BBC In Cahoots With Climategate Scientists

[SAT2]

Yes they did. They died out when it got cold.

Yes, and we aren't dinosaurs. You're not looking at this from the perspective of human life.

Actually I am. The Roman Warming Period was at least 5 degrees warmer then the current era and mankind thrived. Hell all growing things thrived. Then came the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and mankind did very poorly indeed, they're not called the Dark Ages for nothing.

Then the Medieval Warming Period came along and gifted us once again with prosperity that ended up with the Renaissance and the bursting forth of culture.

No my friend, if you bother to look in the history books you will see that whenever it has ben warmer mankind has done very, very well. Cold, not so good.

But that's history for you. You folks need to read a hell of a lot more of it!

It's great for bugs, too. I'm certainly looking forward to more time with ticks.

U.S. cities face water-related climate change dangers: study | Reuters

 

[Old Rocks]

When it comes to the climate I figure time will tell who was right and who was wrong but by then we will be dead and so there is no downside to attacking science or fossil fuel consumption for us but our children will pay the price for inaction and they will likely hate us for it. The climate is changing, peak oil is here and we are spending our time making damned sure that it is future generations who will suffer for our sins rather than ourselves.

When has the climate not changed? I go back through the paleoclimate record and I see nothing but change. Our children will surely hate us if we continue to squander our wealth in pursuit of the fraud known as AGW. Well over 100 billion dollars have been pissed down a rathole with nothing to show for it. Not one thing. Just imagine what that 100 billion could have bought were it used intelligently.

Warming is good for the planet. No matter where you look in the paleo record when it was warm it was great. When its been cold misery, pestilence, and death have ruled supreme.

The alarmists are constantly trying to frighten the savages with their predictions of doom and gloom and yet, once again, looking back in the paleo record when it has been warmer then the current time none of the runaway catastrophes claimed by the alarmists has ever occured.

On the other hand, we just had a asteroid the size of an aircraft carrier pass between Earth and the Moon. A couple hundred thousand miles closer and civilisation would end.
That's it, game over. You clowns wail and gnash your teeth over a non crises like AGW and our children can very well be the last to enjoy our level of civilisation due to your lack of care for that which can truly end us.

A total lie. Many times in the paleontological record, rapid warming has created major extinction events.

Extinction and Climate « ClimateSight

However, life on Earth has been through worse than this apocalyptic scenario. The
largest extinction in the Earth’s history, the Permian-Triassic extinction, occurred about 250 million years ago, right before the time of the dinosaurs. Up to 95% of all species on Earth were killed in this event, and life in the oceans was particularly hard-hit. It took 100 million years for the remaining species to recover from this extinction, nicknamed “The Great Dying”, and we are very lucky that life recovered at all.

So what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction? After the discovery of the K-T crater, many scientists assumed that impact events were a prerequisite for extinctions, but that probably isn’t the case. We can’t rule out the possibility that an asteroid aggravated existing conditions at the end of the Permian period. However, over the past few years, scientists have pieced together a plausible explanation for the Great Dying. It points to a trigger that is quite disturbing, given our current situation – global warming from greenhouse gases.

In the late Permian, a huge expanse of active volcanoes existed in what is now Siberia. They covered 4 million square kilometres, which is fifteen times the area of modern-day Britain (White, 2002). Over the years, these volcanoes pumped out massive quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the average temperature of the planet. However, as the warming continued, a positive feedback kicked in: ice and permafrost melted, releasing methane that was previously safely frozen in. Methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – over 100 years, it traps approximately 21 times more heat per molecule (IPCC AR4). Consequently, the warming became much more severe.

 

[Old Rocks]

BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows | Mail Online

Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

Like the first ‘Climategate’ leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source.

Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.


More...

Cameron's green guru reveals his doubts over global warming

BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated - none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal

The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated - none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal

The document says the policy was decided after ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ – including those from UEA.

The ‘Climategate 2’ emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.

For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporation’s ‘environment analyst’, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV.

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that in 1996, he and his friend, Professor Joe Smith of the Open University, set up an informal two-man band to organise environment seminars for BBC executives.

Known as the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP), it operated until 2009, and over three years (2002 to 2005) received £15,000 from the Tyndall Centre. Mr Harrabin did not derive personal financial benefit, although Prof Smith was paid.

Yesterday Mike Hulme, UEA’s Professor of Climate Change, who set up the centre in 2000 and was its director until 2007, said he planned to fund CMEP from Tyndall’s outset, as an ‘integral part of our outreach and communication strategy’.

Mr Harrabin was also appointed to the Tyndall advisory board – an unpaid position he held for five years until 2005.

The Climategate 2 emails suggest Prof Hulme expected something in return – the slanting of BBC coverage to exclude global warming sceptics.

On February 25, 2002, the climate change sceptic Philip Stott, a London University professor, debated the subject with John Houghton of the Met Office on the Today programme.

This prompted an angry email to colleagues from Prof Hulme. ‘Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4, this morning?’ he wrote.

‘Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, to starve this type of reporting at source.’

Last night Prof Hulme denied he was trying to deny space to sceptics, saying: ‘What I wanted to “starve” at source was “this type of reporting” – in which the important and complex issues raised by climate change are reduced to an argument between two voices representing different positions on climate science, as though there is one right and one wrong answer to climate change.’
Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, appears before the Science and Technology Committee after the last dump of leaked climate-change emails

Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, appears before the Science and Technology Committee after the last dump of leaked climate-change emails

Far from wanting to narrow it, he said, he had tried to widen debate about the issue for years.

This was not the only time there was talk of sceptics being shut out. On December 7, 2004, the BBC’s then-environment correspondent Alex Kirby wrote to Prof Jones.

He had, he said, succeeded in blocking one sceptic from the BBC, claiming his work was ‘pure stream of consciousness rubbish’. But to his regret, he had been unable to stop a group of scientists who said there were flaws in the hockey-stick graph being featured.

‘I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece,’ he wrote.

‘But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all... and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.’
NASA thermal satellite image showing the world's arctic surface temperature trends: Today's emails appear to show scientists interested in painting a particular picture of such trends - but the information is not new

Prof Jones commented: ‘I thought you exercised some caution with crackpots.’

Mr Kirby replied: ‘Oh Phil, what can I say...I hope you’ll still talk to me despite this.’

Yesterday Mr Kirby explained his joke, saying that editors often asked him to include sceptic views in his stories, in order to provide balance.

‘I felt then and I feel now that it’s not our job to inject artificial balance into an unbalanced reality,’ he said.

He believed scientists such as Prof Jones had got the subject ‘mainly right’, while those who rejected their conclusions were often not worth hearing.

In November 2008, in an email to his UEA colleague Claire Reeves, Prof Jones expressed his satisfaction that ‘the reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, ie the counter argument is rarely made’.

But alas, there was ‘still a vociferous and small majority [sic] of climate change sceptics... who engage the public/govt/media through web sites’.

He suggested UEA should set up a project to curb their influence, writing: ‘Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists? Should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations?’

Mr Harrabin shared his UEA contacts throughout the BBC.

For example, in October 2003 Vicki Barker, a presenter on the World Service, wrote asking to visit Prof Hulme, saying: ‘My colleague Roger Harrabin suggested I contact you. I am about to spend several months attempting to answer the following question for senior BBC managers: If we were to reinvent economics coverage from scratch, TODAY, incorporating what we now know (or think we know) about global environmental and economic trends, what would it look like?’

She said she had noticed ‘environmental undertow’ that was ‘beginning to tug at economies around the world... I have wondered if current newsgathering practices and priorities are conveying these phenomena as effectively as they could be. Is this a question you and some of your colleagues feel like pondering?’

The same year, BBC1 broadcast a series on the British countryside presented by Alan Titchmarsh. The last programme presented a deeply pessimistic view of future global warming and before it was transmitted its producer, Dan Tapster, asked Prof Hulme to vet the script.

‘I’d be grateful if you could send me your hourly/daily rate as a script consultant so that I can budget your time,’ he wrote. Prof Hulme said he remembered going through the script, adding that he was not being paid, and was ‘certainly not an official adviser’.

Mr Harrabin knew that if he was seen to be too closely associated with green campaigners – in earlier years CMEP had accepted funding from activist organisation WWF – the impartiality he was supposed to demonstrate as a BBC reporter could be jeopardised.

In July 2004, in an email to Prof Hulme that asked him to continue funding CMEP seminars, Prof Smith explained: ‘The only change I anticipate is that we won’t be asking WWF to support the seminars: Roger particularly feels the association could be compromising to the “neutral” reputation should anyone look at it closely.’

Prof Smith told Prof Hulme that the seminars’ purpose was to influence BBC output.

He spoke of finding ways of getting environmental issues into ‘mainstream’ stories ‘by stealth’, adding: ‘It’s very important in my view that research feeds directly back into decision-maker conversations (policy and above all media). I hope and think that the seminars have laid the ground for this within the BBC... There is senior BBC buy in-for the approach I want to pursue.’

Yesterday he said he had always ensured there was a range of views at the seminar, while by using the phrase ‘by stealth’ he simply meant that ‘sustainability stories are elements of mainstream stories, but the complexity and uncertainty inherent in them make them difficult to report in isolation’.

In September 2001, another email reveals, Mr Harrabin and Prof Smith wrote to Prof Hulme, asking what the BBC should do to mark a climate summit the following year.

They said his suggestions would be ‘circulated among relevant BBC decision-makers’, while instead of confining himself to news and current affairs, he should also feel free to recommend ideas for ‘drama, music, game shows’.

Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporation’s relationship with UEA. ‘The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC,’ Mr Stringer said.

Conservative MP David Davis said: ‘Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBC’s professed impartiality... its actions must be investigated.’

But the BBC insisted its relationship with UEA had never been ‘unhealthily close’, saying it was always impartial. A BBC spokesman said: ‘We would reject the claim that the Tyndall Centre influenced BBC editorial policy.’

As for Mr Harrabin’s place on the Tyndall board and the advice he gave, he said: ‘The idea was for him to look out for potential stories for the BBC and to offer academics a media perspective on climate change and policy. We do not believe that com-promised impartiality.’

Mr Harrabin added: ‘It was right that the BBC decided not to give sceptics parity on climate change,’ saying there was a ‘cross-party consensus.’ But he said he had maintained they should still be given some air time.

Prof Jones was not available for comment last night.

Read more: BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows | Mail Online

We always get the stupedest people on the board posting dumb crap like this.

So AGW is a cospiracy. A conspiracy involving every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on Earth. All of them, in spite of the differances in Nationalities and political philosophies.

Man, that is one collosal conspiracy. Involves the glaciers, ice caps, and the satellites recording the activity on the sun and the temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere also.

Need more aluminum foil for your hats, Pattycake?

 

[ba1614]

When it comes to the climate I figure time will tell who was right and who was wrong but by then we will be dead and so there is no downside to attacking science or fossil fuel consumption for us but our children will pay the price for inaction and they will likely hate us for it. The climate is changing, peak oil is here and we are spending our time making damned sure that it is future generations who will suffer for our sins rather than ourselves.

When has the climate not changed? I go back through the paleoclimate record and I see nothing but change. Our children will surely hate us if we continue to squander our wealth in pursuit of the fraud known as AGW. Well over 100 billion dollars have been pissed down a rathole with nothing to show for it. Not one thing. Just imagine what that 100 billion could have bought were it used intelligently.

Warming is good for the planet. No matter where you look in the paleo record when it was warm it was great. When its been cold misery, pestilence, and death have ruled supreme.

The alarmists are constantly trying to frighten the savages with their predictions of doom and gloom and yet, once again, looking back in the paleo record when it has been warmer then the current time none of the runaway catastrophes claimed by the alarmists has ever occured.

On the other hand, we just had a asteroid the size of an aircraft carrier pass between Earth and the Moon. A couple hundred thousand miles closer and civilisation would end.
That's it, game over. You clowns wail and gnash your teeth over a non crises like AGW and our children can very well be the last to enjoy our level of civilisation due to your lack of care for that which can truly end us.

A total lie. Many times in the paleontological record, rapid warming has created major extinction events.

Extinction and Climate « ClimateSight

However, life on Earth has been through worse than this apocalyptic scenario. The
largest extinction in the Earth’s history, the Permian-Triassic extinction, occurred about 250 million years ago, right before the time of the dinosaurs. Up to 95% of all species on Earth were killed in this event, and life in the oceans was particularly hard-hit. It took 100 million years for the remaining species to recover from this extinction, nicknamed “The Great Dying”, and we are very lucky that life recovered at all.

So what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction? After the discovery of the K-T crater, many scientists assumed that impact events were a prerequisite for extinctions, but that probably isn’t the case. We can’t rule out the possibility that an asteroid aggravated existing conditions at the end of the Permian period. However, over the past few years, scientists have pieced together a plausible explanation for the Great Dying. It points to a trigger that is quite disturbing, given our current situation – global warming from greenhouse gases.

In the late Permian, a huge expanse of active volcanoes existed in what is now Siberia. They covered 4 million square kilometres, which is fifteen times the area of modern-day Britain (White, 2002). Over the years, these volcanoes pumped out massive quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the average temperature of the planet. However, as the warming continued, a positive feedback kicked in: ice and permafrost melted, releasing methane that was previously safely frozen in. Methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – over 100 years, it traps approximately 21 times more heat per molecule (IPCC AR4). Consequently, the warming became much more severe.

Must've been all the dinosaur shit and burps that done it, greedy fuckers just wouldn't quit eating so much. If we only had the tree huggers around to tax the habits of dinosaur shitting and burping it could've been prevented.

 

[Old Rocks]

How long before a Global Cooling cult pops up? Stay tuned.

Well, when someone can show 95% of the glaciers in the world expanding and thickening. When the ice starts increasing area in the Arctic Ocean in the summer instead of radical decreases. When we see average temperatures worldwide cooling, then we can consider that.

But as long as the temperatures are rapidly warming, the cryosphere is rapidly shrinking, and every decade sees more heat records set, and is overall warmer than the last decade, it is easy to see that we are rapidly warming.

Easy for all except those deliberatly blind to reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

When has the climate not changed? I go back through the paleoclimate record and I see nothing but change. Our children will surely hate us if we continue to squander our wealth in pursuit of the fraud known as AGW. Well over 100 billion dollars have been pissed down a rathole with nothing to show for it. Not one thing. Just imagine what that 100 billion could have bought were it used intelligently.

Warming is good for the planet. No matter where you look in the paleo record when it was warm it was great. When its been cold misery, pestilence, and death have ruled supreme.

The alarmists are constantly trying to frighten the savages with their predictions of doom and gloom and yet, once again, looking back in the paleo record when it has been warmer then the current time none of the runaway catastrophes claimed by the alarmists has ever occured.

On the other hand, we just had a asteroid the size of an aircraft carrier pass between Earth and the Moon. A couple hundred thousand miles closer and civilisation would end.
That's it, game over. You clowns wail and gnash your teeth over a non crises like AGW and our children can very well be the last to enjoy our level of civilisation due to your lack of care for that which can truly end us.

A total lie. Many times in the paleontological record, rapid warming has created major extinction events.

Extinction and Climate « ClimateSight

However, life on Earth has been through worse than this apocalyptic scenario. The
largest extinction in the Earth’s history, the Permian-Triassic extinction, occurred about 250 million years ago, right before the time of the dinosaurs. Up to 95% of all species on Earth were killed in this event, and life in the oceans was particularly hard-hit. It took 100 million years for the remaining species to recover from this extinction, nicknamed “The Great Dying”, and we are very lucky that life recovered at all.

So what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction? After the discovery of the K-T crater, many scientists assumed that impact events were a prerequisite for extinctions, but that probably isn’t the case. We can’t rule out the possibility that an asteroid aggravated existing conditions at the end of the Permian period. However, over the past few years, scientists have pieced together a plausible explanation for the Great Dying. It points to a trigger that is quite disturbing, given our current situation – global warming from greenhouse gases.

In the late Permian, a huge expanse of active volcanoes existed in what is now Siberia. They covered 4 million square kilometres, which is fifteen times the area of modern-day Britain (White, 2002). Over the years, these volcanoes pumped out massive quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the average temperature of the planet. However, as the warming continued, a positive feedback kicked in: ice and permafrost melted, releasing methane that was previously safely frozen in. Methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – over 100 years, it traps approximately 21 times more heat per molecule (IPCC AR4). Consequently, the warming became much more severe.

Must've been all the dinosaur shit and burps that done it, greedy fuckers just wouldn't quit eating so much. If we only had the tree huggers around to tax the habits of dinosaur shitting and burping it could've been prevented.

Such an intelligent and educational reply. Ever consider finishing the third grade, dumb ass?

One has to wonder what inspires our 'Conservatives' to expose the depths of their knowledge in this manner? Pride in willfull ignorance?

 

[francoHFW]

Everyone but bought off Pubs and of course brainwashed dupes know this is crappe now. The "Mail" is a POS RW rag and only the GOP is against global warming IN THE WORLD. Greedy morons...

 

[francoHFW]

Leading US sceptic sets out to proove Global Warming wrong, changes his mind totally...WSJ!!!!

Sceptic warms to climate change
A PROMINENT sceptic of global warming spent two years trying to ... Prof Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's ... See the other side of ...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/sceptic-warms...change/...

BTW, where is the chickenshytte corporate media reporting this?

 

[westwall]

Yes, and we aren't dinosaurs. You're not looking at this from the perspective of human life.

Actually I am. The Roman Warming Period was at least 5 degrees warmer then the current era and mankind thrived. Hell all growing things thrived. Then came the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and mankind did very poorly indeed, they're not called the Dark Ages for nothing.

Then the Medieval Warming Period came along and gifted us once again with prosperity that ended up with the Renaissance and the bursting forth of culture.

No my friend, if you bother to look in the history books you will see that whenever it has ben warmer mankind has done very, very well. Cold, not so good.

But that's history for you. You folks need to read a hell of a lot more of it!

It's great for bugs, too. I'm certainly looking forward to more time with ticks.

U.S. cities face water-related climate change dangers: study | Reuters

Your article made no mention of bugs but I'm not too surprised at that, you folks definately lack reading comprehension skills. As far as the article goes, so what. Water has allways been a bitch. This is so nothing new as to be laughable. Wars large and small have been fought over the control of water.

Their claim about storms is likewise amusing. One thing we do know for sure. In a warmer world the interaction between cold air and warm air diminishes. Thus you get weather like is at the equator which is characterised by frequent mild rainstorms.

But once again, those are facts, and you people don't do facts. I do dare you however, read some history books and get back to us with what you find.

 

[westwall]

When it comes to the climate I figure time will tell who was right and who was wrong but by then we will be dead and so there is no downside to attacking science or fossil fuel consumption for us but our children will pay the price for inaction and they will likely hate us for it. The climate is changing, peak oil is here and we are spending our time making damned sure that it is future generations who will suffer for our sins rather than ourselves.

When has the climate not changed? I go back through the paleoclimate record and I see nothing but change. Our children will surely hate us if we continue to squander our wealth in pursuit of the fraud known as AGW. Well over 100 billion dollars have been pissed down a rathole with nothing to show for it. Not one thing. Just imagine what that 100 billion could have bought were it used intelligently.

Warming is good for the planet. No matter where you look in the paleo record when it was warm it was great. When its been cold misery, pestilence, and death have ruled supreme.

The alarmists are constantly trying to frighten the savages with their predictions of doom and gloom and yet, once again, looking back in the paleo record when it has been warmer then the current time none of the runaway catastrophes claimed by the alarmists has ever occured.

On the other hand, we just had a asteroid the size of an aircraft carrier pass between Earth and the Moon. A couple hundred thousand miles closer and civilisation would end.
That's it, game over. You clowns wail and gnash your teeth over a non crises like AGW and our children can very well be the last to enjoy our level of civilisation due to your lack of care for that which can truly end us.

A total lie. Many times in the paleontological record, rapid warming has created major extinction events.

Extinction and Climate « ClimateSight

However, life on Earth has been through worse than this apocalyptic scenario. The
largest extinction in the Earth’s history, the Permian-Triassic extinction, occurred about 250 million years ago, right before the time of the dinosaurs. Up to 95% of all species on Earth were killed in this event, and life in the oceans was particularly hard-hit. It took 100 million years for the remaining species to recover from this extinction, nicknamed “The Great Dying”, and we are very lucky that life recovered at all.

So what caused the Permian-Triassic extinction? After the discovery of the K-T crater, many scientists assumed that impact events were a prerequisite for extinctions, but that probably isn’t the case. We can’t rule out the possibility that an asteroid aggravated existing conditions at the end of the Permian period. However, over the past few years, scientists have pieced together a plausible explanation for the Great Dying. It points to a trigger that is quite disturbing, given our current situation – global warming from greenhouse gases.

In the late Permian, a huge expanse of active volcanoes existed in what is now Siberia. They covered 4 million square kilometres, which is fifteen times the area of modern-day Britain (White, 2002). Over the years, these volcanoes pumped out massive quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the average temperature of the planet. However, as the warming continued, a positive feedback kicked in: ice and permafrost melted, releasing methane that was previously safely frozen in. Methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – over 100 years, it traps approximately 21 times more heat per molecule (IPCC AR4). Consequently, the warming became much more severe.

If any climate related event did it it is most likely cold based. During one of your favorite "mass extinctions" you know the one that occured during the PETM I was able to show you quite clearly that other than a few species of forams that were wiped out terrestrial life bloomed. You conveniently seem to ignore that little fact. Just like you ignore most other facts.

No, it is you who are the pathological liar MENSA BOY. The paleo record shows many mass extinctions and none of them are provably from climate. The ones that correlate even a little bit with a climate based reason are universally related to cold and the inability of plant life to grow which is the bottom of the terrestrial food chain.

But, yet again, that's logical and you folks don't do logic.

 

[westwall]

BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows | Mail Online

Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

Like the first ‘Climategate’ leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source.

Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.


More...

Cameron's green guru reveals his doubts over global warming

BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.

‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’

In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated - none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal

The University of East Anglia, where most of the emails originated - none of the newly released emails appear to be post 2009, but clarify the extent of government involvement in the scandal

The document says the policy was decided after ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ – including those from UEA.

The ‘Climategate 2’ emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.

For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporation’s ‘environment analyst’, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV.

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that in 1996, he and his friend, Professor Joe Smith of the Open University, set up an informal two-man band to organise environment seminars for BBC executives.

Known as the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP), it operated until 2009, and over three years (2002 to 2005) received £15,000 from the Tyndall Centre. Mr Harrabin did not derive personal financial benefit, although Prof Smith was paid.

Yesterday Mike Hulme, UEA’s Professor of Climate Change, who set up the centre in 2000 and was its director until 2007, said he planned to fund CMEP from Tyndall’s outset, as an ‘integral part of our outreach and communication strategy’.

Mr Harrabin was also appointed to the Tyndall advisory board – an unpaid position he held for five years until 2005.

The Climategate 2 emails suggest Prof Hulme expected something in return – the slanting of BBC coverage to exclude global warming sceptics.

On February 25, 2002, the climate change sceptic Philip Stott, a London University professor, debated the subject with John Houghton of the Met Office on the Today programme.

This prompted an angry email to colleagues from Prof Hulme. ‘Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4, this morning?’ he wrote.

‘Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, to starve this type of reporting at source.’

Last night Prof Hulme denied he was trying to deny space to sceptics, saying: ‘What I wanted to “starve” at source was “this type of reporting” – in which the important and complex issues raised by climate change are reduced to an argument between two voices representing different positions on climate science, as though there is one right and one wrong answer to climate change.’
Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, appears before the Science and Technology Committee after the last dump of leaked climate-change emails

Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, appears before the Science and Technology Committee after the last dump of leaked climate-change emails

Far from wanting to narrow it, he said, he had tried to widen debate about the issue for years.

This was not the only time there was talk of sceptics being shut out. On December 7, 2004, the BBC’s then-environment correspondent Alex Kirby wrote to Prof Jones.

He had, he said, succeeded in blocking one sceptic from the BBC, claiming his work was ‘pure stream of consciousness rubbish’. But to his regret, he had been unable to stop a group of scientists who said there were flaws in the hockey-stick graph being featured.

‘I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece,’ he wrote.

‘But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all... and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.’
NASA thermal satellite image showing the world's arctic surface temperature trends: Today's emails appear to show scientists interested in painting a particular picture of such trends - but the information is not new

Prof Jones commented: ‘I thought you exercised some caution with crackpots.’

Mr Kirby replied: ‘Oh Phil, what can I say...I hope you’ll still talk to me despite this.’

Yesterday Mr Kirby explained his joke, saying that editors often asked him to include sceptic views in his stories, in order to provide balance.

‘I felt then and I feel now that it’s not our job to inject artificial balance into an unbalanced reality,’ he said.

He believed scientists such as Prof Jones had got the subject ‘mainly right’, while those who rejected their conclusions were often not worth hearing.

In November 2008, in an email to his UEA colleague Claire Reeves, Prof Jones expressed his satisfaction that ‘the reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, ie the counter argument is rarely made’.

But alas, there was ‘still a vociferous and small majority [sic] of climate change sceptics... who engage the public/govt/media through web sites’.

He suggested UEA should set up a project to curb their influence, writing: ‘Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists? Should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations?’

Mr Harrabin shared his UEA contacts throughout the BBC.

For example, in October 2003 Vicki Barker, a presenter on the World Service, wrote asking to visit Prof Hulme, saying: ‘My colleague Roger Harrabin suggested I contact you. I am about to spend several months attempting to answer the following question for senior BBC managers: If we were to reinvent economics coverage from scratch, TODAY, incorporating what we now know (or think we know) about global environmental and economic trends, what would it look like?’

She said she had noticed ‘environmental undertow’ that was ‘beginning to tug at economies around the world... I have wondered if current newsgathering practices and priorities are conveying these phenomena as effectively as they could be. Is this a question you and some of your colleagues feel like pondering?’

The same year, BBC1 broadcast a series on the British countryside presented by Alan Titchmarsh. The last programme presented a deeply pessimistic view of future global warming and before it was transmitted its producer, Dan Tapster, asked Prof Hulme to vet the script.

‘I’d be grateful if you could send me your hourly/daily rate as a script consultant so that I can budget your time,’ he wrote. Prof Hulme said he remembered going through the script, adding that he was not being paid, and was ‘certainly not an official adviser’.

Mr Harrabin knew that if he was seen to be too closely associated with green campaigners – in earlier years CMEP had accepted funding from activist organisation WWF – the impartiality he was supposed to demonstrate as a BBC reporter could be jeopardised.

In July 2004, in an email to Prof Hulme that asked him to continue funding CMEP seminars, Prof Smith explained: ‘The only change I anticipate is that we won’t be asking WWF to support the seminars: Roger particularly feels the association could be compromising to the “neutral” reputation should anyone look at it closely.’

Prof Smith told Prof Hulme that the seminars’ purpose was to influence BBC output.

He spoke of finding ways of getting environmental issues into ‘mainstream’ stories ‘by stealth’, adding: ‘It’s very important in my view that research feeds directly back into decision-maker conversations (policy and above all media). I hope and think that the seminars have laid the ground for this within the BBC... There is senior BBC buy in-for the approach I want to pursue.’

Yesterday he said he had always ensured there was a range of views at the seminar, while by using the phrase ‘by stealth’ he simply meant that ‘sustainability stories are elements of mainstream stories, but the complexity and uncertainty inherent in them make them difficult to report in isolation’.

In September 2001, another email reveals, Mr Harrabin and Prof Smith wrote to Prof Hulme, asking what the BBC should do to mark a climate summit the following year.

They said his suggestions would be ‘circulated among relevant BBC decision-makers’, while instead of confining himself to news and current affairs, he should also feel free to recommend ideas for ‘drama, music, game shows’.

Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporation’s relationship with UEA. ‘The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC,’ Mr Stringer said.

Conservative MP David Davis said: ‘Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBC’s professed impartiality... its actions must be investigated.’

But the BBC insisted its relationship with UEA had never been ‘unhealthily close’, saying it was always impartial. A BBC spokesman said: ‘We would reject the claim that the Tyndall Centre influenced BBC editorial policy.’

As for Mr Harrabin’s place on the Tyndall board and the advice he gave, he said: ‘The idea was for him to look out for potential stories for the BBC and to offer academics a media perspective on climate change and policy. We do not believe that com-promised impartiality.’

Mr Harrabin added: ‘It was right that the BBC decided not to give sceptics parity on climate change,’ saying there was a ‘cross-party consensus.’ But he said he had maintained they should still be given some air time.

Prof Jones was not available for comment last night.

Read more: BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows | Mail Online

We always get the stupedest people on the board posting dumb crap like this.

So AGW is a cospiracy. A conspiracy involving every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on Earth. All of them, in spite of the differances in Nationalities and political philosophies.

Man, that is one collosal conspiracy. Involves the glaciers, ice caps, and the satellites recording the activity on the sun and the temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere also.

Need more aluminum foil for your hats, Pattycake?

MENSA BOY, you have outdone yourself in your blissful ignorance yet again! Good for you!

 

[westwall]

How long before a Global Cooling cult pops up? Stay tuned.

Well, when someone can show 95% of the glaciers in the world expanding and thickening. When the ice starts increasing area in the Arctic Ocean in the summer instead of radical decreases. When we see average temperatures worldwide cooling, then we can consider that.

But as long as the temperatures are rapidly warming, the cryosphere is rapidly shrinking, and every decade sees more heat records set, and is overall warmer than the last decade, it is easy to see that we are rapidly warming.

Easy for all except those deliberatly blind to reality.

Oh that will be a great time When those conditions exist, the global food production will plummet, wars will spring up all over the place as man fights for the arable areas and disease will rear its ugly head again. Yeah, you folks really care about people don't you.

 

[westwall]

Leading US sceptic sets out to proove Global Warming wrong, changes his mind totally...WSJ!!!!

Sceptic warms to climate change
A PROMINENT sceptic of global warming spent two years trying to ... Prof Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's ... See the other side of ...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/sceptic-warms...change/...

BTW, where is the chickenshytte corporate media reporting this?

Only a complete idiot can believe that crap. Show us any posting that Dr. Muller has mnade in the past where he is a sceptic. Just one nimrod, just one. He has been, and has allways been a devout warmist. He does own a sustainability company after all.

But once again, those are facts and as we all know you clowns don't do facts.

 

[francoHFW]

You're a brainwashed moron. tyvm Cold War Dinosaur alert.

 

[westwall]

You're a brainwashed moron. tyvm Cold War Dinosaur alert.

The only brainwashed moron is you and your ilk. The truth is exposed by the very people you worship and yet you keep the faith. Good for you! Mindless followers like you are hard to find! It takes years to beat the natural inquisitivness out of a child and dumb them down and the follower part is exceptionally hard to breed for. They've done well in your case

I am a cold war dinosaur though, you nailed me on that one I grew up during the height of the cold war and well remember the duck and cover drills. Yep those would have sure saved our sorry butts in the event of a nuke going off over our heads.

 

[SAT2]

Bugs like warmer climates. Bugs, like mosquitoes. That's the point.

 

[paulitician]

You are not gonna die from Global Warming. You could die from panicking about it so much though. You gotta watch that heart attack and stroke stuff. The Planet warms,the Planet cools. It's nothing new. The only thing new is our ability to keep track of it by way of new advanced technology. And it's clear some are using this new way of keeping track for political and financial gain. So relax,you're not gonna melt. Just live and enjoy your warm sunny day. I know i will...Once Winter is over anyway.

 

[SAT2]

Some people will die from it, actually. And man-caused change is rapid, and it is new.

 

[paulitician]

Some people will die from it, actually. And man-caused change is rapid, and it is new.

The list of causes you'll likely die from is very long. And Global Warming is probably at the very bottom of that list. Lots of other causes of death to worry about. Global Warming is hardly worth freaking out over. The odds of you dying from Global Warming are infinitesimal. So just chill and enjoy life. You're really not here as long as you think.

 

[SAT2]

Missing the point by a mile. We aren't just talking about you and me. Humans are threatened by global warming. Of course it's a bigger danger to folks in the Third World, and they aren't all that important, are they?