(OT:) BBC retracts article saying earth is cooling

I think this might be it?:

A nice companion story (which I also posted about earlier today): Funny how no-one wants to discuss it, eh?

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Especially Learning Richard.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

What kind of scientist is Glen Beck?

Glen Beck is at least as learned as Al Gore. And, Beck has a job!! Ron

DUH! He's not.

But I listen to the BBC all the time and hearing they were swayed by one k00k (who, BTW is also NOT a 'scientist') doesn't surprise me.

And, since you seem to have your head in the sand, it was released Thursday on more outlets than the BBC that the temperature has settled over the past 10 years, and meteorologists are predicting a decline for this year. I've seen it in papers, heard it on the radio from more than just Glenn Beck, and have seen it 'mentioned' on TV from various sources.

The BBC seems to have this agenda of getting in your face to make YOU think YOU are responsible for 'Climate Change', especially if you listen to any reports from Matt McGraw, their 'Science Correspondent', who has unequivocally pointed out that Climate Change is caused by Man, ignoring any climatic studies that have shown it occurs every 10-15,000 years.

The point of the post was that ONE person got the BBC to change a storey because she didn't agree with it. Did you even bother to look at the link?

Back in August or September, Matt McGraw, the BBC's 'science correspondant', made the unequivocal statement that when it comes to Global Warming, "...it's us." Talk about ignoring science! He was going on data provided by ONE source which I can't recall right now, a group of Danish or Swedish researchers, IIRC.

Meanwhile, about the same time, the IPCC published a chart showing data gathered from Ice Core samples taken last year that I have linked to several times in this and other groups, which they said showed that this current temperature rise was the largest in history. I don't know who interpreted the data, because the chart clearly shows we have a ways to go (not a long ways, but we aren't there yet) to be able to claim the largest temperature rise in the past 650,000 years (Eat crow, Sheryl Crowe...). Also, another interesting point they missed was that, according to the chart, temperature rise *PRECEDES* any rise in CO2 levels. But, since that doesn't fit the agenda, the IPCC has removed the chart from their web site. Wonder why?

The IPCC is *NOT* a scientific agency, it is a *POLITCAL* one, with no scientists on staff. They hire consultants (or they did, perhaps this has changed...I don't care enough to bother to find out) and their mission is to get people to change their evil ways (USA) and cut back on greenhouse emissions, while tacitly looking at countries like China and India and then looking away. Their reasoning? We don't want to interrupt their economic gains and let them emerge from the 'Third World', and do this because all the other industrial giants in the world such as Germany, the USA and Japan all made their fortunes at the expense of the eco system.

The only trouble with that is, China is the fastest growing economic power followed closely by India, and also that when the others were making their fortunes, the technology for clean industrialism WASN'T THERE like it is now. All it takes to go 'green' right now is money, and China has

*PLENTY*; at last count from the BBC, China had a $1.3 TRILLION surplus, which they are spending on weapons and defense.

So, the rest of the world looks the other way while China spends its capital building up its Army rather than paying for cleaner technology.

I think the last time this happened was 1938...

Maybe that's what they mean by "green" (i.e., money). And all the money needed to go green is for public image enhancement (new letterhead, signs, and TV ads) and paying off the green profiteers. What a scam.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

The claim isn't credible, as this is the same BBC that once aired a documentary in which several scientists said CO2 did not cause global warming.

Glenn Back isn't a reporter but an editorialist.

Boy I missed that one. All I ever heard was them blaming Man for ruining the planet.

And I guess Matt McGraw didn't hear it wither, although as their 'Science Correspondent' I don't see how he could miss it...

You must get a different BBC from me...(World Service)

See my post in What Liberal Media? thread.

There is plenty of technology out there to make even heavy manufacturing clean, but since China is the main benefactor of the Kyoto Agreement, they can thumb their noses at the rest of the world while creating more pollution in a decade than other countries did over 30 years or so.

Kyoto expires in 2012, and even the BBC says it needs a major overhaul to prevent this kind of abuse.

So - you're saying that China is to countries what Al Gore is to people.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Well, what the Chinese do actually amounts to something...

The documentary, called either The Great Global Warming Hoax or The Great Global Warming Swindle, was shown on Britain's Channel 4, which, while public, is not BBC. Apologies. The scientists profiled in it demonstrate that global warming doesn't follow increases in CO2, but, according to other climate scientists, natural and manmade sources of CO2 were lumped together, which is wrong to do since their feedback loops are different. There's also a correlation between CO2 output and soot output, the latter being a global cooling factor. RealClimate.com has addressed all this.

True, true. But every analogy breaks down at some point - if that weren't the case, then Al Gore would have to equal China. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

LOL! No need! But I knew the BBC wouldn't admit being wrong...

I've linked a chart here that the IPCC posted and removed, that shows CO2 levels trail temperature increases. Very interesting about the feedback loops, and I don't think very many people take that into account.

And soot is a cooilng factor, since it filters out sunlight. Ever hear of Krakatoa?

Al could move there, and then maybe no one will criticize him for being a hypocrite for telling everyone to go green while using vast resources himself...

The British government pays for both networks.

It's highly doubtful that scientists have ignored feedback because it's practically everywhere in nature, and simulation models can be much less accurate when feedback equations are left out.

That was my point. Increased industrial output led not only to more CO2 but also more soot, and neither output can be considered alone to predict the effect on the environment.

In the same way that NASA has buried the corrected data that shows that

1934 (I think that's the year) was the coolest in "recent" history and not 2005 (I think that's the year previously claimed by the warm-mongers as the warmest year) after it was discovered that one of their temperature data stations was collecting invalid data because a nearby a.c. unit was relocated to close to the sensor. Lefties need to study up on the technical definition of gage R&R (but they never will, because they need erroneous data to "prove" their claims.

In the same way that you aren't hearing much of anything in the mainstream press about the Aqua satellite (launched in 2002 (I think that was the year) data which has absolutely proven worthless the models that the warm-mongers were using to "prove" the main mechanism of global warming.

In the same way that you don't hear anything in the mainstream press about the faked (cherry picked flier peaks and valleys instead of more representative averages) data on the snow pack measurements in the Cascade Mountains from which national policy decisions were being made. And the Assistant Washington State Climatologist who blew the whistle on that faked data was removed from his appointed position - and if you call the lefties on it, they lie and claim that he was a TV weatherman (because he carried the title "meterologist"). Blatant dishonesty to prove false science on many levels in that one.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Was it actually faked data, or was it simply wrong data?

I tried to find information on this story, but almost every hit for "Mark Albright" came from political sources, not scientific ones, so I can't tell whether he's an honest scientist arguing scientifically or if he's another Pons or Fleischman.