The Reason Why Richard Black Was Quiet…
We thought he was avoiding the climate change debate over the past two weeks, with a couple of more general blog posts. The reality is he was saving it up for “the big one”:
The results of a BBC commissioned poll are the reason for his return to the debate. The main story here says “climate scepticism on the rise, BBC poll shows”.
However, reading the latest installment from Richard’s Mein Kampf, sorry environment blog, you would never guess it.
I will leave you to read it for yourself to grasp the full partonising nature of it. Apparently we are so pig-ignorant that :
“Which perhaps leaves the weather as a key factor. Having to dig your car out of a snowbank and sending the kids out to make a snowman would, you might think, tend to mitigate against belief in warnings of a dangerously warming world ahead.”
Richard that is just ridiculous.
The reason people are sceptical in growing numbers is the fact that dodgy info is being proven within the IPCC’s last report, the arrogance of their leader Dr Evil (who yesterday said that climate sceptics should rub asbestos in their faces every day ), and the evidence that despite what we are told, the rate of temperature increase is looking less and less in line with, and linked to C02 levels.
Add that to the arrogant, dismissive tone of Gavin Schmidt over at “Real” (read NASA) Climate, and you begin to see why there is a revolt. Gavin Schmidt for example is a man who claims the science is settled, yet who will not even release the data and stations used by NOAA. Suspicious? Arrogant?
Then Richard shows his true colours. He tells us exactly what he and the other activists are pinning their hopes on:
“Because who knows? An unusually hot summer – and globally, January was the warmest on record, in case you missed it, and El Nino conditions pertain in the Pacific – and fickle opinion might turn again.”
The problem is Richard, WAS it globally the warmest? The station data is not released, so we only have the word of the “experts, who all have vested interests in their research being correct. I would also point out that half the globe has weather data that is incomplete or irregular, so how can we be SO confident about half a degree – we can’t.
Also, lets look at the second warmest January on record, 2007. After January the temperatures plummeted 0.8 degrees celcius over the rest of the year as the El Nino weakened. So yet again, cherry picked data to tell us we are all going to die.
Finally, Richard stoops to depths I have not seen before. Commenting on news editors during the recent cold snap:
“Were all editors as rigorous as they might have been in making sure this context was put across – or was the footage of British snowploughs and closed British schools so compelling as to banish thoughts of including balance from further afield?”
balance from further afield? I do not recall balance in reporting of every single major disaster globally in the past decade, every heat wave, every freak event, which is linked, invariably by the media including the BBC to “climate change”. The BBC even recently tried to link the problems in the Sunderbans (declining tiger populations blah blah) to climate change,despite the fact even a cursory knowledge will tell you that the Sunderbans were devestasted by a cyclone, which has pushed the tigers into closer proximity with people).
This is yet another example of Richard Black covering one side of a debate, and ignoring significant details that conflict with the gravy train.