Is Top Gear really 'the only programme on BBC television that doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming'?
According to James Delingpole over at the Spectator, Top Gear is 'the only programme on BBC television that doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming.'
Now, we're all familiar with Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson's penchant for hippy baiting, but is this latest claim true? Not in the slightest, according to Clarkson himself.
Clarkson, as any avid Times reader will know, does believe that burning fossil fuels warms the world. It's just that he doesn't see the need to freak out about it.
'Global warming's coming', wrote Clarkson in 2007, 'so you can don your King Canute hat and stand on the beach waving your Toyota Prius at the advancing heatwave, but it won't make a ha'p'orth of difference.'
'Unless we stop thinking of ways to prevent global warming', Clarkson argues, 'and start to address the problems it will cause when it gets here, our children are going to finish their days in an overcrowded, superheated vision of hell.'
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
The BBC has a house opinion on everything from President Bush through to plastic bags.
This creeps into pretty much every single program - even unrelated programs.
Antiques Road Show: "global warming could ruin this Ming Vase"
Blue Peter: "global warming means its time for the tortoise to hibernate"
Then every single day there's an avalanche of stories that "suggest" global warming. Read carefully and see the weasel words: "suggest", "may", "possibly" and so on.
Here's one I found earlier:
"Scientists in California have set up a unique experiment to track the life histories of some of the world's oldest and tallest trees.
The project is designed to follow up research, in the Yosemite National Park, which suggests that giant trees are perishing as a result of climate change."
But read on a bit and we discover that
"Little research has been done on a long-term basis to monitor the lives of large trees. "
So the suggestion is based on little research.
Helpfully we find out that
"trees play a crucial role in the forest ecosystem"
Well I'll be danged....
Complain about this comment
"and start to address the problems it will cause when it gets here, our children are going to finish their days in an overcrowded, superheated vision of hell."
Uh, do you worry about your kids in the way of a car rushing down the road and try to avoid it, or do you just work out how to put up with the consequences of your kid being run over and killed?
I mean, you can always have another one, can't you.
Complain about this comment
And if the denialists thing there's a chance the IPCC is wrong (though you'll not get them to say what they think that chance is: they can't complain of "AGW is not scientific because they consider themselves 100% right" when they put themselves at 100% right...) why not come up with an explanation and a forecast of what is going on.
Complain about this comment
It's a ludicrous claim. Clarkson Dismisses speed cameras and speed limits as well but does that mean the program thinks we are safer without them?
Complain about this comment
A couple more Clarkson quotes:
'I'm not a scientist, but I read enough scientific literature to know the whole global warming theory is bonkers. A complete fairy story.'
("not a scientist" - a bit like Al Gore and most BBC environment correspondents, then.)
'I'm bored by the BBC's hysterical climate change reporting. Global warming started out as a lie and became an industry.'
Damn right.
There, that should be enough material to keep yeah_whatever typing maniacally for the rest of the day.
Complain about this comment
"'I'm not a scientist, but I read enough scientific literature to know the whole global warming theory is bonkers. A complete fairy story.'"
Well I looked at that and thought "on what basis?".
What literature has he read?
Really. Get him on here and ask him what he's read.
"'Global warming started out as a lie and became an industry.'"
Now THERE's bonkers for you.
Heartland Institute spent over 5.6million dollars last year.
Seems like there's a heck of an industry DENYING AGW.
Complain about this comment
@gates23 #4
I think the reason Clarkson and the rest of the Top Gear team dismiss speed cameras has got more to do with speed cameras being used as a source of revenue
In my humble opinion, speed doesn't cause accidents, idiots driving too fast for the conditions, on phones, too close to the car in front, tiredness, poor driving etc etc etc, causes accidents.
Complain about this comment
"I think the reason Clarkson and the rest of the Top Gear team dismiss speed cameras has got more to do with speed cameras being used as a source of revenue"
That isn't gates' problem.
His problem is that they dismiss cameras.
They do.
Does getting rid of them make things safer?
Complain about this comment
I've heard it rumoured that Terry Wogan was around during the mediaeval warm period so he must have personal experience yet he doesn't seem too alarmed.
Complain about this comment
@2.
Well clearly all (Evil Term Warning) cars, and in fact any form of (Evil Term Warning) mechanised transport (including bicycles), should be banned instantly in order to mitigate the risks of what might happen. From now on only walking slowly will be permitted, subject to a journey plan and risk assessment submission and prior approval by The Ministry for Promoting Extremely Hysterical Over-reactions.
This will simultaneously reduce the chance of walking into someone else and causing them severe injury and reduce the exhalation of nasty poisonous stuff like (evil term warning) CO2 - and because less exhertion means we can eat less - a reduction in (Evil Term Warning) food miles!
"I mean, you can always have another one, can't you."
I expect some parents might wish they had never started...
Complain about this comment
"I expect some parents might wish they had never started..."
Yours probably do.
Complain about this comment
@11
**********************************
"I expect some parents might wish they had never started..."
Yours probably do.
**********************************
You missed that one as it came in and hit the target......
11 out of 10 for predictability.
