Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

David Bellamy Muzzled over Global warming nonsense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Bellamy Muzzled over Global warming nonsense

    A recognised and applied principle of mob control, not only for animals, is that they must be kept in constant fear of something. No matter whether it is the stockman's stun stick, insolvency, or just the unknown.


    To justify the ever- increasing taxes and wealth disparity mechanisms inpeacetime, it has to be something universal, and the Global Warming Bogey
    fits those criteria nicely. No matter if it has sandy foundations, so long as the governing authority can control the print and electronic news media.


    But what about the BBC ? Is it not above those games? The following account details how even that prestigious establishment is just part of the network.
    We Quote:
    BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE Wednesday November 5,2008



    FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by
    audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.


    His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming.
    Here he reveals why - and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change."When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn't believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.


    I am a scientist and I have to follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my opinions.According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?The sad fact is that since I said I didn't believe human beings caused global warming I've not been allowed to make a TV programme.


    My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say:
    "I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?"It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock. The truth is, I didn't think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so.


    Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn't doing that. At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren't getting taken up. I've asked around about why I've been ignored but I found that people didn't get back to me. At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: "This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic," and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we've seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly - and they've not grown for a long time.

    I've seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies - carbon dioxide is not the driver.The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it's a natural thing and has always happened.
    When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland.


    It was evidently a lot warmer. If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we'd be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn't be here otherwise. People such as former AmericanVice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming - which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you've got no proof. And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry.


    In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science.There's no proof, it's just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs. To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.


    Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there's nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist.


    And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that's not global warming. They're drying up for the very simple reason that most of them have dams around them. So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and vegetables for the supermarkets of Europe.


    One of Al Gore's biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water. The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I'm still an environmentalist, I'm still a Green and I'm still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world.


    But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming "problem" that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake. I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues.
    For example, we must stop the destruction of tropical rainforests, something I've been saying for 35 years.


    Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and over fishing the seas. That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.



    (From interview by HELEN DOWD)OUR COMMENTS: The internet report of 3,000 scientists signing a statement that they do not support or accept the bases on which Global Warming is hypothesised, and so disagree with the Kyoto Conclusions, also went unreported in the world news. Nor was it reported that the Bush Administration told the organisers of the Kyoto Conference in advance that unless it unconditionally agreed to bar any discussions of the tropical and other rainforests, then U.S. would pull the rug out from underneath it and ensure its failure.


    For at least a century, scientific opinion had been nearly unanimous in its belief that the rain forests are the world's lungs, and justify preservation as essential for our planet's good health. But why let an inconvenient angle like that get on to the Kyoto Table when wiping out the forests is so useful

  • #2
    Excellent story Dean, thanks for posting!
    two ears and just one mouth.. for good reason.

    Comment


    • #3
      It is disgusting. Science is supposed to be open and free for all to participate.

      Shame on the BBC and most of the other media.

      This goes nicely with this:

      The world has never seen such freezing heat
      By Christopher Booker
      Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml

      A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

      This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

      So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

      The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
      As always, check out these two for real scientifically checked information:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/

      http://www.climateaudit.org/

      Comment


      • #4
        So the question then needs to be asked, "What companies does Gore and the supportes of the theory own that will enable them to profit from the world believing in their side of the story"

        Comment


        • #5
          Very interesting post Dean

          I was not sure where I sat on the global warming issue until I went to the Gore movie. The arguements put forward left me convinced that what he said was so BUT having done further research since then I am now tending to believe that what David Bellamey says is correct.

          It is indeed a very controversial subject and one that will no doubt be debated for years to come.

          Comment


          • #6
            Isn't there more carbon and sulphur put into the atmosphere from a single decent volcanic eruption than what all the cars can produce, although a lot of pollution in a concentrated area can produce an inversion layer thus holding temperatures.
            Last edited by Tucker; 18-11-2008, 08:18 AM.
            Nigel Turner

            Comment


            • #7
              Al Gore's financial interests in global warming
              My Profile

              Comment


              • #8
                Oh here we go again. When are you guys going to rid yourselves of these conspiracy beliefs? Yes, we all love a good David vs. Goliath story. Yes, of course BBC will not lend face to an unpopular opinion - that is stupid of them but there is bullying and bureaucracy in nearly all organisations. That doesn't make the current global warming any less man-made though.
                Dean, I know you are not like that but similarly many Christians want to bully others into sharing their beliefs - ask yourself, does that make Jesus less believable in your eyes?

