenhouse gas. It will trap heat, it will cause the planet to warm. Perhaps the earth can cope with what we have done. Perhaps we should let the scientists find out rather than heckling them.
Report abuse
actually i disagree with your opinion jake and mark duchamps letter to the beeb has actually hit the nail on the head. never mind co2 levels, ignore the sun at our peril as after all it is the sole source of all our heat. at present the sun is going thru a cooling period and lo sunspot activity
we are actually cooling just now
Report abuse
Good article Mark.
Although the BBC are not directly to blame but the government who control the Beeb.
We have had 12 years of Tax rises in the name of Global Warming but thankfully people are now begining to see the light.
The other side of the coin is of course hopefully we are looking at ways of NOT being complete under the control of the oil producing countries.
If we did come up with a viable alternative to Oil, for example ”water” how are the government going to raise the extortionate amount of tax we take from petrol now?
Report abuse
forget about climate change, global warming, etc. what I’d like to know is whats happened that hole in the ozone layer we were on about a few years ago, has it just closed itself again or what?
Report abuse
Also whats happened to Aztec Bars, Opal Fruits, Four for a penny Fruit Salads and Corona Pop?? They have all disappeared since the “global warming” phenomenon was publicised.
Report abuse
Dave,
Opal Fruits are now called Starburst.
Can’t help you on the others, although I’m fairly certain Fruit Salads are still available.
Report abuse
From what I read the hole in the ozone layer is very small now but I also read it is colder underneath the hole than it was before .I cannot remember where I read it .It was something that stuck in my mind .As I have said hope for the best prepare for the worst but most important do not have a closed mind whether you agree with man made global warming or .My personal opinion is that it is a natural cycle but as I said that is personal
Report abuse
The Romans grew very successful vinyards along Hadrians Wall, explain that one! Global warming is not man made it is a cycle of the earth and data from 100 odd years is not science.
Global warming is a myth to curtail the emerging countries and markets from their imminent super power status, leaving our old europe in the shade!! It’s nature!!
Report abuse
Well said quinny, at last someone who remembers the hole in the ozone layer. A disaster that somehow mysteriouslly dissappered over the horizon. In a few years time there will be another one discovered by the boffins for governments to exploit.
Report abuse
Thankfully, what Climategate has shown us all is:
- agw scientists abusing the peer review process by acting as bullies and gatekeepers
- agw scientists seeking to keep ‘dangerous’ science out of IPCC reports, if necessary by ‘redefining what the peer review literature is’, so providing incomplete i.e. one-sided information to policy makers in SPMs
- agw scientists being abusive to other scientists (not critiquing their work)
- agw scientists being abusive to journalists not meekly falling in line with agw
- an admission that modelling is inadequate to give policy guidance e.g. on New Orleans
- an admission that agw scientists know ‘**** all’ (their words) about aspects of paleo climate
- an admission that there is no agw explanation for the recent lack of warming (cooling)
- evidence appearing to suggest a falsified reference was maintained against advice
- an admission that the energy budget is nowhere near to being balanced so considerations of geo-engineering (carbon policies) are pointless and if implemented anyway nobody cold say if they had worked or not
- an admission that current warmth is not ‘unprecedented’ as it was matched ~1000 years ago by the MWP
- an admission that the data and code at UEA CRU were and therefore are ‘garbage’
- an admission that the code consists of ‘botch after botch after botch’
- an admission that erroneous gridded surface data was tacked onto truncated dendrochronological data to ‘hide the decline’, mixing chalk and cheese while claiming the total is chalk
- comments that appear to reveal breaches of UK FOIA (under investigation)
- comments that appear to signal destruction of raw data (under investigation?)
- subsequent revelations emerging include use of outlier data in calibration and homogenisation, together with selectivity in e.g. use of Russian data, such as would inevitably give an apparently pre-determined outcome
Also, in response to Jake, for the avoidance of doubt on historical temperature records see J.R. Petit, J. Jouzel et al 1999 “Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from The Vostok Ice Core in Antarctica”, published in Nature (399) pp 429-436.
And for further evidence of how “The Hockey Stick” graph, so beloved of AGW alarmists, was a produce of selective data do a Google search on “YAD061″.
Report abuse
The hole in the ozone layer is reducing due to the fact that action was taken to sort out the causes. That is CFCs were banned.
Climate change is an interesting topic. We have a situation where the worst possible scenario is that we could cause catastrophic changes to the planet leading to all sorts of problems or it may not happen. I am amazed that people think that given the uncertainty we might as well carry on as normal – thus leading (if we are wrong) to the catastrophic option. How stupid is that?? Most of the changes we need to make can only improve the environment – ah but I forgot greed is the main motivator and some governments have utilised tax as a way of attempting to control pollution. Can’t have that can we? Just a quick question – what tools do government have other than tax and legislation?
Report abuse
@Bemused (post #22): At least somebody here gets the point.
Anyway, if we’re going to continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, despite all the uncertainty, then we’d better start working on finding new things to burn. The ones we’ve got now aren’t going to last for ever.
Report abuse
The global warming thing is beginning to sound more and more like a lot of hot air. Just like the SWINE FLU PANDEMIC. Whatever happened to that?
The government looks to be going ahead with giving untested and potentially lethal vaccines to small children meanwhile the projected winter deaths of 65,000 have been downgraded to 1,000 and the WHO is to investigate whether it was unduly influenced by drug companies to hype the threat.
Report abuse
Co2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, in fact it’s greenhouse capabilities are dwarfed by simple water vapor. It’s simply because we produce a lot of co2 that it was picked to be the demon gas and taxed accordingly. Let’s not forget that 1 errupting volcano throws out 30 times the worlds yearly output of co2!
The world has gone from fireball to snowball and back again long before humans popped up. Temps have risen and fallen for millions of years and climate change nuts have decided to cite one of these rises to support their own agenda. A 30 year period isn’t even a blink of eye in the earths history
Report abuse
I may get myself an “Elephant” pair of slippers now, just to keep warm.
Report abuse
In the middle ages grapes were grown as far north as Carlisle ,the Vikings farmed Greenland hence the name .Who knows what may happen an asteroid could hit us and we could all be gone . Have an open mind but make sure we are not ripped of by charlatans politicians and carbon traders .We think bankers are bad ,what they have ripped us off for is peanuts compared to the amount these lot will be coining in mark my words ,climate change is the new licence to print money .Mark my words because as you are freezing to death in a new ice age they may come back to haunt you
Report abuse
All the checks I have done suggest that Eric the Red named it Greenland in the first recorded example of estate agent flannel. He wanted people to move there. “Freezing place. Covered with ice for most of the year”, probably wouldn’t have attracted many settlers.
I do find myself wondering about the motivation of those who deny the majority of scientific opinion. Why? Oil companies and related industries I can understand; but Joe public? It’s about the future of our children and future generations – I for one would sooner err on the side of science and reason rather than adopting the flat earth society type denial that so dominates these pages.
Report abuse