Leading article

In apologising for having Nigel Lawson on to discuss climate change, the BBC has breached its charter

Rational debate is poisonous to climatic correctness

12 July 2014

9:00 AM

12 July 2014

9:00 AM

It is only a matter of time before Nigel Lawson — if he is allowed on the BBC at all — has to have his words spoken by an actor in the manner of Gerry Adams at the height of the IRA’s bombing campaign during the 1980s. In the case of Mr Adams, whose voice was banned from the airwaves by the government, the BBC stood up for free speech. But it is quite a different story with Lord Lawson. The BBC has effectively banned the former chancellor (and former editor of this magazine) from appearing on its programmes to debate climate change, unless he is introduced with a statement discrediting his views.

The BBC’s Editorial Complaints Department this week ruled that the Today programme broke BBC guidelines in February by inviting Lord Lawson to a debate with Sir Brian Hoskins, chairman of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change. It bizarrely claimed that his views are ‘not supported by the evidence’ — though he had pointed out, correctly, that the planet has not been warming for the past 17 years. Nevertheless, the BBC politburo warned, listeners should have been warned that Lord Lawson is in a minority and, therefore, his words ‘should not be regarded as carrying equal weight to those of experts such as Sir Brian Hoskins’.

Lord Lawson is, of course, not a scientist. But a great many people speak on the BBC on subjects in which they do not have any formal qualifications: Al Gore, for example. Or Rajendra Pachauri, a railway engineer by training, who now runs the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Neither does the BBC seem to be worried about non-scientists addressing scientific issues when it comes to such things as fracking or GM crops, on which any green activists are welcome to speak, however bizarre their scaremongering theories.

What Lord Lawson is, however, is chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a think-tank that has no quarrel with the idea of global warming. Its aim is to appeal to reason, and to engage in mature argument rather than hysteria. Lord Lawson is advised by scientists who until recently included Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading. Professor Bengtsson was hounded off the GWPF board by his fellow scientists.

When people try to close down debate rather than engage with it, there is a pretty clear conclusion to be drawn: they lack confidence in their own case. The suppression of debate was shown again this week when Vladimir Semonov, a climate scientist at the Geomar Institute in Kiel, Germany, revealed that a paper he wrote in 2009 questioning the accuracy of climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was effectively censored by the scientist to whom it was sent for review. Their reasons for demanding passages be removed seems rather less than scientifically rigorous: one wrote that the offending material would ‘lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community’ and another said that ‘this entire discussion has to disappear’.

The process of peer review used in the scientific press is often held up as a mark of quality, which enables poorly conducted scientific research to be weeded out before it reaches the eyes of readers less qualified to judge the rigour of the work. This may to some extent be true, even if peer review failed to spot weaknesses in the now discredited Fleischmann-Pons cold fusion experiments of 1989 or stop the MMR scare.

But the peer review process is also open to abuse. Just as the social sciences became infected by political correctness 20 years ago, climate science has become governed by climatic correctness. To question the consensus that the world is facing fire and tempest as a result of anthropocentric global warming is, in the eyes of some working in the field, simply not allowable. That is something which was revealed in the Climategate scandal of 2009 when leaked emails from the University of East Anglia caught out scientists who had been withholding data, trying to keep rivals’ papers out of journals and in one case threatening violence against a sceptical scientist.

The BBC at first declined to go into the content of the emails, preferring to treat the story as a case of data theft. The fact that the emails contained material of extreme public interest seemed to count for nothing. The unknown individuals who leaked the emails can only dream of the hero worship afforded to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange; attitudes on the left towards release of information seem to swing dramatically depending on what information is being released.

The same is true of the BBC’s attitude towards balanced debate — something which is supposed to be guaranteed by its charter. The BBC has decided that it is allowable to debate such issues as whether benefit cuts are causing distress or whether sports-women are being discriminated against by male-dominated bastions — something the Today programme does virtually every morning. But dare to question whether it is wise for the country to embark on the economic experiment of abandoning fossil fuel on the back of some far-from-robust scientific models, and you will have to find another media outlet.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • MrGrylls

    Excellent article. If Lord Lawson is to be banned from speaking on the BBC on the subject of “climate change” because he is not a qualified climate scientist then NO-ONE should be allowed to speak on the BBC on ANY subject unless he or she has an academic qualification in the relevant field. The consequences of such a policy being implemented would, of course, be absurd.

    • Cosmo

      Unless they are of the correct gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation……of course.

    • Latimer Alder

      No such restriction seems to exist as far as the repellent Marcus Brigstocke is concerned.

      • AlecM

        Aw, don’t be cruel to the nasty little socialist elite tyke; i’m sure theres a female of the species that might find him acceptable when the champagne goggles are clamped on their ugly visage…..

      • splotchy

        …or the equally repellent Ms Alibhai-Brown, Ms Penny, Ms Toynbee, all fond of spouting hyperbolic opinion, without necessarily offering any justification.

        When Mrs Thatcher died, it was clear from the respectful public scenes outside her funeral, and the rather muted and sparsely attended ‘celebrations’ of her death, that there was a general feeling of supportive appreciation of her premiership. But this was not reflected in debates/discussion on the beeb at that time, who gave equal, if not greater, airtime to opinions condemning her.

    • Kitty MLB

      The BBC wallow in their own false sense of superiority and blind ignorance.
      Nigel Lawson speaks eloquently and with sense on the subject of climate change. Which we all know is not man made, as the climate has been changing repeatedly in precise cycles forever.
      Well before scientists started taking notice a mere couple of hundred years ago. giving the Leftie greenie obsessives a way to manipulate.
      Also, who would be these ‘ experts’ someone chosen by the BBC with their
      own agenda.

      • AlecM

        There has probably been man-made climate change, part of 1980s and 1990s warming was from increased aerosol emissions reducing cloud albedo as Asia industrialised; it saturated ~15 years ago.

        The same mechanism, biofeedback, accounts for the solar energy amplification process that misled the IPCC into believing CO2 was responsible for the end of ice ages.

        The real problem that Common Purpose, which controls the Frankfurt School Politically Correct BBC, faces is that they indoctrinated their people with the CO2 CAGW scare when atmospheric processes control it to near zero so it is not a threat.

        CO2 will probably level out at ~450 ppmV when plant growth accelerates; about 20 years. That is when we’ll be in the depth of a new Little Ice Age with 100s of millions dying from starvation as the growing season shortens.

        • Kitty MLB

          Indeed these ice ages. You will know about the Medieval
          climate anomaly and the very warm period turning into a
          ‘ mini ice age’. And historically the very warm period between 250 BC
          until 400 AD followed by a mini ice age caused by a solar
          reduction reaching the earth. The sun’s strength for a period
          was reduced.
          And yet the IPCC refuse to consider the sun’s effect on our
          climate preferring to speak of the ‘ human influences’ .
          I do believe we are going through another of those solar
          reductions at present.
          Best not tell, the BBC or their obsessive dinosaurs.

      • Shazza

        I fervently hope Kitty that after our team wins next year, Cameron leading a majority government will have the cojones finally to clip, nay remove the wings of this Marxist behemoth which has been such a destructive force in British life.

    • rtj1211

      Perhaps someone would like to list the climatology qualifications of the following:
      1. Richard Black?
      2. David Shukman?
      3. Tom Heap?
      4. David Attenborough?
      5. Steve Jones?
      6. Lord Winston?

      I’m not quite sure how being a biologist makes you a climate expert. Certainly, it took me 5 years of serious reading, learning, midirection etc etc before my biological sciences professional experience could be applied fruitfully in the subject of climate change. Even now I’m not saying I’m an expert, but I am an expert in peppering holes in arguments which are clearly fallacious and illogical.