                This thread, and this one http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...ad.php?t=16344 shows an amazing display of ignorance and prejudice. I have presented plenty of clear arguments in the other thread, something which no one wanted to respond to in a serious manner. If the renewed interest in this topic means that anyone wants to seriously debate this then please refer to my previous reiterations of the facts and continue where it was left off in the other thread. Everything has been presented there, volcanoes and all.
                Unfortunately from my previous experience I can only assume that being faced with facts is not your guys' cup of tea, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on that.
                High resolution Fractal Art on quality canvas: www.FractalArt.co.nz

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rolf View Post
                  Oh here we go again. When are you guys going to rid yourselves of these conspiracy beliefs? Yes, we all love a good David vs. Goliath story. Yes, of course BBC will not lend face to an unpopular opinion - that is stupid of them but there is bullying and bureaucracy in nearly all organisations. That doesn't make the current global warming any less man-made though.
                  Dean, I know you are not like that but similarly many Christians want to bully others into sharing their beliefs - ask yourself, does that make Jesus less believable in your eyes?

                  This thread, and this one http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...ad.php?t=16344 shows an amazing display of ignorance and prejudice. I have presented plenty of clear arguments in the other thread, something which no one wanted to respond to in a serious manner. If the renewed interest in this topic means that anyone wants to seriously debate this then please refer to my previous reiterations of the facts and continue where it was left off in the other thread. Everything has been presented there, volcanoes and all.
                  Unfortunately from my previous experience I can only assume that being faced with facts is not your guys' cup of tea, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on that.
                  That's the pot calling the kettle black !

                  IMO it is you who is not facing the facts.
                  I have presented many facts, and well researched papers.

                  Hansen and the IPCC are a disgrace. Read my previous post for evidence.

                  One should not confuse what you want to be so with what is reality.

                  I regret that the REAL issues are being missed by those who constantly harp on about "CO2 pollution".
                  For the REAL issue, watch the Chris Martenson crash course.

                  Based on false evidence, ALL the "solutions" I have seen so far will fail, because they address the WRONG issue.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rolf View Post
                    Oh here we go again. When are you guys going to rid yourselves of these conspiracy beliefs?
                    IMO those who deride views as "conspiracies" are stupidly naive, and will suffer from it.

                    If you think those in power don't have agendas, and massage the truth, you will never realise what is going on.

                    IMO question everything. What you are told, and most importantly, what you are not told.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What I am saying, now and in the past, is that the underlying logic is sound. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just like some other gases are. We are pumping out obscene amounts of it so therefore we do affect our atmosphere. The arguments such as "doesn't volcanoes produce more CO2?" etc have all been addressed before, see the other thread for details.

                      Bottom line is that we should of course try to minimise our disturbance of the current natural balance of gases in our atmosphere as we cannot accurately predict the effects. I hardly believe anyone can argue with that, but it seems that everyone dismisses the underlying logic in favour of discussions over which agency made what mistake and if Al Gore will earn $$. Why not discuss the underlying issue instead?

                      Can anyone seriously deny that pumping out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not likely to change our climate?
                      High resolution Fractal Art on quality canvas: www.FractalArt.co.nz

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rolf View Post
                        What I am saying, now and in the past, is that the underlying logic is sound. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just like some other gases are.
                        Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Agreed. The question is whether the man-made CO2 is significant. That is the main question.

                        We are pumping out obscene amounts of it so therefore we do affect our atmosphere.
                        "obscene" is a judgement, not science. If we pumped "obscene" amounts of water into the sea, would that be bad ?

                        The arguments such as "doesn't volcanoes produce more CO2?" etc have all been addressed before, see the other thread for details.
                        I ignore non-expert ideas/theories, and look for expert research.

                        Bottom line is that we should of course try to minimise our disturbance of the current natural balance of gases in our atmosphere as we cannot accurately predict the effects. I hardly believe anyone can argue with that, but it seems that everyone dismisses the underlying logic in favour of discussions over which agency made what mistake and if Al Gore will earn $$. Why not discuss the underlying issue instead?

                        Can anyone seriously deny that pumping out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not likely to change our climate?
                        I can find NO reliable evidence that shows that man-made CO2 has made any significant effect on the climate. It may have contributed to some warming. From what I see, there is poor evidence, and the IPCC claims are grossly exaggerated.

                        The reason people criticise Hansen et al, is that they started this, with claims that the problem was large, and that action was required.
                        When people like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, who are not paid to do this, then looked into the data, and found huge problems, it makes the whole think look highly questionable.

                        The reason I find this frustrating is that I do not think the creation of CO2 is the problem. I think the real problem we face is Peak Oil. Rather than trying to absorb CO2, we should be concentrating on where we are going to get our energy from.

                        Now, the solutions probably fit in quite well with those who have a "green" type of view. So I think those who are worried about CO2 would do better to consider a slightly different problem, because I think they would find the problem and solutions would fit in with their philosophy.

