BBC2 'Climate Wars' is 'Fraud with Lipstick' says scientist. BBC attacked for lack of integrity and challenged to debate

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Last Post

unread,
Jul 27, 2009, 3:23:50 PM7/27/09
to leona...@primus.ca, fis...@rogers.com
BBC2 'Climate Wars' is 'Fraud with Lipstick' says scientist.
BBC attacked for lack of integrity and challenged to debate

1. This 'Climate wars' production is a shameful
and desperate effort from the BBC's 'green
religion department' to shore up the failing theory
of CO2 driven Global Warming and Climate
Change.

The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in
general, while pretending to be objective skilfully
avoid applying sound science and provide no
answers to the mounting evidence which refutes
the crumbling Global Warmers theory. It puts
lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains fraud.

They selectively report part of 'weak' sceptics
contributions which are muddled and AVOID
proper interviews with scientists who can
soundly refute every wriggle of the Global
Warmers' mantra.

They misrepresents the observed facts and choose
'straw-man' methods to attack inadequate non-
CO2 part-theory as if somehow trying to argue
\that if an animal is not a cat then it must be a dog.

They resort to the green zealots blogging method
of personal innuendo rather than discussing the
issues - 'Smear or belittle the messenger if you
don't like the message'

2. The Hockey stick temperature graph (claiming
'exceptional' world temperatures now compared
with the last few thousand years) is a fraud and
'improvements' on it promoted by the IPCC and
members of the Climate Crisis industry are also
fraud - with lipstick.

For the facts see Climate Audit and Christopher
Monkton:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

For the record I concur fully with Christopher
Monckton and his conclusions.

3. Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years
ago Global Warming is over and there is no
evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver
of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed
evidence is the relationship is more the other way
around:-

a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of
circumstances (eg when the world exits ice-ages).
CO2 has no observed net driving effect on
temperatures. This fact is established from
thousands of years of data which the 'Global
Warmers' refuse to properly consider.

b) World temperatures have been generally
declining for about 10 years while CO2 is
rising rapidly.

c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last
ice age 10,000 years ago to about 1,000 years ago
was warmer than present (indeed Greenland is so
named because it was warmer in Viking times),
there was LESS ice in the Arctic and there was
notably LESS CO2 than now.

The UN Climate Committee - the IPCC - is
deliberately ignoring or covering-up these facts
which show in official data.

However rather than investigating the
accountability of the UN and our elected
representatives the BBC seems to want
independent scientists and the public to be
accountable to the UN and governments. See links
below for more information and the letter from 13
world scientists and environmentalists to Ban-Ki
moon UN Secretary General and Tim Yeo MP

4. Attempts to prove the CO2 effect 'right' by
challenging an incomplete version of one solar
theory are doubly dishonest because:

a) One theory being inadequate does not prove
CO2 has any effect. The CO2 theory already
lies in tatters - refuted by data evidence. No
amount of enraged shooting at others can
revive it.

b) The attacks on what the Global Warmers
deem as 'solar theory' are the product of
disgraceful dishonesty which marks the
integrity of the scientific establishment at its
lowest level since the Papal Inquisition.

The main periodical solar activity effect - the
largest observed periodicity present in world
temperature data - is the 22 year cycle (driven by
sun-earth magnetic connectivity). Hence for
about half the time, the 11 year cycle of solar
activity of particles, sunspots and radiation will
move with temperature and half the time move
against it. This is well known to solar and
climate scientists. All the pseudo-scientists have
done is essentially choose time spans where the
two move in opposite directions and ignore
demonstrated correlations on longer time spans.
Those who do this are either unbelievably
ignorant of their own subject or deliberately
deceptive. BBC web 'information' on the matter
refuses to publish the truth despite requests and
in this programme avoids interviewing scientists
in Britain or overseas who research, understand
and apply sun-earth magnetic and particle effects
in provably skilled weather and climate
forecasting CO2 based climate and seasonal
weather forecasts on the other hand show no
skill, have been abysmally incorrect for a decade
and have got worse in the last few years.

5. I challenge - and there are other scientists who
can also challenge - the 'Climate Wars'
programme producer to a public televised debate
with himself or any scientist they want to put
forward.

If they had answers to the many refutations of
their theory then the UN Secretary General or its
Climate Committee (the IPCC) or the UK
Parliament Environment Audit Committee (chair
Tim Yeo MP* ) would respond to letters but they
have all failed to answer simple requests for
evidence to support their theory and policies
under which they expect the world to be taxed
and go further into food price crisis and recession.
The letter of 14th July from 13 scientists and
environmentalists across the world to Ban-Ki
Moon Secretary general of the UN has still not
even been acknowledged

http://www.lowefo.com/pdf/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf

Integrity in science, politics and the BBC would be a good idea.