Complain about this comment
Ah, you must be a 'merkin. They miss the target by 4 miles too...
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
"According to James Delingpole over at the Spectator, Top Gear is 'the only programme on BBC television that doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming."
This I think is a science blog and not a religious blog?
The hypothesis is that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming.
It is not a question of not believing in this hypothesis, it is for the proponents of the hypothesis to show it is true.
All of the historical evidence shows that global warming has occurred in the past followed by a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Recent temperatures and correlation of CO2 emissions with temperatures this century and in the last two centuries prove the hypothesis false.
Without a doubt the BBC have been very close to a campaigning organisation for the AGW lobby never ever giving even a small proportion of air time to the many scientists who do not consider the hypothesis proven.
Complain about this comment
"The hypothesis is that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming."
Once a hypothesis has passed tests of its validity, it is no longer a hypothesis.
"it is for the proponents of the hypothesis to show it is true."
They have.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
"All of the historical evidence shows that global warming has occurred in the past followed by a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere."
And after that rise in CO2, there's further rise in temperature AFTER the CO2 increase.
Just like AGW says.
"Recent temperatures and correlation of CO2 emissions with temperatures this century"
Ah, misdirection. This century isn't really all that long is it.
And durring it we've had the highest temperature on record. Apart from 1998, each year has been hotter than ANY year before.
CO2 is still very high.
Solar output isn't higher than before.
So the correlation is good.
"many scientists who do not consider the hypothesis proven."
Many when you count on your fingers. A tiny fraction of the number of scientists who consider the theory proven.
Complain about this comment
@16
"All of the historical evidence shows that global warming has occurred in the past followed by a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere."
And after that rise in CO2, there's further rise in temperature AFTER the CO2 increase."
Which - if CO2 is a driver of temperature increase - equals a positive feedback loop. And a positive feedback loop means that we have a fundamentally unstable climate.
Clearly we do not, or the planet would spiralled off into ever higher temperatures, ooh, lets see...probably several months ago.
It is a pity that our Secretary of State for Climate Alarmism does not understand the difference between positive and negative feedback systems, too.
"...many scientists who do not consider the hypothesis proven."
Many when you count on your fingers."
You must have rather more fingers than a normal human being then.
Woops - there was a supposition there. See if you can spot it..
Complain about this comment
"Which - if CO2 is a driver of temperature increase - equals a positive feedback loop."
So you agree that CO2 causes warming.
Now, instead of warming the ocean, we burn them in engines.
And so the release will cause an increase in temperature.
Again.
"Clearly we do not, or the planet would spiralled off into ever higher temperatures, ooh, lets see...probably several months ago."
Uh, no it wouldn't. Why do you say it would?
"You must have rather more fingers than a normal human being then."
No, you have much fewer scientists denying AGW than support it.
Complain about this comment
@18
Please note the use of the word "if". Comprehension problems again? It is a conditional statement. If this is true, then that is true.
No - in answer to your foolish question.
Lines 3 and 4 need re-writing by an adult.
Clearly you do not understand the concept of a positive feedback loop. You're not Ed Milliband, are you?
Fewer scientists who speak out against AGW = more scientists only too happy to enjoy the gravy train.
Complain about this comment
"No - in answer to your foolish question."
Then prove Tyndal wrong.
"Clearly you do not understand the concept of a positive feedback loop."
Uh, projecting.
If each increase causes 50% more increase to result from the previous increase, the maximum of that positive feedback loop is 2x the original change.
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + .... = 2
But it IS a positive feedback loop: note the "+".
Did you actually DO junior school maths?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@20 Yo-hotwevver
"Did you actually do junior school maths?"
Oh ho ho. The cutting wit continues.
Yes. And control system theory was not one of the subjects.
That happened much later.
Junior school......plot lost, yet again
And all the funding you mention is but a drop in the ocean compared with the billions (or maybe even trillions by now) of funding supporting the AGW gravy train.
Or might you be suggesting that everyone - including the AGW alarmists - should forego financial support?
Complain about this comment
"Yes. And control system theory was not one of the subjects."
But was addition and division?
Seemingly not.
"And all the funding you mention is but a drop in the ocean compared with the billions"
that the oil industry makes in profit each year.
http://suvs.about.com/b/2008/08/04/exxons-quarterly-profit-sets-new-records.htm
Where do you get your billions/trillions of funding for AGW gravy train?
Met Office ENTIRE budget is £82million a year:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/verification/valuable.html
Now which is bigger: Billions or Millions?
Since you have such a limited grasp on mathematics, I'll answer it for you: Billions is bigger than Millions.
Complain about this comment
"Or might you be suggesting that everyone - including the AGW alarmists - should forego financial support?"
YOU brought it up, not ME.
"19. At 3:06pm on 22 Jul 2009, mysteriousTony-B wrote:
...
Fewer scientists who speak out against AGW = more scientists only too happy to enjoy the gravy train."
And in exactly the same vein, scientists who speak out against AGW = scientists who want to enjoy their own gravy train without the hard work.
Complain about this comment
And I wonder if mysterious toadie is including $9Bn on the AGW side or the fossil fuel side:
http://www.indypendent.org/2007/06/07/us-coal-facts/
How about the $18Bn for Oil in the US alone:
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/us-oil-subsidie.php
which is $30Bn if you include wars and foreign actions by the military to secure oil:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/03/price-of-oil-hidden-oil-s_n_110606.html
And the nuclear subsidies. Don't forget them! $7.1Bn:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Nuclear_Subsidies.html
Complain about this comment
http://www.physorg.com/news151609044.html
"A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."
"Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second."
"In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement."
"Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming."
Complain about this comment
You'll also recognise the claims here:
http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2009/06/06/global-warming-denial-myths/
Complain about this comment
As well as Top Gear, BBC1's Newsnight has a stance on climate change.
Presenter Susan Watts played this clip of US President Obama:
"We will restore science to its rightful place, [and] roll back the spectre of a warming planet. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories."
The big problem was that Obama's speech did not go like that. It was "assembled" at the BBC by splicing together different parts of Obama's speech. It was a "montage". The soundtrack was played over bland footage showing a London park.
In the real speech he said those words in a different order in different paragraphs.
A confused viewer complained and was told that the fabricated nature of the piece was "clearly signalled".
The story was followed by blogger TonyN at Harmless Sky.
TonyN writes: " When the program was over, I went back to the text and this is what I found.
It would seem that someone at the BBC had taken the trouble to splice the tape so that half a sentence from paragraph 16 of the inauguration speech was joined on to half a sentence from paragraph 22, and this apparently continuous sound bite was completed by returning to paragraph 16 again to lift another complete sentence."
TonyN has posted the Newsnight soundtrack so you can hear it for yourself and see if it was 'clearly signalled'.
We all make mistakes, but it's hard to see this as a mistake - spending the time and effort to fake-up a speech that was not in fact ever delivered.
Complain about this comment
@jack
susan watts and her team didn't even get a reprimand
and the public wonders why the BBC (present blog and Top gear excepted) are allowed to present such partisan views and still receive a license fee
it's a shame because the BBC really was the finest broadcaster in the world, in my (not so) humble opinion. Even Horizon, a programme i grew up on, is now rubbish and Climate Wars was so shockingly one sided, i thought the BBC were presented a party political broadcast on behalf of the AGW religion
Complain about this comment
@TonyB writes: (in response to another poster's assertion that a rise in CO2 historically has lagged behind temperature increases)
"And after that rise in CO2, there's further rise in temperature AFTER the CO2 increase."
--end of quote----
My Response:
In viewing the Vostok Ice cores (which arguably are some of the best "proxies" we have for previous temperature and CO2 concentrations, we find the opposite.
It would appear that rise in CO2 follows temperature by about 800 years - and reached their peak - just prior to the onset of each of the last several ice ages. So, temperatures went up, 800 years later (approx), CO2 concentrations rose, and then temperatures dropped dramatically (followed by CO2 levels, again lagging by about 800 years.
This would seem to be a plausable argument for negative feedback associated with CO2 forcing - but that is just another theory - like the one which suggests highly positive feedback associated with this forcing.
Bottom line: we don't understand enought to have any real idea as to what the flip is going on. We have barely scratched the surfact of what there is yet to learn.
Cheers.
Complain about this comment
The BBC's Stephen Sackur goes seriously off-message in 'Getting a grip on Greenland's future'.
"Look," [politicians and celebs] say, "the ice is melting. Unless we dramatically cut our emissions now, the Greenland Ice Sheet and our planet are in peril."
Are they right? Do scientific studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet indicate that catastrophe is around the corner?
The answer does not seem to be entirely straightforward.
The Ilulissat glacier has indeed retreated dramatically in recent years - more than 15km in the last decade alone - but plenty of evidence suggests such rapid change in the ice is not unprecedented.
It's exactly the kind of journalism we used to get from the BBC - balanced and well-written. "Here is something interesting: some say it 'means' X others say Y". You cannot tell from the writing what the author himself thinks.
Well done Stephen - hope it's not damaged your career.
Complain about this comment
@Jack_Hughes_NZ
And the Indian environment minister has just stated news of the death of the Himalayan glaciers is premature
climate realism at last perhaps?
Complain about this comment
@Mango
I think you are being a bit too optimistic here - after all, there is a lot of money invested in the AGW theory - a lot of people/companies have spent a lot to lobby for specific outcomes...unfortuntely, there is a lot of momentum. No matter what the evidence suggests, I predict that the next IPCC report will be "even scarier and dire" than the last one.
Cheers.
PS - Notice Shanta nor Richard has been writing much?
Complain about this comment
i'm a half glass full kind of person
i even think yeah_whatever might calm down any day now, perhaps his holiday will do him good?
Complain about this comment
Tens of billions of $$ for, by gov funding mostly.
A few million $$ against by the big bad oil companies that actually produce a commodity for when they take your money, unlike carbon trading which relies on printer consumables and delivers pieces of paper in exchange for your pieces of paper.
Nice model. Fair fight.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS