Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Log of BBC Climate bias

Costing the Earth, 11 April

“Spring now arrives an average of 26 days earlier each year than it did 10 years ago. We know this because of the extraordinary records kept by the public, stretching back centuries.”

Discussed by me, Homewood and Booker in the Telegraph

May 2, 2018 at 9:43 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

In a Saturday Times Magazine article Attenborough admits a number of things, that I am staggered are not reported.
I tweeted 3 screenshots

\\ 18 years ago, Attenborough told me that if the North Pole continued melting at the rate it was, then it would be gone in 20 years.
I remind him of this now.
“Did I say that? It’s dangerous to put time frames on things.” //

(He doesn’t disagree that Nigel Lawson is highly intelligent
& adds Lawson is used to dealing with stats & maths, so it’s surprising he doesn’t agree with me..the non-expert
\\ there are sceptics, highly intelligent people such as Lord Lawson …
“Yes. I find it frustrating when people fight the evidence, especially people who are used to dealing with statistics and mathematics, like Lawson is. “//

“the truth of global warming, what convinced me was a lecture I heard by a scientist called Ralph Cicerone.
He produced facts and figures and I was left with no doubt.
From that moment, I felt I could say it.”

“people think I am a qualified scientist when I am NOT”
“expect you to be an authority, when I am NOT”

\\ President Trump, a global warming denier,
“I don’t think Trump is susceptible to logical argument.
I fear it would be him saying black is white and we would bandy our prejudices with one another.” //

Sep 26, 2018 at 2:49 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

“the truth of global warming, what convinced me was a lecture I heard by a scientist called Ralph Cicerone.
He produced facts and figures and I was left with no doubt.
From that moment, I felt I could say it.”

RP adds
\\ In 1998, Ralph Cicerone ended up in the Politics of Administration, so would have been unaware of or dismissive of the latest developments, as are all those who keep their jobs on the IPCC gravy train.//

Sep 26, 2018 at 2:54 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

I've just dropped in at this point, so apologies if these comments have already been made by others.

The BBC has a very strong, left wing, liberal culture. Unquestionable support of climate change alarmism goes with that ideology. You can regard it a middle class green socialism. The IPCC mission as part of the UN is to redistribute wealth as a sort of climate change compensation, paid for by the developed countries. All of this is now part of the global movement where the poor countries demand their money as a right.

The Guardian is a major source of climate alarmist journalism and it has a whole team of contributors from the misleadingly named sceptical science website and the like. The BBC editors and journalists use the Guardian as their bible, compass and policy guide.

To understand the BBC, it is necessary to be able to identify and recognise its tactics. The BBC has a mission. it has agendas, and it aims to shape public opinion in favour of its causes. Here are some of the well used tactics.

Shape by interview. - This is simple. The BBC interviews a number of people who have known views that it wants to broadcast. It then selects, edits and compiles a piece that gives exactly the message they want to broadcast. It becomes a piece on their Today programme.

Shape by report - This involves interviews, but it is broader because it will involve recorded pieces by victims of eg floods, emergency services and a whole host of people saying the right things. It will involve non-professionals making all sorts of outrageous claims about unprecedented events.

Manufacture the news - This is easier to illustrate in a Brexit example. Get a politician such as Mandelson and ask him about Brexit and lead him to talk about the point you want to make. He will supply all the material needed. Run the piece in the Today programme then edit and report as headline news in every bulletin throughout the day.

Campaign. - I first noticed this when UKIP won the European parliamentary elections in the UK. The press decided that this was all about reducing immigration and for a while, immigration was a huge problem. Cue a BBC Pro-immigration campaign. It was obvious that the BBC was throwing everything at this campaign. We had sob stories from migrants coming here, praise of their hard working, grateful anecdotes, reports of how the economy needs them, grateful employers, hate stories about anti-immigration, the BBC covered the whole spectrum from a pro- immigration standpoint in a relentless blanket coverage that lased weeks. It involved all the other tactics listed above.

Biased papers - Of course, the BBC website has an endless supply of junk science papers to base stories on. If the paper is subsequently shown to be junk, the BBC does not report that. The initial impact is in the bag.

The BBC has concluded that it need no longer worry about its legal requirement to be impartial. Politicians themselves are divided on the bigger issues and are not going to risk challenging the BBC. The BBC pretends to itself and everyone else that it is strict on impartiality. (It even has policies on why it is not impartial on climate change.)

The Corporation decides that complaints it does not accept are wrong in some way. That is it. My feeling is that we should challenge the BBC with things like the models vs observation temperature graph by Christie/Taylor and say if that is what climate science is about, how can you justify telling the world it is true?