                        If you haven't I suggest you watch these:
                        http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

                        He neatly combines economics, energy and environment, and I think poses the real problem.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          OK, What Caused the Problem?
                          by Steve McIntyre on November 16th, 2008
                          http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4370

                          Are you like me and a little puzzled as to exactly how the GHCN-GISS problem happened? GISS blamed their supplier (NOAA GHCN). Unfortunately NOAA's been stone silent on the matter. I checked the Russian data at meteo.ru and there was nothing wrong with it. Nor is there anything wrong at GHCN-Daily for stations reporting there. So it's something at GHCN-Monthly, a data set that I've been severely critical of in the past, primarily for the indolence of its updating, an indolence that has really reached a level of negligence.

                          In passing, while I was looking at Resolute data in connection with a question about a mis-step in temporarily losing some northern Canadian data while the Russian patch was being applied, I also noticed what appears to be a prior incident like the one that we just saw - only in reverse (and not a small error either, it was about 14 deg C). I'd also like to remind people that an identical incident with Finnish stations was reported here on Sep 23.
                          A few months later, I invited readers to help NASA find the lost city of Wellington NZ, where NASA and GHCN had been unable to obtain records since 1988. I wondered whether the city had been destroyed by Scythians or perhaps Assyrians. Fortunately, one of the survivors made contact with us - indeed, the survivor was employed by a national meteorological service and assured us that records had in fact been kept since contact had been lost.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just look at this for the way the scientific community is behaving:

                            Santer Refuses Data Request
                            by Steve McIntyre on November 10th, 2008
                            http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4314

                            Dear Dr Santer,

                            Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49 series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a link to a URL. I understand that your version has been collated from PCMDI ; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it (I presume that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB). Thank you for your attention, Steve McIntyre
                            reply:

                            Dear Mr. McIntyre,

                            I gather that your intent is to "audit" the findings of our recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). You are of course free to do so. I note that both the gridded model and observational datasets used in our IJoC paper are freely available to researchers. You should have no problem in accessing exactly the same model and observational datasets that we employed. You will need to do a little work in order to calculate synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model atmospheric temperature information. This should not pose any difficulties for you. Algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been published by ourselves and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You will also need to calculate spatially-averaged temperature changes from the gridded model and observational data. Again, that should not be too taxing.

                            In summary, you have access to all the raw information that you require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our IJoC paper are sound or unsound. I see no reason why I should do your work for you, and provide you with derived quantities (zonal means, synthetic MSU temperatures, etc.) which you can easily compute yourself.

                            I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC.

                            I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter of the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. Rather that "auditing" our paper, you should be directing your attention to the 2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., which contains an egregious statistical error.

                            Please do not communicate with me in the future.
                            Ben Santer
                            Charming !

                            Steve's action:


                            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                            Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
                            Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
                            1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
                            Room 10730
                            Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

                            Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

                            Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
                            This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

                            Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 200, of which NOAA employees J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47 runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series by Benjamin Santer and associates.

                            I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me: (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008.

                            The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl.

                            In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

                            In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG). http://www.joss.ucar.edu/daarwg/may0...lify-v0514.pdf.

                            I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request is academic research, the information exists in digital format and the information should be easily located by the primary sources.

                            I also include a telephone number (___) at which I can be contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to discuss any aspect of my request.

                            Thank you for your consideration of this request.

                            I ask that the FOI request be processed promptly as NOAA failed to send me a response to the FOI request referred to above, for which Dr Karl apologized as follows: "due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the response was not submitted to you. I deeply apologize for this oversight, and we have taken measures to ensure this does not happen in the future."

                            Stephen McIntyre

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You got me reading climate change stuff again !

                              Fascinating:

                              Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product
                              http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/1...ature-product/



                              Anthony,
                              I have just written a summary of what you call the fiasco here.
                              It ends with 6 questions regarding GISS, to which I have just added yours.
                              1. How many other errors, less obvious to the casual observer, are there in the GISS data?
                              2. Why does GISS not carry out any checks on the data before publishing it?
                              3. Where and how did these errors arise? As you rightly say, blaming NOAA is no excuse.
                              4. Why are there gaps in the GISS data, when the “missing” data is readily available?
                              5. Why has GISS’s number of stations used dropped so dramatically in recent years?
                              6. Why are so many of the remaining stations at airports? (Three quarters of the GISS stations in Australia are at airports.)
                              7. Why does GISS keep adjusting past temperatures, as shown here?
                              .
                              .
                              .
                              The GISS temperature record is a conflict of interest.

                              How could a global warming advocate be in charge of a temperature record that is used by various organizations to set policy?? This is a equivalent of hiring Donald Trump to be in charge of the gambling addiction center. What’s really needed is an independent body to keep an expanded minimally adjusted surface temperature record using only quality stations that meet vigorous standards which is thoroughly gone over with a fine tooth comb to find any inconsistancies, such as those that have been occuring over at the GISS, not just recently, but in the past as well and must be transparent to the public.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X