      Natalie Bennett of the Greens certainly has no qualifications at all. And as for Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Harriet Harman, they have zero, zip, zilch.

      Do make sure that all those ignorant leftie harpie political voices are shut up too, Auntie BEEB……….

      • Terry Field

        But I never hear the superbly qualified climate scientists from Tyndall or Nasa or NOA or the Met Office invited to talk at length on serious matters of climate change.
        It is a science matter, not a political matter.
        The ERM was a desperate disaster – Lawson’s judgment was dreadful then; it is no better now.

        • ilma

          I understand the Hartland conference organisers invite many from the ‘pro-CAGW’ camp to speak, but virtually all refuse to.

          Also note that many scientists consider ‘climate science’ as secondary to physics, geology, chemistry, mathematics/statistics, etc., and climate science depends on those core sciences. It is not a science in its own right. The GWPF, as Nigel Lawson had stated, has many eminent scientists as advisers, and he is not personally addressing science, but policy.

          Let’s take one such policy, that of bio fuels, corn for ethanol, paraded as one of the ‘solutions’ to global warming, but is now considered a serious mistake even by environmentalists. What did it achieve? Nothing except raising good prices which hit the poorest hardest. Listening to the sceptics, the Nigel Lawsons, can help us prevent such costly and deadly mistakes being made. For the BBC to ban this viewpoint is mindblowingly nieve.

          • global city

            I do think though that the GWPF should send along a real scientist as spokespeople to dispel all of the CAGW lies, rather than Nigel Lawson.

        • AlecM

          They have all been taught incorrect radiative and IR physics so their contribution is negative.

        • “Serious matters of climate change” are not a science matter when the subject enters the political scene because a side wants to increase taxes.

          Trying to isolate the debate as a science issue reflects a serious misunderstanding about the way things work in real life.

          However, I suspect some try to hold the debate inside a “science fortress” and try to convince everybody to listen to “scientific authorities” as if they were the only qualified to judge society´s response.

          I´ve read quite a few articles, papers and opinion pieces by some of these famous scientists, and they seem not only to be quite impractical and somewhat specialized….in some cases they seem to be really ignorant.

    • Terry Field

      A good idea – and it should apply to channel 4 – that would remove the leftie polemicists who dominate the airwaves.

      • global city

        I totally agree with that.

  • Guy Walters

    The use of ‘anthroprocentric’ doesn’t really help the argument….

  • gerronwithit

    To be accused as a right wing fruitcake by the liberal left is to be derided and shunned from society. To be a proven left wing fruitcake is to be admired, applauded and offered endless spots on the BBC or C4, people such as Ozzie Natalie Bennett of the Green Party and the eminent racist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

    • AlecM

      Not the Natalie Bennett who so seriously announced that senior civil servants would have to sign a declaration that they supported State-approved Climate Science otherwise they would be sacked?

      And Ed Miliband has announced the same sentiment would apply under Labour Rule.

      Why is it that fascism always comes from Socialist Roots?

      • Terry Field

        The left are natural fascists. But climate change is the reality, notwithstanding the scum of the left.

        • AlecM

          The climate change we have had and will have is virtually unaffected by CO2. Because it was set up as a political body, the IPCC has got all its main physics’ claims wrong. In the exam, it should be given 2% for writing its name correctly at the top of the answer sheet, and no more.

          • Terry Field

            You are no expert.
            Your first sentence is a religious statement. Nothing more.
            You have simply lied about the nature and competence of the IPCC in sentence two. The sentence is also devoid of logic.
            The third sentence is cretinous.
            Thank you for clearly showing us you inadequacy.

          • AlecM

            Sorry, but you appear not to understand the real physics.

            1. The IPCC energy budget assumes that a planet’s surface emits net IR energy to its atmosphere as if it were in a vacuum in radiative equilibrium with a sink at absolute zero. No professional engineer or scientist accepts this. This error goes back to Sagan because he messed up the cloud physics.

            2. Falsely thinking the atmosphere is a ‘grey body’, a bad mistake by Houghton, the modellers offset the extra surface energy by applying Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation to ToA. The result is the following sum: OLR = 238.5 W/m^2 real SW energy + 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ – 238,5 W/m^2. In other words, the two bad mistakes increase heat energy to the atmosphere by 40%.

            3. This increases temperature and humidity. To purport the imaginary ‘positive feedback’, the temperature excess is offset in hind-casting by using 1.3 x real low level cloud albedo, a massive cheat.

            4. The 1.2 K CO2 climate sensitivity with no positive feedback would still apply were it not for atmospheric processes which reduce it to near zero, as proved by nearly 18 years’ no warming. There is no ‘missing heat’, another attempt at creating a Perpetual Motion Machine by Trenberth.

            5. it’s time this fake IPCC fizzicks was buried.

          • Terry Field

            Cod science comments from an ignorant man with little competence and a personality problem


          • AlecM

            Then prove it by referring to standard physics. The problem is that you refuse to accept this science is an assembly of mistaken physics giving a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind, the 40% hike in energy, plus two calibration factors, one hidden, to pretend it all works.

            The calibration factors are the feedback parameter, the ratio of increased ‘forcing’ from H2O to that of CO2, and the hidden offsetting of temperature in hindcasting. The energy rise over reality causes sunlit surface temperatures to rise giving extra evaporation. The increase of low level cloud albedo causes temperature under clouds to fall sufficiently to pretend the average temperature matches real past data.

            This is shameless cheating to pretend the enhanced GHE is real.

          • EschersStairs

            Name calling is not science, it’s intellectual bankruptcy.

          • Zionist lackey

            Well Terry, playing the man instead of addressing his argument, is truly ignorant behaviour.

          • global city

            at it again I see. You’re no expert either, or you would have come across all of the dissenting voices in this debate often enough to understand that they are not all shills and/or nuts.

          • AlecM

            Agreed but the problem is that atmospheric science and other soft sciences teach incorrect physics. As one of the climateGate emails confirms, this was deliberate policy at CRU.

            In 2012, to deprogramme students from the false teaching, a Russel group 2nd year physics course was told to devise a ‘reverse heat engine’ with a roof mounted ‘back radiation collector so as to use all this imaginary energy that is supposed to give the ‘Enhanced GHE’, a 33 year scam by Hansen.

          • global city

            The whole CAGW edifice has been blown apart, but it still hovers there, like some Hindu god!

          • AlecM

            More like a Cheshire Cat; i can just about distinguish Pachauri’s beard now!

            PS this disappearing trick is why the Greenshirts are going for broke, trying to put the intellectuals into concentration camps, another Na$i tactic.

          • Terry Field

            NO it has not, you are deranged.

          • global city

            We’ll see!

            In 5 years you will be ruining your life flapping about some other issue…. I promise.

          • EschersStairs

            Again, name calling, not argumentation.

          • Arthur Sanders

            You are a twat. Is that the level you seek?

          • Terry Field

            There are no dissenting voices who can match the massive body of data and scientists who identify reality, old cocker.
            Here we go again.

          • global city

            As we agreed during our little spat the other week, there is only a small coterie of scientists at the actual chalk-face of modelling and data production……EVERYTHING else is conjecture based on the validity of the core material at the heart of the hypothesis. Most are observing climate change, but attributing this to being ‘man made’, so builds the mass of data and ‘consensus’, which is largely amongst scientists working in non climate research fields.

            Nearly everything at that level has shown to be in error, corrupted or asserted. If The science was clear and incontestable then there would be no shenanigans right at the heart of things.

          • Terry Field

            I do not recall such agreement.
            There are three strands, the geological record, the modelling effort, and current observation.
            I am happy to observe the efforts of distinguished scientists attempt to interpret all three.
            That will do from me, and from you, also.

          • global city

            OK, fair enough, I was just trying to not slip into another scrap over it!

            I think the answer to the whole issue is contained in each of those subjects you list…. and they will all point to CO2 being innocent of the crimes it is currently being accused of by the ‘positive feedback’ merchants.

          • dstresen

            Terry , you need to get some original thinking going here , inspiration perhaps instead of being a parrot , explain to me why the sun spots are at their lowest level in the last 100 years and why NOAA has reinstated 1936 as the warmest time not 2012 .

          • Tom Burroughes

            Well, judging the by the BBC’s conduct, those dissenting voices that do exist have even fewer MSM channels. So I guess that is a self-fulling prophecy. As Peter Sellers used to say, “How conveeeeenient.”

          • Choey

            OMG do you mean there’s someone who disagrees with you?

          • global city

            It’s political mandate is clear in how it is to go about developing policy to pursue the aims of the UNFCCC


        • Tom Burroughes

          This is a tautology: the climate is changing and always will. The reason why this is politically radiocative as it were is what, if anything, we can do about it – adapt, or try and halt it. Seems to me that that is where the debate has to be. The BBC’s conduct is, on the face of it, a betrayal of its Charter and further evidence of the need for the licence fee to be abolished.

        • effinayright

          Your first sentence is a tautology. The second is an empty assertion, which assumes matters not in evidence (IOW, you’ve offered nothing but your naked opinion.)

      • obiwan

        “…Why is it that Fascism always comes from Socialist Roots?”

        Spot-on. But they’ll deny it until the cows come home. It’s an impossibility to them, despite decades of historical evidence to the contrary, how such toxic, discredited ideology has repeatedly, tragically, engulfed various nations of the world run at the whim of a motley succession of maniacal socialist dictators.

        Today, it’s outfits such as the ‘green’ movement and the the so-called ‘anti-fascist league’… you’ll see those same, dangerously familiar militant, dogmatic ‘calls to action’, hear those same shrill accusatory voices demanding coercive measures to force the proles into line, into an agreed political, socialist agenda.

        CAGW is a thoroughly despicable political project – a Trojan Horse of the Left, used to smuggle in pernicious ‘cultural change’ such as Agenda 21 (still at it, after 20 years of state-mandated propagation). The Left despises true democracy. It will find any way it can to subvert and undermine it – CAGW , for them, is the gift that keeps on giving.

        • global city

          We should always remember that the ‘left-right’ political designation is an inter-familial socialist scrap.

    • Terry Field

      Science is not about right left or centre. It is about something entirely difference. It is about truth.

      • John Catley

        Ah yes, truth.
        Now that really would be welcome in climate science.
        Sadly, as mentioned in this article, when the truth is exposed, the climate establishment hurry to sweep it away and to discredit whosever has revealed it.
        Today’s climate story is just that – a story with very fragile foundations.

      • Jules Wright

        Your first sentence is right; your last is misinformed. Science is about proving a given hypothesis against empirical data. That is not the same as ‘truth’ – much science is in a state of perpetual evolution, refinement and reinvention. When a given hypothesis is disproven or discredited, science demands that it be revoked and replaced. But when billions in funding is at stake? Believe none of what you read and only half of what you see.

        • Agreed, but the OP is definitely correct with regard to non-scientific “truths” – namely who did and said what.

          I frequently encounter people who are curious to know more about the climate debate but feel intimidated, especially out of fear of being labelled a “denier” and believing the scientific elements are too complex to grasp. The best thing to do in these cases I’ve found is to point them to books such as those by Donna Laframboise or Chris Booker on the political story behind CAGW. That story is completely and utterly damning on its own regardless of the accuracy – or not – of current scientific understanding.

      • Chris Morriss

        Or rather that it’s about the search for the truth.

    • Tom Burroughes


    • monty61

      Depends what sort of fruitcake. Someone asking for flat taxes may be regarded as a fruit cake but has a sensible point.

      Lord Lawson merely parades his ignorance on this issue every time he opens his mouth. He is simply not credible and the BBC **should** apologise for having him on.

      I would have thought the BBC haters round here should be focusing on the apology and not sticking up for a deluded old fool.

      • Eric Cartman

        Steve McIntyre just verified Lawson’s claims about the floods. They are important people, you are a nobody.

  • AlecM

    In the 1930s, the BBC also used this same trick, to deny the airwaves to the politically-incorrect.

    In those days, they prevented Winston Churchill, for example, from contaminating the minds of Listeners with the heretical view that Adolf Hitler was a dangerous lunatic whose intention was all-out War to create a 1000 year Reich.

    So it is with the Warmunists, whose intention is also to create a 1000-year Reich led by the same sorts of people who backed Adolf; the Bankers and the Corporations who integrated with the State, gain monopolies based on this exogenous threat to their hegemony.

    Entirely bogus CAGW is the equivalent of the threat from the untermenschen. No camps this time; they will be herded into the cities to die from fuel starvation as the elite farm the wind to support their Eloi-type lifestyle.

    Grieve for your children and parents who will be denied the staff of life on the arbitrary diktat of the likes of Baroness Worthington who, with few strokes of a pen, may condemn millions to their deaths as the carbon ration is reduced to achieve 210 ppmV CO2 in 300 years time, at which period we will be well into the 1000 years’ project……….:!

  • obiwan

    The BBC once again shamefully parade their distorted ‘impartiality’ for all to see – and judge them by. How do these people live with themselves? Their grotesque liberal progressive sensibilities somehow allow them to advocate censorship of free speech and opinion, whilst proclaiming their ‘journalistic integrity’. What a strange, inverted moral and intellectual compass the BBC lives by.

    The BBC – watermelon by nature, and aggressively so when it comes to anyone who openly dissents on the Holy Consensus – has comprehensively failed to report fairly or even truthfully on the entire ‘climate change’ circus, but what else could anyone expect from an organisation that from the very start identified CAGW as a political cause it could get behind and eagerly promote at every opportunity?

    It’s a disgrace this bullying, censorious, deceitful organisation is somehow still permitted to operate unchallenged as the nation’s public broadcaster, and to demand money with menaces from taxpayers whilst doing so.

  • colliemum

    There’s one other aspect to this ‘decision’ by Al Beeb:

    like all Lefties, they regard us, the public, as being too stupid to make up our own minds. No, we must be indoctrinated into the ‘right think’, because otherwise we’d do such foolish things as not believing in AGW because the evidence, experienced by us, contradicts the AGW models. So we must be prevented to hear both sides of the argument in case we rebel against the AGW tribute we pay on our fuel bills – and worse, we might actually laugh at their ‘experts’.

    This attitude of course applies to politics as reported by Al Beeb as well.

    Just break this Ministry of Propaganda up into small parts, get rid of the TV Tax, and let them survive on the open market.

    • Ilma

      What is also very clear, is that the Beeb haven’t heard of that interweb thingy, thinking they can control the totality of what we can acess 🙂

      • The PrangWizard of England

        We should be concerned about access to the web. It is being controlled to prevent access to certain records, the ‘right to be forgotten’. It won’t be long before it is totally under the control of the authoritarian Left and the Marxists. This must be prevented.

  • The question is, should the BBC consider taking a further step closer towards ‘facts and nothing but the facts’? We think so. Our solution is that climate related items should be broadcast as a series of evidence-rich digital ‘data-bursts’. Other suggestions welcome here:


    • AlecM

      I thought you went out with the Ark….:o)

      • Meekrob

        So, wait, global warming is caused by giant space goats?

  • Ilma

    In his upholding of the complaint (from a green party member and renewable industry activist it seems), the BBC’s Fraser Steel used the term “evidence from models”. How little the man knows, and amply demonstrates that he is the one ‘unqualified’ to pass judgement. Computer models can *never* be ‘evidence’. That’s such a basic principle, but I guess we can’t expect anyone at the BBC to know or understand that; they’ve never worked in any scientific or engineering, or even productive profession. It’s even more absurd then to know that the IPCC itself uses model outputs, themselves derived from ‘parametrisation’ (i.e. guesses & bias) inputs, as ‘data’ inputs to other models. Time to withhold or abolish the ‘telly tax’?

  • drjohngalan

    “Consensus” on the science of human-caused global warming seems at the root of the BBC’s justification of its censoring behaviour.

    Consensus was also at the root of the cold fusion fiasco in 1989 mentioned in this article – the scientific elite ensured it was rubbished and side-lined:

    Just as with global warming, it is worth looking for yourself, rather than relying on the BBC (or, for that matter, The Spectator) for your information. Just a little research can allow anyone with a modicum of understanding of science to realise that global warming, while based on scientific principles is not the scare
    story that the environmentalists would have you believe.

    Equally, just a little research on cold fusion or “LENR” will allow the same person to realise that this should not have been discredited in 1989, but should have led to an exciting and potentially world-changing field of science.

    The mass media in general appear to me to lack journalists who are prepared to dig into these difficult topics and find out what is actually happening, rather than simply trot out the accepted “truth”.

    • Gerrit

      It is ironic that the Spectator is refering to mainstream science consensus for the _discredited_ Fleischmann-Pons experiments, while they have a go at the BBC for doing the same on global warming.

  • JoeDM

    Complain, complain and complain agian, everytime climate change propaganda gets discussed on the BBC withoug adequate balance.

    Use: https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor

    and: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006slnx

  • John Kinahan

    I think you mean anthropogenic rather than anthropocentric causes of climate change. However, one could say that by ignoring evidence that does not originate from within the climate change inner church, these strange people do indeed believe that climate change is “anthropocentric”.

  • s masty

    The BBC rigs profit-making game shows, its senior employees complain of
    bias, it squanders fortunes, silences internal criticism, has hidden
    yesteryear’s paedophiles and is undoubtedly cloaking modern ones. A
    similar private firm would be closed by the authorities, but our
    chattering classes turn a blind eye. Why? To watch the Antiques Road

  • lookout

    The BBC is not qualified to talk about the science of climate change, as it wasn’t qualified to talk about man made global warming, it’s not got round Sun temperature increases and sub service sea temperature rises sending warm waters beneath the attic while surface temperatures remain at record lows. The BBC is clueless and never wrong, it’s laughable and sad, sad, sad

  • CheshireRed

    Lawson is qualified to discuss the economic costs of ‘tackling climate change’, so was an entirely valid guest. Of the points he made precisely none were incorrect or inappropriate, indeed he and Sir Brian found some common ground. Removing his voice from BBC airways has less to do with science and far more to do with closing down an effective opponent.

  • ClimateLearner

    Lawson easily trounced Hoskins in that conversation and that clearly put the wind up the greenies. Just imagine if the general public were to realise what intellectual minnows and feeble personalities were at the heart of the climate scaremongering, with all its shoddy analyses and portentous posturing? If Hoskins had an ounce of the right stuff, he’d be going ballistic with the BBC about its supine caving-in to the greenies after that broadcast he shared with Lawson. But who expects such behaviour from the likes of Hoskins or any of the other self-serving acolytes of the new, and very lucrative, faith?

    • AlecM

      Hoskins, Stern and Allen are vying to be the Wizard behind the Curtain.

  • Shazza

    The BBC is a disgrace. From it’s relentless attack on the Coalition, it’s anti Israel pro Hamas propaganda, climate change position, pro EU stance – the list is endless but always Marxist in it’s outlook.

    The gullible British public have been successfully brainwashed by this nefarious juggernaut – time to privatise/sell off or just bin it.

    For a master class in how to shut down any dissenting voice, I refer would refer you to the disgraceful treatment of Lord Tebbit by Helena Kennedy last week on Andrew Marr’s personal Labour Party Political Broadcast which he conducts every Sunday morning.

    When Lord Tebbit attempted to bring to attention the greatest threat this country has faced since the Nazis, he was effectively shut up.

    • Marmalade Sandwich

      Will this diktat refer
      to sports reporting too? It is impossible to avoid the reporting of minority
      women’s sports as lead items since the Olympics, even though no one actually follows
      these sports or even pays to watch them live. The BBC sets in own agenda
      rather than reporting stories people are interested in. It has undoubtedly changed
      the terms of any national debate for the worse. Stop funding this turgid
      institution. Watch sport live or in a pub. And watch drama online or buy a box

  • Richard Young

    The thought criminal in the photograph?Must be General Sir David Richards taking a time out from defending defence cuts.

  • Gerrit

    The Spectator is attacking the BBC over this, but by using Fleischmann-Pons as an example of discredited experiments, the Spectator is basically doing the same thing as the BBC.

    Taking scientific consensus for granted without investigating the non conforming views is just the easy way out, this is what the BBC is doing.

    Why are the Fleischmann-Pons experiments still refered to as discredited, when numerous institutions and companies are actively researching the topic: NASA, Missouri University, Mitsubishi Heavy Industry.

    see the Wired article “Cold fusion continues to progress stealthily into the mainstream”.

    • AlecM

      I worked once with Martin Fleischman, a superb experimentalist in electrochemistry. In about 1997, he was on Michael Buerck’s Radio 4 programme The Choice. Martin stated that he thought his reputation had been trashed to prevent cold fusion being used as a low cost, low energy nuclear fusion trigger.

      In reality, his work was valid but he did not know what had triggered the effects. 25 years later it looks like it was a fault in his power supply plus a bit of novel water physics.

      • Gerrit

        if “it looks like” that for you, you most likely haven’t studied the topic yourself but instead rely on the mainstream science consensus to tell you what the truth is.

        You should consider applying for a job at the science dept of the BBC.

        • AlecM

          In 1990, my lab. duplicated Fleischmann and Pons’ experiment at the same time as Harwell. We couldn’t make it work, nor could they. The latter information was used to discredit Fleischmann (by a mutual ex-colleague).

          In 2007, the Atlanta Naval Research Lab. published a paper showing proof of the characteristic gamma ray energy you expect from D-D fusion. That 17 years was the time the military researched the hell out of the process to see if they could weaponise it, and failed.

          As for my research, in 2003 I patented the key physics which electrochemically harnesses immense energy storage in water, the accumulation of hydronium ions in the outer 200 nm.

          This is active research with an incredible reach into biology, environmental and many other areas. You apparently work in a very small box of knowledge.

          • Gerrit

            interesting that you bring up the Naval Research Lab. In a 2013 ICCF-keynote at Missouri University the Washington lab stated: “We have explored the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) for about eight years focusing on transmutation, electrochemistry, and gas loading with the latter two being the most fruitful. … we can find no artifacts to explain the data for some of our results, and therefore we must conclude that an unknown source of energy exists and is worthy of more attention.”

            It didn’t “look like” an artifact with a power supply to them.

          • AlecM

            F&P used constant current. They showed massive release of heat on a random basis not shown in replicated experiments.

            My patent uses sudden interruption of the power source to trigger large energy evolution in ordinary water with entropy waves being transmitted at 7% of the speed of light, the same as proton tunnelling in ice.