BDR529

unread,
Aug 1, 2009, 3:45:54 AM8/1/09
to
Last Post wrote:
> BBC2 'Climate Wars' is 'Fraud with Lipstick' says scientist.
> BBC attacked for lack of integrity and challenged to debate
>
> 1. This 'Climate wars' production is a shameful
> and desperate effort from the BBC's 'green
> religion department' to shore up the failing theory
> of CO2 driven Global Warming and Climate
> Change.

You are free to turn off your TV, you don't have to watch it.

All hockeysticks still exist and they are validated all the time by many
different researchers.

>
> For the facts see Climate Audit and Christopher
> Monkton:

Monckton is a serial liar, I wouldn't listen to him.

>
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf
>
> For the record I concur fully with Christopher
> Monckton and his conclusions.
>
> 3. Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years
> ago Global Warming is over and there is no
> evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a driver
> of world temperatures or Climate Change - indeed
> evidence is the relationship is more the other way
> around:-

That is a lie.

>
> a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of
> circumstances (eg when the world exits ice-ages).
> CO2 has no observed net driving effect on
> temperatures. This fact is established from
> thousands of years of data which the 'Global
> Warmers' refuse to properly consider.

That is a lie.

>
> b) World temperatures have been generally
> declining for about 10 years while CO2 is
> rising rapidly.

That is called cherrypicking.

>
> c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last
> ice age 10,000 years ago to about 1,000 years ago
> was warmer than present (indeed Greenland is so
> named because it was warmer in Viking times),
> there was LESS ice in the Arctic and there was
> notably LESS CO2 than now.

This is unrelated to present day global warming.

>
> The UN Climate Committee - the IPCC - is
> deliberately ignoring or covering-up these facts
> which show in official data.

That is a lie.

>
> However rather than investigating the
> accountability of the UN and our elected
> representatives the BBC seems to want
> independent scientists and the public to be
> accountable to the UN and governments. See links
> below for more information and the letter from 13
> world scientists and environmentalists to Ban-Ki
> moon UN Secretary General and Tim Yeo MP
>
> 4. Attempts to prove the CO2 effect 'right' by
> challenging an incomplete version of one solar
> theory are doubly dishonest because:

You are showing disrespect towards science.

>
> a) One theory being inadequate does not prove
> CO2 has any effect. The CO2 theory already
> lies in tatters - refuted by data evidence. No
> amount of enraged shooting at others can
> revive it.

Numerous other peer reviewed studies do show that CO2 has a main effect,
we even have a sister planet called Venus where you can see with your
own eyes what CO2 does and how it affects the heating of that planet.

>
> b) The attacks on what the Global Warmers
> deem as 'solar theory' are the product of
> disgraceful dishonesty which marks the
> integrity of the scientific establishment at its
> lowest level since the Papal Inquisition.

Fossil fools are solar fools, they seem to believe that the sun is
responsible for the ongoing climate change. In the past (more than 50
years ago) the sun was dominating, but presently the GHG took over.

>
> The main periodical solar activity effect - the
> largest observed periodicity present in world
> temperature data - is the 22 year cycle (driven by
> sun-earth magnetic connectivity). Hence for
> about half the time, the 11 year cycle of solar
> activity of particles, sunspots and radiation will
> move with temperature and half the time move
> against it. This is well known to solar and
> climate scientists. All the pseudo-scientists have

You are showing disrespect for peer reviewed science.

> done is essentially choose time spans where the
> two move in opposite directions and ignore
> demonstrated correlations on longer time spans.
> Those who do this are either unbelievably
> ignorant of their own subject or deliberately
> deceptive. BBC web 'information' on the matter
> refuses to publish the truth despite requests and
> in this programme avoids interviewing scientists
> in Britain or overseas who research, understand
> and apply sun-earth magnetic and particle effects
> in provably skilled weather and climate
> forecasting CO2 based climate and seasonal
> weather forecasts on the other hand show no
> skill, have been abysmally incorrect for a decade
> and have got worse in the last few years.
>
> 5. I challenge - and there are other scientists who
> can also challenge - the 'Climate Wars'
> programme producer to a public televised debate
> with himself or any scientist they want to put
> forward.

Debates with AGW deniers make no sense, you might as well broadcast that
famous interview with Martin Durkin, the producer of the Great global
climate swindle. Martin Durkin was exposed as a serial liar like all AGW
deniers.

>
> If they had answers to the many refutations of
> their theory then the UN Secretary General or its
> Climate Committee (the IPCC) or the UK
> Parliament Environment Audit Committee (chair
> Tim Yeo MP* ) would respond to letters but they
> have all failed to answer simple requests for
> evidence to support their theory and policies
> under which they expect the world to be taxed
> and go further into food price crisis and recession.
> The letter of 14th July from 13 scientists and
> environmentalists across the world to Ban-Ki
> Moon Secretary general of the UN has still not
> even been acknowledged
>
> http://www.lowefo.com/pdf/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf

Another letter for the dust bin I guess. They'll use you letter as
toilet paper.

