BBC in trouble for global warming bias

What? The BBC biased?

Lord Monckton is screwed again. The BBC's mullahs have ruled we must ignore Monckton's facts on global warming. If you don't agree with the "consensus," you must be condemned as a heretic. Never ever open your mind to the possibility you're wrong. Never hear another side. Instead, destroy the skeptic. Make him look silly.

I hate to see any news broadcaster investigated. But the BBC has neither the principles nor the incentives to steer it toward truth. Where little is at stake, the BBC occasionally makes sense. But on the big controversies, it has a notorious record of supporting tyrants over liberators, and pseudo-liberal cynicism over responsible action.

Two extra-credit questions: (1) As we've pumped out more CO2 in the last 10 years, has the world become warmer? And (2), if China and India continue pumping out more C02 at their current rate of increase, what should the rest of the world do about it?

Frank Warner

* * *

See also: Christopher Monckton: 35 inconvenient truths.

See also: What are the ‘nine errors’ Judge Michael Burton found in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’?

See also: With mixed signals, American Physical Society opens debate on global warming.

See also: American Physical Society owes Lord Monckton an immediate apology.

Comments

[Dan Pangburn]

There is only one complete and exact computer of global climate and that is the planet itself. By definition it complies with all laws of nature including physics and quantum mechanics. Einstein said “no number of tests can prove I’m right but only one is needed to prove I’m wrong”. That one test, that proves to be wrong the theory that added atmospheric carbon dioxide causes significant global warming, was run on the planet computer and the results are archived in the Vostok and EPICA ice cores and other proxies. They show that, repeatedly, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the carbon dioxide level higher than it had been when the temperature was increasing. For those who understand how feedback works, this trend direction change proves that there is no significant net positive feedback. All that is needed to determine if there is net positive feedback is a temperature trace for a long enough time to average out cyclic variation from random noise and other factors. The temperature trace does not even need to be correct in absolute terms just reasonably accurate in relative terms time-wise.

While determination of the magnitude and even the sign of feedback in climate is difficult using climatology, it is trivial, as described above, for someone who understands feedback to deduce from the temperature record that net positive feedback does not exist. Many climatologists apparently don't know how feedback works so they don't realize this. Unaware of their ignorance, they impose significant net positive feedback in their GCMs which causes them to predict substantial warming from carbon dioxide increase. Without significant net positive feedback, the GCMs do not predict significant Global Warming.

[Neo]

BBC worries about the noise of melting ice affecting the hearing of Polar Bears