            It has to have been a faulty power supply……

          • Peter Stroud

            I cannot comment on cold fusion, though it does row against the tide of accepted science. However, the apparatus in question might have actually demonstrated a phenomenon, due to undetectable faults in the system. A similar event happened to me over fifty years ago. My boss and I were producing an ion source and related apparatus to produce Helium negative ions. We were amazed to find the presence of double negative Helium ions. We checked this many times during that particular run, and the results confirmed the presence of these incredible particles. It was then that we detected a slight leak in the vacuum system. This was stripped down and the seals were checked, reset and reassembled. The search was made for the double negative ions: there were none. Naturally we then attempted to deliberately recreate the conditions for the increased pressure by introducing a deliberate leak. The vacuum pressure was exactly the same as that present in the original experiment: yet it failed to lead to the production of the strange ions. Many unexpected results in experimental science, lead to vast changes in our knowledge. But some like cold fusion, and my particular experience lead nowhere.

          • AlecM

            There is ample evidence of LENR, particularly the Rossi device, now validated and being scaled up to commercial. this converts Ni to Cu plus energy.

            In 2009, a Japanese researcher used a deuterium cell on a Zr foil and a mass spectrometer to measure the transmutation of Nb impurity to Mo, including the isotope ratio of the Nb.

          • Gerrit

            Are you referring to Kitamura’s replication of the Arata gas loading experiment
            -> Phys. Lett. A, 2009. 273(35):p. 3109-3112.

            Or the Iwamura transmutation experiments at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries that were recently replicated at Toyota labs ?
            -> Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 52 (2013) 107301

          • AlecM

            I saw it in the proceedings of a cold fusion conference.

            You can get transmutation with a proton Ni to Cu in hydrogen or a He ion, two atomic numbers. i have altered my original post now because it was clearly inconsistent.

            I suspect a Nb foil with transmutaion of Zr to Nb.

          • bachcole
          • Chris Morriss

            I was involved in the periphery of this work in those days in a small group that included the late Dr Eugene Mallove from MIT, and aware of some of the deliberate discrediting going on. Low-energy nuclear fusion is a very long time dying, and it is very likely that there will be one or two surprises in this field in the next 5 to 10 years.

  • Eric Mcoo

    Lawson has been commissioned by ‘the powers that be’ to make real climate sceptics look like right wing nuts. He destroyed this country through monetarism, a doctrine even Margaret Thatcher repudiated.

    Thatcher denies subscribing to monetarism


  • Fraser Bailey

    Everyone knows that Nigel Lawson is right. Even the lefties and the BBC etc know it, deep down. But their financial interests, along with the landowners who receive subsidies for hosting windmills, are firmly aligned with the climate change nonsense.

    Lawson has also appeared regularly on the BBC to damn the euro, which is another strike against him in the eyes of the BBC.

  • Lord Lupin

    If sceptics are nothing more than flat-earthers and morons, why are these warmists so scared to debate with them in public? Surely if this global warming is so correct and back by ‘all them scientists with ‘ologies,’ this will be an opportunity to put this thing to bed once and for all before the eyes of the public.

    So what are they so scared of? being exposed for the frauds and criminally deceitful con-artists that they are?

    An awful lot of careers, reputations and wealth, amassed from taxpayers money are at stake so they go on with this deception and stifle opposition.


  • Terry Field

    There is no charter requirement to have balanced discussion on any subject by including absurd contention. This would apply to cosmology and astrology as its ‘opposite’, Darwin versus ‘creationism’, and climate change science versus Lawsonism.

    • Andrew Edmonds

      Clearly you’re convinced Lawson is wrong. I’m not a climate scientist, but a data modelling professional My PhD was in analysing real world time series for Chaos. Over recent years several climate scientists have sent climate time series to me for analysis. I’m convinced from the results that climate is chaotic.
      In my view Nigel Lawson is wrong only in fighting the battle on the wrong terrain. If you read the ridiculous BBC judgement, you would have seen that one of the two grounds for banning Lord Lawson was that his views were in denial of the evidence from the climate models. Scientific opinion is based on these models too, so they form the key to the whole debate.
      If climate is chaotic, and I’ve measured a lyapunov exponent of around two bits per year, suggesting strongly that it is, then all models are inaccurate.
      This explains the failure of the models in predicting recent temperatures, and undermines the entire policy of mitigating climate change.

      • MostlyRight

        Could you do the world a favor and publish something showing this, peer reviewed by respected data analysts?

        • Andrew Edmonds

          There are interesting problems there. As I’m sure you’ve seen from the climategate emails there is no chance of publication in a climate journal. I’m not sure other journals would be brave enough either if you specifically said that the paper’s intent was to debunk global warming.

          One method would be, as you say, to publish in a data analysis/I journal,. The problem there would be that there is no publishable novelty – “Long term temperature series are chaotic” would attract no interest, because the technique has been already published in my PhD thesis and other papers.

          I have written about this on my blog, based on an article I wrote for What’s up.




    • The Masked Marvel

      There is a remit for the BBC to remain “impartial” on ideological and political issues. This is one of them, yet the BBC insist that “opponents of the consensus” do not merit further air time because the science is settled. Over the years, the BBC has developed a clever formula with which they gauge balanced reporting. They don’t have to do it in a single segment or report and have instead claimed that their metrics prove that they provide balance over the long term, over the course of several reports/segments. If one panel or interview is not balanced, they’ll do one down the line which is. So they claim. This doesn’t stop the BBC from hiring activists as journalists, of course.

      The key issue here is whether or not this is properly vetted science or ideology. If it’s the former, the BBC need not go through the motions of ensuring a balanced approach. So long as they can claim with impunity that it is, this situation will continue.

    • itdoesntaddup

      Astrology is not an opposite to cosmology, but since you raise the topic, cosmology benefitted greatly from the debate (at times acrimonious, it is true) between the “steady state” and “big bang” theorists. Climate studies could do with similar openness.

  • Peter Stroud

    The BBC has lost all credibility regarding unbiased reporting. No only has it stifled climate change debate, but it shows obvious bias in favour of Islam but against Israel. Similar bias is found against conservative views from any source. The Corporation is riding rough shod over its charter.

  • brossen99

    Ed Miliband’s dad knew that the RN was safe and perhaps its why David Miliband was one of the key promoters of Carbon taxes later rewarded by a fat cat job US CEO job and Ed introduced the 2008 Climate Change Act and the only way that the Tories could form the coalition with the Lib-Dems in 2010 was to give them DECC and appoint stock market celebrity Chris Huhne as minister who was later proven a fraud ?


    • Bobby Morton

      In the building trade we all love the new ‘air tightness test’ that has been thrust upon us by those above. The folks that subscribed to the Greenpeace newsletter at Uni in the eighties. Its to do with blowing air through an orifice and making sure nothing escapes. But of course there is a cost to be passed on to anyone looking to buy one of these thousands of new cheap houses we are supposed to be building. http://www.airtightness-testing.co.uk/air-tightness-testing-faqs Um- the price is a bit more than advertised.

      • Bobby Morton

        I’m hoping Booker wll take ths up- The government have now become bored with solar and are now giving crazy grants to heat pumps. Please look into it somebody. Everything I build now has to have an air to water heat pump.. I’m sure in ten years time they’ll choose something else. . Can one day,we have a decent stable government?

        • Bobby Morton

          I’m sorry if I appear bitter,old and twisted but I utterly loathe prevarication, uncertainty and basic stupidity. Please drop the ‘green crap’ Dave and start acting like somebody with some sort of idea about how to house four million people without harming the green and pleasant land that we all love. I.e. open up brownfield sites within urban environments.

      • “In the building trade we all love the new ‘air tightness test’ that has been thrust upon us by those above.”

        So I take it that ventilation are no longer neccesary?

  • john

    British intrinsic snobbery really ticks me off. Why is this old fart called “Lord”? He’s Nigel Lawson – let’s send titles down the memory hole.

    • Chris Morriss

      Why is Brian Hoskins a knight? I have looked into his “achievements” in the scientific community, and they’re very hard to find.

      • Bobby Morton

        Baroness Warsi- well done for qualifying as a solicitor. It helps if you tick a few boxes, speak with a northern accent and have Pakistani ‘heritage’

      • Jacky Treehorn

        How and why did that ugly little luvvie Tony Robinson become a Sir?
        There was a time when you had to do something to justify becoming a Knight.

    • pedestrianblogger


    • Bobby Morton

      donkey fool

    • Tangential to the issue. Stay on topic.

    • Joe Hawkins

      Well said. It just gives some spurious respectability to failed politicians.

  • The Masked Marvel

    This was inevitable once the BBC held that secretive seminar to direct the infusion of Warmist propaganda into all BBC programming. What is now known as “28-Gate”, arranged by Roger Harrabin, an activist posing as a journalist, featured no real scientists (contrary to the dishonest protestations by the BBC), but did feature other activists telling top BBC staff how to maintain the correct Narrative throughout the spectrum of BBC broadcasting. Not only were news and current affairs folks present, but the heads of Comedy and Light Entertainment were there to learn how to work the propaganda into their own programming.

    But the BBC and their defenders still claim that the Corporation is too big and disorganised for there to be any top-down directives. Yet clearly there is this one, at least. The BBC cannot be trusted.

    This is a religion, and we are witnessing the clergy attempting to ban heresy.

  • Terry Field

    You have a high concentration of madmen in the columns today, I see.

    • goldminor

      I noticed that immediately, myself. I will go call the proper authorities. You stay here. I’ll be back.

    • Meekrob

      I know! All these idiots running around screaming that the sky is falling…

      That’s what you meant, right?

    • “You have a high concentration of madmen in the columns today, I see.”

      Not to mention among the commenters…

  • Bobby Morton
  • NikFromNYC

    The BBC and Obama administration are deathly afraid that one of the skeptics will in public inform the public about the lack of blade in the input data of the latest hockey stick:


  • Samurai

    What’s hilarious is that the CAGW hypothesis will be laughed at in 5 years.

    There hasn’t been any global warming trend for over 18 years and falling global temp trends since the end of 2000.

    The IPCC admitted in their AR5 report that severe weather (hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc.,) haven’t increased in 50~100 years…

    The empirical evidence suggests we’ll get about 0.5C of CO2 induced warming by 2100, which isn’t a problem.

    The BBC’s censorship merely shows CAGW advocates are getting very desperate and petty.

    • “The empirical evidence suggests we’ll get about 0.5C of CO2 induced warming by 2100, which isn’t a problem.”

      Now you’re being ignorant and careless! Think of the catastrophic 6.13 cm of mean sea level rise that MAY lead to…

      • Samurai

        Birger– LOL! I know… It’s getting hysterical at this point.

        Two recent papers on Sea Level Rise (SLR) Javrejeva et al 2014, and Cazenave et al 2014, show that the rate of SLR has dropped 30% since 2000, and the SLR has been stuck at 7 inches PER CENTURY….

        Such a trivial amount of SLR is not quite the 5 METERS by 2100 of SLR Dr. Hansen was predicting a few years ago…

        Like I said, CAGW will be laughed into obscurity in 5 years:


        Epic FAIL!

  • jg collins

    For those of you who thought Trofim Lysenko had died, I can assure you he is alive and well and in full possession of the BBC.

  • Stephen Skinner

    Those who are sceptical of CAGW understand there is a lot of money and careers riding on the promotion of this subject. Adding in the powerful emotions that have been whipped up over all the ‘injustices’ that will be caused then it is to be expected that any scepticism is a major threat. Compare a recent documentary on Lance Armstrong and his aggressive reactions to any questions about his integrity. However, I do believe many people have genuinely good intentions and don’t want to be irresponsible etc. but if we don’t dig into the data and information then good intentions are superficial and we know where that leads.

  • mjmwhite

    A Harley biker is visiting Taronga Park Zoo, Sydney, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lions’ cage.

    Suddenly, a lion grabs her by the jacket and tries to pull her inside, in full view of her terrified, screaming parents.

    The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

    Whimpering, the lion releases the girl and recoils, and the biker
    returns her to her terrified parents who thank him again and again.

    A reporter has watched the whole event. Addressing the Harley rider,
    he says: “Sir, that was the bravest thing I’ve seen a man do in all my

    The Harley rider replies, “Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was
    behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and did the right

    The reporter says, “Well, I’ll make sure it won’t go unnoticed. I’m a
    journalist, and tomorrow’s paper will have this story on the front
    page. So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do
    you have?”

    The biker replies, “I’m an SAS soldier just returned from Afghanistan and I’m against the political global warming nonsense.”

    The journalist takes his leave.

    The following morning the biker buys the paper to see news of his actions, and reads on the front page:

    SAS soldier assaults African immigrant and steals his lunch

    • JMH_54

      You summed up the PC-controlled media perfectly with this hilarious joke. Great job, mjmwhite!

    • “The following morning the biker buys the paper to see news of his actions, and reads on the front page:

      SAS soldier assaults African immigrant and steals his lunch”


      Gun-crazy MC-driver & climate change denier touches underage girl in front of her parents AND assaults African immigrant and steals his lunch in broad daylight.

  • “The unknown individuals who leaked the emails can only dream of the hero
    worship afforded to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange; attitudes on the
    left towards release of information seem to swing dramatically
    depending on what information is being released.”

    – This is a fair point, but it cuts both ways. I’ve encountered just as many fellow right-leaning people who extol the virtues of the climategate leaker/hacker whilst on the other hand being actively hostile to snowden, assange et al.

    • AlecM

      Climategate was an indie job by someone appalled at the takeover of non-political science by fascists**

      **Fascism always emerges from left-wing ideology.

      • Meekrob

        Collectivism is collectivism, no matter what it’s called.

    • edbarbar

      Nice try. However, they aren’t the same thing. In one case classified documents were stolen. In the other, I suspect most if not all should have been accessible by freedom of information act requests. Those emails are in fact owned by the public.

  • BarkingAtTreehuggers

    Listen, denier loons – we are sick and tired of debating this stuff.
    We know what this is all REALLY about.

    Prove that renewable technology is useless.
    Prove it doesn’t work.
    Link to data that shows that renewables cannot generate energy to any meaningful level – I will do the opposite until you do.


    Your fatuous ‘debate’ about whether to call all this ‘climate change’ or ‘AGW’ or a ‘race to energy independence’ is none of our concern. It bores the living daylight out of clear thinkers.

    • edbarbar

      Stop debating. Nothing you say or anyone else says is going to change CO2 concentrations in any meaningful way, so sit back and watch the real science experiment unfold.

      • BarkingAtTreehuggers

        I didn’t realise I highlighted a CO2 issue here.
        What did I highlight?

        • Nick

          CO2 is the reason for the debate.

          You don’t even understand your own logic.

          If it weren’t for CO2, there would be no good economic reason to push solar etc. Its not “useless”. Its economics are poor. And it would be ferociously expensive to replace our current system with solar (which will then become “useless” in 30-40 years and will have to be replaced again).

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            The economics are most emphatically NOT poor.
            We raise house prices for uninsulated shacks to yet unseen levels making them unaffordable for the next generation of owner-occupiers, and that is somehow right – yet raising the energy generation game, producing more electricity at home than from any other imported fuel source (see link above) and paying good money for it (subject to what can be afforded) is somehow not?
            You make no economic sense whatsoever!

            The CARBON footprint was always the issue in the debate, not a ‘CO2 footprint’. The latter term does not even exist.

        • edbarbar

          You said “Deniers.” Express, clearly, what “Deniers” are denying?

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            They are denying in endless and meaningless debate about whether to call it ‘AGW’ or ‘climate change’ the fact that this has always been about increasing indigenous supply/ reducing indigenous demand for foreign imports.


          • edbarbar

            OK, I understand now how you use the term, which is the real issue is energy independence for the UK. I don’t think that definition is in popular use.

            So how do you square the round edge the UK imports PV cells from China, and that many UK solar manufacturers are bankrupt? I don’t see how that leads to energy independence.

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            Britain must come up with a concept of how to not just be a consumer. Other nations are consumers. Come on – try harder.

          • edbarbar

            Try harder to do what? I’m trying to understand your contorted logic and how you come back to solar is the only solution.

            How about nuclear. Is nuclear OK in your world?

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            You are playing stupid now – a Carbon footprint reduction is not only achieved by renewables generation. It is also achieved by increasing the efficiencies of the fossil fuel fuelling.

    • jakee308

      Warmists have never debated at all. It’s all been falsified/incomplete data bolstering changing models all the while refusing to show your means and methods.

      So far every prediction by the warmists has proven to be wrong.

      Yet they demand the debate end and no further discussion allowed.

      Yes, that’s the scientific method. In Soviet Russia maybe.

    • “We know what this” etc.

      Who are “We”? Would you care to inform us about “what this is all REALLY about”?

      “Prove that renewable technology” etc.

      That’s not neccesary. As far as I know, noone have stated that renewable technology “is useless”, “doesn’t work” and “cannot generate energy to any meaningful level”.

      • BarkingAtTreehuggers

        I don’t debate with people who are so insanely self-obsessed to vote for their own comment.

        • “I don’t debate with people” etc.

          Translated: “I don’t know what the heck I’m talking about.”

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            translated: FAQ you, mate
            now stop trolling me you eejjit

          • “now stop trolling me”

            I can’t. I haven’t even started…

  • Oliver_K_Manuel

    Can we discuss sudden changes in nuclear and stellar physics after WWII?

    I do not know that Joseph Stalin was involved, but there is no doubt that academic textbooks of stellar and nuclear physics were immediately falsified after WWII:

    1. The internal compositions of stars were mostly iron (Fe) in 1945; They all became mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946.

    2. Albert Einstein’s and Francis Aston’s valid equations for nuclear stability were replaced with Carl von Weizsacker’s invalid nuclear binding energy equation, that exaggerates proton-proton repulsion and hides neutron-neutron repulsion, the powerful source of energy that . . .

    Powers the whole cosmos from cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars, galaxies and the ever expanding universe!

    I do not know that Stalin himself was involved in the strange coincidence.

  • jakee308

    The main problem (or source of greed) is that all the damage happens decades from now (maybe) but all the money is spent today.

    That’s too tempting a target for the pols and other pigs at the FedGov trough.

    That plus the climate models used have been unable to accurately predict the weather that is already known to occur. The variables are too many and the interactions chaotic.

    We need better data, better models and better computers before we spend trillions and condemn millions of lives to poverty, sickness and death.

    As to renewables, wind power won’t work as wind is too fickle and the equipment too fragile, Solar is too expensive and again clouds result in on again off again availability.

    Interestingly, Nuclear, gas turbine and Hydro electric are too be considered off the table for the discussion by the greens.

    It’s like being handcuffed and then told to fight fair against an octopus.

    • “but all the money is spent today.”

      In many cases lent and spent…

      “We need better data, better models and better computers”

      We can probably find/invent all that, but when it comes to better politicians…

  • Nick

    Liberal Fascism

    I’m sorry to see the British at the forefront, with our sorry country gaining fast.

    • “Liberal Fascism”

      Not to mention Anarcho-Tyranny.

      “with our sorry country gaining fast”

      Which country is that?

  • Smarty-pompey

    Wonder if this helps to show how BBC feel
    Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

    The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

  • theBuckWheat

    Climate change is very real. For example, the average climate of the northern hemisphere is so cold as to cause the ground to be buried under a thousand feet of ice. The cycle of glacier on/glacier off takes place every several hundred thousand years and can be clearly seen in many ways. Even as the science is settled that glaciation has taken place, the causes are still undergoing vigorous debate.

    With respect to the idea that humans are causing harmful changes to the climate at this very moment, I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that proposes what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current climate and trend in relation to this finding.

    That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that climate is being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science coincidently converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”. It is statist Gaia worship.

    • “I am waiting for some peer-reviewed papers that proposes what the optimum climate is for our biosphere.”

      Good comment. I’ve wondered about the same thing for several years. To me it seems like the climate ought to become as cold, dry and invariable as possible…

  • Kevin Roche

    Perhaps it’s me but the impression I got from the Nigel Lawson decision was that the BBC are bowing (belatedly) to pressure to actually abide by the “balanced debate” rules and give air-time, and disclaimers, commensurate to the weight of the climate change argument. On that basis Nigel Lawson’s weird views are an insignificant droplet in the every-rising ocean of opinion in favour of anthropocentric causes of climate change. Whether Nigel Lawson is correct with regard to the economic damage of meeting climate change legislation is, I agree, entirely up for debate, but this is not what the BBC judgement is about; it is about the scientific evidence, on which basis climate change deniers should get < 1% of air-time.
    By the way your somewhat pathetic/desperate attempt at cherry-picking MMR and cold-fusion as examples of the failure of the scientific method fall a little flat as both of these were ultimately debunked via the application of – wait for it… yes, you got it – the scientific method. What both examples are good at however; is demonstrating the failure of the media to discriminate or deliver a balanced argument – oh! a bit like climate change.

    • Weird? Lawson, like most skeptics, believes that CO2 has helped to heat the planet, but only a small amount. There is no evidence of increased extreme weather events associated with increased CO2, and despite one quarter of the CO2 that has entered the atmosphere in human times, global temperature has stubbornly refused to increase for nearly 18 years. Almost all of the IPCC models a) failed to project this and b) grossly over estimate the temperature. What is truly weird is that climate “science” treats the output of computer models as having more importance than real world data. How does that work eh?


      • Kevin Roche

        Hmm! A typical response in the style of young-earth creationists’ “we don’t see organisms changing from one thing to another so evolution must be bunkem”.
        Don’t know whether you’re aware but scientists have used modelling to make predictions at least as far back as Copernicus, it’s kind of an essential tool – perhaps you think Copernicus’ heliocentric solar sytem was, and maybe is still, a debatable phenomenon?
        You trust computers to handle everything from personal communications, to your banking transactions, to running your car and medical equipment, but question, as if impossible, their ability to assist in accurate modelling of possible future climates – I sense a serious case of wilful blindness.

        • Stephen Skinner

          “You trust computers to handle everything from personal communications, to your banking transactions, to running your car and medical equipment, but question, as if impossible, their ability to assist in accurate modelling of possible future climates”
          Er, yes, that’s about right. Incidentally computers handling personal comms; banking transactions; cars etc. are not models but programmes with tested outcomes. I don’t trust they will work but expect they have been tested and proved to work. Anyway, the financial models that were at the heart of the recent economic collapse were trusted without any empirical evidence that all would be well.

          Out of interest I know of an airline pilot that wouldn’t trust his on board navigation computer until he had made his own calculations and then checked to see if the computer agreed with him. If it did he went with the computer. Pilots are expected to have a level of scepticism of the equipment at their disposal. That way they know when something is not working.

          • Kevin Roche

            So as well as not understanding what a model is you also know very little about computers – “[I] expect that they have been tested and _proved_ to work.” – I think you might have a deal of trouble “proving” any but the most trivial computer program.
            Thanks for the info about pilots by the way; I’m not surprised we have so many flight delays if every pilot is hand calculating the results of the aircrafts computer systems.

        • Stephen Skinner

          Pot, Kettle, Black

  • AlecM

    Recently, I presented evidence of unprecedented snowfall below 6000 ft in the Swiss Alps: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/11/in-switzerland-thing-of-the-past-becomes-a-thing-of-july-more-weather-that-isnt-supposed-to-happen/

    ‘public SRF Swiss Radio reports here that mountain excursions and tours are being cancelled due to the cold and snowy weather, thus delaying the start of the season.’

    Today, we have news of unprecedented snowfall at low level near Sverdlovsk: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/14/polar-vortices-everywhere-central-russia-hit-by-mid-summer-freak-abnormal-snowstorm-snowdrifts/

    ‘Snowdrifts piled up on the roads of Russia’s Ural region on Saturday as an abnormal summer snowstorm hit the region, bringing the area into the spotlight once again after last year’s meteorite fall. Siberia also witnessed a downpour of giant hailstones.’

    My view is that we’re heading into a new Little Ice Age.

  • The banality of the BBC’s stance on CAGW is demonstrated by the sheer stupidity of their Head of Complaints, one Fraser Steel, talking about “evidence from models”. God help us. Models do not produce evidence, they produce projections base on what is input into them. If that’s how the BBC handles science, forget about it. Truly pathetic.

    • Kevin Roche

      I think you’ll find that’s how scientists handle science – it’s called modelling. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton etc. all resorted to the pesky useless scientific process. Well, it was a laugh and they had nothing else to do:
      “Look at this” said Copernicus one day, “I’ve made this stupid model with the Sun at the at the centre”. Ha ha ha he laughed, ho ho ho guffawed his mates…wait a minute.

      • Stephen Skinner

        I think you’ll find that any ‘model’ Copernicus made was a representation of what he had observed and measured. No model is any value unless it is validated by reality. And I don’t think we should confuse demonstrations with models such as Newtons demonstration of the spectrum. Incidentally Boeing had a model for how the Dreamliner wing would work when under extreme load. When an actual real life wing was tested it broke and the model had to be changed. Inmarsat in their search for MH370 used models but they had to be verified against reality.

        • Kevin Roche

          I think you need to go away and find out what a model is.

      • Jeremy Poynton

        And your point is? There is no comparison between a recreation of a physical object/s and attempting to model the climate. For example, the latter fails do deal with how clouds are created and behave, how ocean currents behave and interact, or indeed, solar activity. Their failure to do so is exemplified by the fact that almost of of the over 100 models the IPCC use have wildly over-exaggerated temperature rises, and ALL of the failed to predict the standstill in temperatures of nearly 18 years. Nor, hindcasting, do they predict either of the MWP or LIA.

        In short – they are useless. Yet climate science is now based on the output of the useless models rather than on real world observation of data. No longer science, it is in reality a faith-based system.

        • Jeremy Poynton

          BTW, here’s a graph of the models output v real world temperature readings.


          • Kevin Roche

            If the “research” of Dr Roy Spencer – well known climate change sceptic with a publicly acknowledged politically motivated purpose – then I don’t think the IPCC has too much to worry about (or rather they do, as do we all). The graph you point to on his website has long been known to be produced from cherry-picked and uncorrected satellite data and the actual measurements do show tropospheric warming in line with the predictions of the models.
            Anyway, this article and comment section is about a general trend in the media to give unqualified and disproportionate air-time to any old maveric with an oppositional point of view, and I for one believe the BBC is (finally) attempting to meet their own “balanced-debate” rules by limiting and qualifying the opinions of some curmudgeonly old tory. Well done BBC although feel free to give as much air-time as you like to Nigella.

          • Jeremy Poynton

            Jesus. It’s not research – it’s a graph plotted using the output from the IPCC models and real world data, which shows how useless the models are, as their projections nowhere near match reality. Why do you twist things? And CAGW is politics not science, FFS, which is why governments have seized on it.

          • Jeremy Poynton

            And Lawson said nothing that was not in AR5.

          • Kevin Roche

            What’s the point in trawling the web for cherry-picked information that happens to match what you want to be true? The fact is that, despite all the stuff you’ve trawled for, the vast majority of climate scientists still believe we’re facing a dramatic global warming period, and that some of that is anthropogenic.
            And you can argue about the rate, or the forecast maximum, or the exact time, and how much for the projected melting of the Antarctic ice cap, and so on, and so on; but, what you can’t do is argue that it is happening. (you probably will anyway)
            Personally, I’m not convinced that there is any point whatsoever in imposing legislation to tackle it – although it’s probably worth making the obvious comparison with CFC legislation which was extremely effective – we after all need increasingly more energy and all the legislation so far imposed has had zero effect on that growth, or on the growth of green-house gases.
            Of course there are plenty of reasons to be (put your fingers in your ears and sing loudly all you oil-industry whores) investigating carbonless energy production – not least energy security – but hey, there’s nothing like short-termism to keep the tub-thumpers thumping away is there Jeremy?

          • Jeremy Poynton

            You might care to read this article as well, on how peer review is no longer working.

          • Jeremy Poynton
          • Stephen Skinner

            “The graph you point to on his website has long been known to be produced from cherry-picked and uncorrected satellite data and the actual measurements do show tropospheric warming in line with the predictions of the models.”

            How can something be cherry-picked and uncorrected satellite data? Actual measurements are uncorrected or are saying that corrected is actual? Please define.
            The graph that Jeremy has kindly gone to the trouble of sharing with you is a composite of the various climate model projections which I’m sure you will agree is not either evidence or actual data and the green and blue lines at the bottom are actual temps (data/evidence). All freely available. Please provide the data that you have that show actual temps in line with the ‘models’? I’m sure Copernicus had data to back up and prove his models?

        • Jeremy Poynton


          “An article in the June 13, 2014, issue of Science admits the computer climate models are not effective at forecasting either future or past temperatures. TheScience piece says the current models are “bloated with data,” but still cannot represent such huge variables as clouds and shifts in ocean currents. Statisticians are recommending a re-start.

          At the same time, new studies are revealing that the sun has an even bigger role in climate than the current climate models understand.”

          There ya go. They don’t work. They never have worked. Indeed, if they ever get anywhere near forecasting what the ultimate in non-linear chaotic systems will do in the future, it will be a miracle.

  • Jeremy Poynton

    Here ya go, Kevin

    More on just how poor the models are. Remember, these models are being used to implement policies which harm the poor and those in the Third World, by denying them access to cheap energy. Are you happy to support such policies?


    “A important paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that a central IPCC assumption is false: climate models can not be considered to be independent and that ensemble means of models can not be used to quantify uncertainty of climate change. In essence, the models themselves exhibit confirmation bias and are largely based upon the same underlying true or false assumptions.
    Reliance by the IPCC upon this false assumption of model independence leads to “results [that] will be overconfident and may be treated as more precise than they really are,” such as the increase of IPCC confidence in anthropogenic global warming despite global cooling over the past three assessment reports, and IPCC model ensembles which exaggerate warming by a factor of 3-5 times.”



    ie. useless.

    • Kevin Roche

      Erm yeah! I’m impressed. (Can you do eye-rolling graphics on here; anyone know?)

  • ilPugliese

    This story with all its “fantasies” seems to run and run (roll on Leveson). This is what the BBC actually said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaint/lawsontoday.