> Integrity in science, politics and the BBC would be a good idea.

AGW deniers are liars, it has been proven true again again and again.

Q

--
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!

Last Post

unread,
Aug 1, 2009, 9:16:05 AM8/1/09
to
On Aug 1, 3:45 am, BDR529 <jake> wrote:
> Last Post wrote:
> > BBC2 'Climate Wars' is 'Fraud with Lipstick' says scientist.
> > BBC attacked for lack of integrity and challenged to debate
>
> > 1. This 'Climate wars' production is a shameful
> > and desperate effort from the BBC's 'green
> > religion department' to shore up the failing theory
> > of CO2 driven Global Warming and Climate
> > Change.
>

>
Jackass Jake is a serial liar, I wouldn't listen to him.
>
>
>
> >http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monc...


Bret Cahill

unread,
Aug 1, 2009, 10:30:42 AM8/1/09
to
> > > BBC2 'Climate Wars' is 'Fraud with Lipstick' says scientist.
> > > BBC attacked for lack of integrity and challenged to debate
>
> > > 1. This 'Climate wars' production is a shameful
> > > and desperate effort from the BBC's 'green
> > > religion department' to shore up the failing theory
> > > of CO2 driven Global Warming and Climate
> > > Change.
>
> Jackass Jake is a serial liar, I wouldn't listen to him.

In today's skeptical climate you'll need to put together a 5 minute
YouTube video and _demonstrate_ that CO2 is good for you.

Find and assistant who will record you in a straight jacket with
plastic bags taped over your head. Remind the assistant not to be
stingy with the duct tape.

In the background have a large sign that reads:

PROOF THAT NATURAL ORGANIC CO2 IS GOOD FOR YOU!


Bret Cahill


Claudius Denk

unread,
Aug 1, 2009, 12:38:25 PM8/1/09
to

Yeah, then throw him in water. In the background have a large sign
that reads:

PROOF THAT NATURAL ORGANIC H20 IS GOOD FOR YOU!

Last Post

unread,
Aug 1, 2009, 5:19:01 PM8/1/09
to
On Aug 1, 10:30 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > > > BBC2 'Climate Wars' is 'Fraud with Lipstick' says scientist.
> > > > BBC attacked for lack of integrity and challenged to debate
>
> > > > 1. This 'Climate wars' production is a shameful
> > > > and desperate effort from the BBC's 'green
> > > > religion department' to shore up the failing theory
> > > > of CO2 driven Global Warming and Climate
> > > > Change.
>
** Jackass Jake is a serial liar, I wouldn't
listen to him, and so is Brett Cahill

** VIDE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis[α] is a process that converts carbon dioxide into
organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.
[1]

Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria.
Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since it allows
them to create their own food.

In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide
and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product.

Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.

As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere,
nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy,
or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.[β]
[2]

The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is immense,
approximately 100 terawatts:[3] which is about six times larger than
the power consumption of human civilization.[4]

As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source of the carbon in
all the organic compounds within organisms' bodies. In all,
photosynthetic organisms convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of
carbon into biomass per year.[5]

Bret Cahill

unread,
Aug 2, 2009, 10:06:58 AM8/2/09
to
> > > > > BBC attacked for lack of integrity and challenged to debate
>
> > > > > 1. This 'Climate wars' production is a shameful
> > > > > and desperate effort from the BBC's 'green
> > > > > religion department' to shore up the failing theory
> > > > > of CO2 driven Global Warming and Climate
> > > > > Change.
>
> **  Jackass Jake is a serial liar, I wouldn't
>      listen to him, and so is Brett Cahill
>
> ** VIDE:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
>
> Photosynthesis[á] is a process that converts carbon dioxide into

> organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.
> [1]
>
> Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many species of Bacteria.
> Photosynthetic organisms are called photoautotrophs, since it allows
> them to create their own food.
>
> In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, photosynthesis uses carbon dioxide
> and water, releasing oxygen as a waste product.
>
> Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.
>
> As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the atmosphere,
> nearly all life either depends on it directly as a source of energy,
> or indirectly as the ultimate source of the energy in their food.[â]

> [2]
>
> The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is immense,
> approximately 100 terawatts:[3] which is about six times larger than
> the power consumption of human civilization.[4]
>
> As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source of the carbon in
> all the organic compounds within organisms' bodies. In all,
> photosynthetic organisms convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of
> carbon into biomass per year.[5]

You need to put together a 5 minute YouTube video and _demonstrate_

Bret Cahill

unread,
Aug 2, 2009, 10:11:03 AM8/2/09
to

These would be fun videos if you could be certain none of the Darwin
Award short listers would try it.

Bret Cahill


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages