also people surely got through 1903-06, 1940, 1957, and 1977, 2004 kick 1903 Admunsens, cos look it took him 3 years, it could be they meant commercial shipping as icebreakers can quite often get through, but that's not what they said.

They have made a false dichotomy in their world there are IPCC believers and cranky skeptics, nothing else. So The BBC has been only supporting the IPCC line for a while now. So they are getting some stick for it. So it seems they are allowing some skeptical stories on, but in an unfair way. They are only on the website and are hidden away, where as IPCC scare stories are on the radio & TV and are given prominence on the the front page of the website news. I only know about them cos the links appear on Stott's site. Each skeptics essay is balanced by a strong pro IPCC essays. So far there's been Christy's essay, then the enviroment correspondent Roger Black's hatchet job against skeptism, followed by another pair of essays featuring A climate optimist Peaser see above.

Roger Black's hatchet job essay- a shallow and as you say generalising piece ,saying "skeptics.. there aren't many of them they'll all nuts, so see we are right to just report IPCC line"

No mention of the Dr Vincent Gray the IPCC scientists and his vehrment critism of the IPCC. - Nor the bad info we get like the BBC reporting this week the NW Passage opening for the first time , when it had the same headline in 2000.

In quoting Lovelock against Lindzen he failed to show any awareness of Lovelocks recent work "Reducing emissions could speed global warming" as reported in the Telegraph. (I think Lovelock is undoubtedly a genius, but not reliable these days)

As I said the BBC can say "yeh, we've dealt with skeptics" now back to churning out the scare stories

BBC INFOTAINMENT - I think you need to understand that the BBC these days is not about educating and informing the public
- Green is cool it's gets rating and thats what it's about.

If they wanted truth they'd get more people qualified and real world experienced in what they are reporting. Instead they get English literature or media study grads to do the reporting.

"No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance" - The BBC has allowed John Christy a skeptical member of th IPCC skeptical member of the IPCC to speak his mind.
- He spoke of being at IPCC meetings where scientists had a political agenda i.e panel members saying "We've really got to give the Americans a strong message" etc

Normally you shouldn't have much truck with Conspiracy Theories without evidence.

BUT In Science you should be able to put forward any theory without being ridiculed.

SCARED = TERRORIZED
If you are terrified they are terrorising you

Al Quaida & the Chinese must be loving this.

No one can say MMCo2 in the atmosphere has ever killed anyone not even a polar bear

1.China is behind Iraq fighting. Both the US and all Iraqi sides would gain from peace. Only China and Iran gain from continued fighting . It could be argued that if there was peace in Iraq then the US would move on to "sort-out" Iran.

- 2. China is fuelling the Climate Panic Machine
Is some Red Army Psychological Warfare expert laughing his head off ?
It gets to continue it's economy at full tilt, meanwhile the west ties itself in knots.

- 2 taxi drivers can see a passenger waiting across the bridge, but the Greenpeace guy says the bridge is closed (cos if more cars drive over the bridge not only will it collapse it will be a catastrophe and we will never be able to repair it) so the Western taxi driver goes the long way around. When he arrives he sees that the Chinese Government taxi driver has driven straight over the bridge and has already picked up the passenger.

The Endgame - In 20 years time environmental controls mean that a business premises costs $2m in the West , $1m in China, running costs might be $0.5m in the West , $0.25m. Western businesses will have to be very very efficient to compete.

If there are to be controls then they must apply to all countries, otherwise they mean nothing. CO2 will go up anyway.

OK - of course there many other gainers Green Parties, tax increasing governments, newspapers, oil companies, carbon trading companies .. Losers - right wing, energy consuming businesses .. Neutral : Maybe honest scientists

Yet maybe it's over from their side
- 1 people keep coming up with "real evidence", which then does not bare close analysis .

2- They themselves don't take any effective action to reduce their footprint. They don't give up having children, having cars, buying stuff. ... yet they expect you sign-up to some whacky scheme.

.. it's believers who have given thinking.

Part 2 : This is contrary to normal scientific practice. Once something becomes "holy", it becomes difficult to get back to logic.
* Climate Change is real
* It is man made
* Catastrophe is highly possible
Is the message of the believers. The first is accepted, the last two are only possibles with no estimable degree of certainty, but the UK government implemented a government policy that they should all be accepted. They said continuing questions were confusing the public.

OK I can understand why they did this, sometimes the government needs take a side and get on with job, but external debate should not be stifled, in fact it should be stimulated and money poured into research. A government even chasing the green vote should be careful not to stop financing skeptical research. If they stuff the departments with believers any research will become a self fulfilling prophesy. Though it might stimulate skeptics even harder to reveal the other side. But I think many people outside science haven't understood this; the press and green lobby seem to say the debate is closed. It's certainly not like the MMR issue, which is clear.

"Well they are financed by oil companies" is the reply of Climate Change believers to opposition arguments. That's bollocks, both sides have vested interests and an argument should be answered with logic not a smear.

The actual actions of Believers Governments and Non-believing are hardly any different.
For a politician it's a no brainer be skeptical and honest or cross the line and get all the green votes. And there's a bonus you get keep the people in a state of fear .

So I suddenly realised that the British government behaves in exactly the same way as skeptical government waiting for the evidence to come out, but by pretending to be green it gets all the green votes doh !

Particularly the claim by Sir David King The Government's Chief Scientist
"in a few years time one third of Victoria's water will come from desalinated plants"

A ridiculous claim which I dissect Dissecting Climate Stories

Yesterday ... Almost every WS Radio programme had a story about a Dramatic Climate Event with another throw away comment "of course ..global warming". There would be some earnest discussion about Climate Change with someone toeing the catastrophe line, then within the next 2 minutes there would usually be a claim which is exaggerrated or untrue.

Scaring people = Terrorising Them
BBC Radio WS & Radio4 Banging on about Climate Catastrophe is very annoying

ISSUES :BBC Climate Change balance, The Party Line, the Message We Get, similar complaints

PREACHERS STOP TERRORISING PEOPLE - You've got Diana Hysteria Again Stop banging on about Climate Change yes we know how you feel Well, stop all the obvious lies and exagerrations slipping in. Go away & make some real changes to your own lives - before Preaching to us - instead of being generals leading from behind. Then take your aguments to where it will make the most difference. You are wasting your time banging on at me, my own footprint is lower than average Chinese so go and do something constructive like persuade the Chinese Government to be more nuclear. It makes me think they are buttering us for some radical laws.

I presume the BBC carpark is empty, that staff have taken steps to downsize, stopped car use and agreed not to have children and switched off the heating. Maybe they've cleared the carpark to start building their Ark !

4. I am being terrorized yet I know everyone of their footprints is many magnitudes higher than me sitting in Thailand on 5 pounds a day.

author Michael Crichton, British biogeographer Philip Stott, and MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen. Ranged against them were warmist scientists Brenda Ekwurzel, Richard C.J. Somerville, and Gavin Schmidt (NASA & founder of Realclimate.org).

Global Warming Politics. Trendy site .... I bet people will say that it is paid for by those nasty Industry Global warming Skeptics.

I noticed every post about The Al Gore Film Court Case shouted loudly "that guys gets his nasty money from the Quarry Owner in Scotland" globalwarmingheartland.org/ their site Then I heard today on the radio that the Gore film showings are often paid for Carbon Trading scam companies (I checked .. the government is financing the film in schools). The point is there's certainly big money vested interests on both sides, not that should make any difference as we should judge the argument not the man.

The CO2 600 year time lag graph, The Hockey stick, melting snows on Kilimanjaro are caused by man made global warming or that soon melting ice in Greenland will cause oceans to rise by 20m in 50 years. Why the hell did Gore leave these in his film ? - When it is shown in Schools surely informed kids are going to gleefully rip apart all the film for it's errors ?

US ABC video talks with anti-Gore scientists
- The text of climate skeptic scientists

“Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. ”

Basically lying about the facts and admitting it doesn’t help his cause.

- The judge says Al Gore made 11 errors in his film. What is the judge blind ? How come that's all he found, when research shows every minute contains lies and distortion.

Gore is his own worst enemy; by including the discredited hockey stick and his graphs of higher temperatures and higher CO2 which he must have known are 600 years apart, he is laying himself open to ridicule in UK schools.

So it's incredible to hear some scientists say of course there are one or 2 errors, but generally it's OK.
Hello Emperor's new clothes - A Good Scientist might say "Al Gore's film is load of crap, but my research shows X cos of Y". That I would accept, but by not having the guts to say it's crap they lose all credibility.

The BBC's environmental reporter William Harrabin who a great believer in GW and supporter of Al Gore talked about interviewing Al Gore. He talked about how Gore's team take great steps to make sure a skeptic never gets anywhere near him. So after the interview was over he tried to ask Gore a couple of skeptic's questions. He said Gore's reaction was an incredible outburst of anger and aggression. They got all this on tape, but they lost the tape !.... no bullshit .. that is quite frankly unbelievable. quote "...after the interview [Al Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor."
- it's actually on the BBC site

Interviewing the guy who financed the court case the same William Harrabin used the technique of attacking the guy not the argument asking him are you a scientist ? Of course neither the BBC guy or Al Gore have a science qualification. They both studied English, but Gore later switched to politics. Harrabin said " yes, but Gore did attend some lectures by a teacher who was interested in Global warning so his interest began many years ago so he has heaps of knowledge and experience on the subject." Which begs the question why is the film filled with so many outrageous distortions and misrepresentations if he can't claim naivety in saying things like that melting snows on Kilimanjaro are caused by man made global warming or that soon melting ice in Greenland will cause oceans to rise by 20m in 50 years.

Someone must be lying. If people can come up with conspiracy theories about the rationality of Bush invading Iraq then surely the same people can come up with conspiracy theories about the rationality of Gore using dodgy techniques to push global warming panic, but not actually encouraging the main things which would make any difference - simplifying and drastically reducing consumption .

- "Catastrophe is coming buy a Ecology light bulb ! ".

Instead of doing things which reduce their ecological footprint the headless chickens running around whining and worshipping Al Gore make changes which are superficial and often even more energy consuming. Buying boxes of energy efficient light bulbs, driving 10s of KM to recycling centres, buying hybrid cars, inefficient solar cells, and more "green stuff" and getting involved in strange carbon trading schemes, which are almost entirely worthless scams.

With their 2 houses, 2 cars and 6 children have a much higher ecological impact anyway.

Seems like a manufactured and spun 1. Surely there are many similar studies; like one made 1 or 2 years ago are more accurate. 2. It doesn't say much for their climate predictions for 50 years if they are so inaccurate over 7.