But it needs a campaign of challenges as obvious as that and I don't have the time, the resources or the ability to do that. Perhaps someone who would be able to do that could set up another discussion thread to gather help and support. Good luck, I would try to help.

Sep 28, 2018 at 9:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

SC, I think that is a fair description of the BBC's general political tactics. Given the traditional power of both print and broadcast media it strikes me as inevitable that many people working for the BBC would want to exercise that power, whatever their legal obligations. Just think about it: what megalomaniacal Press Baron would not give their right arm to have the power and reach of the BBC? Then put a bunch of frustrated middle-class Guardian readers and student wannabe-politicos into the same seat of power and expect them not to abuse it at all.

As to challenging the BBC with things like facts and the models vs observation temperature graphs....sorry. No way is it going to do much good. Not in a month of Sundays. We know the BBC have policies and write memos to specifically exclude people from doing just that.

All that will move them is raw power. That means money. It means cutting it, and then cutting again and again and again until the message gets through. Even if a bunch of MPs stand up and repeatedly say what needs to be said about the BBC in the HoC, they will still continue doing what they do until the money starts disappearing.
The solution for BBC misbehavior was actually described metaphorically, but quite accurately, on the BBC itself several decades ago.

Sep 29, 2018 at 1:11 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

@Forager posted this ..(and I added formatting like (blockquote) .. (/blockquote) using less than greater than instead of brackets >)

Shock news: BBC commissions puff piece from the University of East Anglia and posts it on the front page of its website:

"Why the UK has such cheap food : By Ratula Chakraborty & Paul Dobson : University of East Anglia"

Click on the link, and it's tagged to Brexit, so the agenda is clear enough, but the use of the UAE to produce the story means, with sad inevitability, that they also weave climate change into the story.

It starts, apparently, as an information piece, and although it's not news (so what's it doing on the BBC News page?) it's accurate enough, FWIW, in terms of describing why we enjoy relative cheap food, but then the purpose the piece kicks in:

However, we cannot be certain that the era of ultra-low food prices will continue.
One threat comes from the weather.
This year, the Beast from the East brought snow and low temperatures in March and was followed by a summer heatwave. The combination hit crop yields and has already led to increased prices.
This combination caused the wholesale cost of carrots to rise by 80% and wheat by 20% between March and July, consultancy CEBR estimated. It believes these and other price rises could add £7 on to household bills every month.

While episodes like this may still be relatively rare in the UK, most scientists agree that international weather patterns are becoming more extreme.
If droughts and floods become more frequent, this is likely to boost global food prices.

Lots of "mights" and "ifs", but there's no need to let that prevent a good scare story. Then we get this:
"The UK's reliance on imported food means it is particularly affected by changes in the strength of the pound.

Since the Brexit referendum in June 2016, the pound has fallen by as much as 17% against the euro and 29% against the dollar, although it has recovered somewhat since then.

This has been followed by trade disputes, as food suppliers seek to pass a portion of their rising import costs on to retailers. One example of this was "Marmitegate", when Tesco temporarily stopped stocking Unilever products after the manufacturer raised its prices.

Blame the fall in sterling purely on Brexit (rather than acknowledging that the cack-handed policies of the Bank of England are in large part responsible) and the job is nearly done, even though food prices have not risen on the back of the fall in sterling (if they had done, the article would be making the point).

Finally, weave in the big scary prospect of Armageddon on the day we dare to leave the EU:

There are also fears that prices could rise if supplies are disrupted immediately after Brexit and duties are increased on EU imports, which account for about 30% of the food eaten in the UK.

If there is a "no-deal" Brexit, the UK should expect to see "a pretty significant increase in the cost of fruit and veg, the cost of meat and the cost of dairy products", according to Lord Price, former Conservative trade minister and ex-boss of Waitrose.

Of course, we get balance, very late in the day, though written in such a way that neither the BBC nor its "experts" believe it, nor do they expect you to:
"However, we do not yet know what the impact of Brexit will be on food prices. Another suggestion is that duties on food imported from outside of the EU will be lowered and that the UK will start to grow more at home.
And, just as we were taught at school, it's how you start and end your exam essay that counts, and the BBC know this all too well; so, after burying the good news in two short lines, they finish the brain-washing piece with their real message, that we are expected to take away:
"Public health could improve if price rises lead people to consume fewer calories. But it could also lead to worsening diets if fresh produce prices rise faster than those of processed food.

Either way, environmental and economic factors may mean UK consumers face a future of higher food prices.

And right at the end (should this not be declared before you start reading, in the way that some - more honest - news websites do?) we learn that it's NOT news at all, but a piece specially commissioned by the BBC to push its agenda:

About this piece
This analysis piece was commissioned by the BBC from experts working for an outside organisation.
Ratula Chakraborty is a professor of Business Management at Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia
Paul Dobson is a professor of Business Strategy and Public Policy and head of Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia
The words "commissioned by the BBC from experts working for an outside organisation." are highlighted as a link, but if you click on the link, you can't find anything more - it just links to a page called "Expert Network" and lots of other stories that they have commissioned. Not exactly transparent, is it?

Oct 1, 2018 at 10:18 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Actually a lot of this was mentioned on Countryfile 16th of Sept
So I checked the DEFRA weekly index of carrot prices

BBC said "This combination caused the wholesale cost of carrots to rise by 80% ,,, between March and July"
FAKENEWS : It's similar EVER year, cos new summer carrots are always 70% more expensive than old winter carrots
..the price dropped down later

I'll try to dig up my comment

Oct 1, 2018 at 10:20 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

typo :every

Oct 1, 2018 at 10:53 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

BBC article has open comments
My comment is #157 I tried to summarise @Forager's comment

Shock news: BBC commissions puff piece from the University of East Anglia and posts it on the front page of its website
#1 Top of page branded NEWS, bottom says it's "BBC commissioned ANALYSIS"
#2 Why UEA, cos BBC wants to push ProjectFear on Climate as well as Brexit ?
#3 Lots of "mights" and "ifs"
#4 Sterling fall , cack-handed Carney ?
#5 Brexit Armageddon end message
does that meet BBC Editorial Standards?

Top comment is anti Labour
\\All this will change under Labour who will take us back to the days of high unemployment and inflation.//
upvotes 102 , down 70 (suddenly 100 !)

#2 points out food seems cheap, cos rent is super expensive
\\ Journalism and maths fail.//
ups 90 to 30 down

#3 \\ so many morbidly obese people.
The real message seems to be not what we spend, but what we spend it on.//
85 to 1

#4 \\ The article does not mention that our and the USA's food prices are driven down by our primary use of supermarkets //
..63 to 6 ...there's a few the same

#9 \\ Food prices rocketed when we joined the common markert, we lost access to our traditional suppliers of cereals and meat from South America. High food prices was the main driving force of hyper inflation during the 70s//
46 to 47

Most comments are bickering about "Oh it's cheap in Europe" "look at the fat people", "oh the Tories"
Only a few recognise the piece as anti-Brexit and Climate propaganda

Quite a few claiming in Britain food is expensive £20/day/person claims one guy
jeez I reckon/know that £2 is possible

Difficult to see a pattern in the downvotes : Remainers/Labour have downvoted comments and Brexitters anti-Labour have gone the other way

Oct 1, 2018 at 12:16 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

BBC still at it:

"IPCC: Climate scientists consider 'life changing' report
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

"Leading scientists are meeting in South Korea this week to see if global temperatures can be kept from rising by more than 1.5C this century.

The world has already passed one degree of warming as carbon emissions have ballooned since the 1850s.

Many low-lying countries say they may disappear under the sea if the 1.5C limit is breached.

After a week of deliberations in the city of Incheon, the researchers' new report is likely to say that keeping below this limit will require urgent and dramatic action from governments and individuals alike.

One scientist told BBC News that our lives would never be the same if the world changed course to stay under 1.5C."

I thought they'd all just returned from Bangkok before COP 24 in Katowice? How many meetings do they need? What's their "carbon footprint"?

Oct 1, 2018 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterForager

"One scientist told BBC News that our lives would never be the same if the world changed course to stay under 1.5C."
isn't that a contradiction
don't they mean
" our lives would never be the same UNLESS the world changed course to stay under 1.5C."

☑ That whole BBC page looks like a NGO propaganda thing done on a ZX Spectrum

Oct 1, 2018 at 9:38 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

stewgreen, I assume you're referring to this article:

"What does 1.5C mean in a warming world?
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

In a breathtaking display of lack of balance, the article includes comments from representatives of WWF, Greenpeace and Fern, and nobody else, so far as I can see. The message must not be challenged!

Oct 2, 2018 at 8:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterForager

stewgreen, I rarely take much notice of the up/down votes at the BBC (or most other places for that matter). Some of them make no sense at all sometimes. Such as down-voting people politely asking non-controversial requests for more information. Quite possibly bots at work.

I also often wonder at the not-uncommon delay between posting the article and then opening of comments. That might be an interesting analysis in itself. It's quite clear that comments are almost never allowed on certain subjects/articles (I hardly need to mention some of them) that are likely to generate emotive responses from people who the BBC doesn't think should be allowed to voice an opinion at the BBC, so it seems likely that they make semi-political choices on other articles too.
I can't believe it's to make sure people read the article and then have to wait and calm down a bit before they are allowed to vent their thoughts. I suspect it's more likely that it gives the BBC hack time to post notice of it on friendly sites elsewhere in an attempt engineer 'the right sort of readers' arriving to comment first. It would be nice to have an app that discovers such things on t'internet and social media.

Oct 2, 2018 at 9:42 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

BBC World Service radio
\\ The Long Hot Summer (part 2)
Discovery, Heatwave Episode 2 of 2

This summer the Northern Hemisphere has been sweltering in unusually high temperatures. It’s been hot from the Arctic to Africa.
This has led to increased deaths, notably in Canada, and more wildfires, even in Lancashire and in Sweden.
Can we say that this heatwave – and the extreme drought in Australia - is a result of climate change?
Or is just part of the variable weather patterns we have on our planet?

Roland Pease gets answers to these questions from the world’s leading climate and weather scientists.
He picks apart the influences of the jet stream, the El Nina and the Atlantic decadal oscillation from that of global warming.//

Oct 2, 2018 at 7:07 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

, @HotScot also comments
\\ Paul Matt McGrath going batshit crazy promoting IPCC party in S. Korea.
Two articles in as many days:
#1 Reasons to be hopeful’ on 1.5C global temperature target
(which is anything but)

#2 What does 1.5C mean in a warming world?
(with the usual catastrophic predictions and some nice cartoons).

yesterday : The BBC were referring the the 1.5c target as being “by the end of the century”
, without pointing out that was since pre-industrial times, and that according to data so far we have already reached a large part of that. //

Oct 3, 2018 at 2:13 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

The big push for COP 24 has definitely started on the BBC. Not satisfied with their piece headed "What does 1.5C mean in a warming world? By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent" on 2nd October, they've followed up within 24 hours with this one:

"'Reasons to be hopeful' on 1.5C global temperature target
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

Presumably Matt's pitching for his trip to Katowice...pity it's not somewhere warmer and more touristy, but there's always COP 25 to look forward to, as well as the pre-COP 25 planning meeting, and the planning meeting for the planning meeting etc...

Oct 3, 2018 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterForager

Sorry stewgreen, I just doubled up on your last comment. But I can add this:

"The Norwegian teen fighting the government over Arctic oil
Elina Berg is a member of an environmental group suing the Norwegian government over the issuing of new oil drilling licences in the Arctic.

A Norwegian court ruled in favour of the government in January, but the activists are appealing against the decision.

The court rejected the groups' argument that the move breached the constitution, and said the risks of Arctic drilling were limited."

Complete with picture of a polar bear on an ice floe, in case you're in any doubt about the message.

Oct 3, 2018 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterForager

Yes @Forager, always ask "Is this PR .... or news ?"
The use of smokey cooling towers or polar bears shows it's PR.

Yesterday the R4Today RADIO show posted a video about the girl on its Facebook page, note how indeed it's image is of a polar bear on a chunk of ice.

Oct 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Holly Selassie October 10, 2018 at 8:14 pm
\\ When I saw that “The Moral Maze”was about “climate change”, then I was looking forward to hearing Melanie Phillips on the show.
After all, she`s written plenty on it-and would allow us to test the crap that the BBC peddles on its endless worrywart nonsense.
BUt no-she`s not on.

Quelle surprise-anyone would think that the BBC have decided that “deniers” won`t be allowed a platform any more on the Beeb.
Not worth the grief I expect.
Just a Gaia Death Cult isn`t it?

And how apt that on the prog the Muslim and Christian gobs are so despairing of the end of the planet-as if G-D has no plans to help them.

They've all become like JWitnesses and apocalyptic Bybull bashaz with their mad placards these days .... Weird. //

Oct 11, 2018 at 11:00 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

In BBCland there is Holy Truth vs "dissenting voices"
Phrase that's stick out is “occasion offer space to dissenting voices where appropriate ”

@Dave666 made a complaint an got a reply

“Thank you for contacting us about BBC One’s ‘Breakfast’ broadcast on 8 October.

I understand you feel the discussion about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was not balanced and lacked input from those who believe climate change is a lie.

In this item we heard from
- environmental scientist Angela Terry,
- Phil Korbel from the Carbon Literacy Project,
- and environmental campaigner Chloe Andrews.

Whilst I appreciate you feel Phil Korbel inaccurately stated that ALL the world’s scientific community were behind the report,
it is worth noting that he said that “*world’s scientists* have come together” for the IPCC, which is a reference to the 195 countries who are members of the IPCC.

The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage on this complex issue. Our position remains exactly as it was
– we accept that there is broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly.
We do however on occasion offer space to dissenting voices where appropriate as part of the BBC’s overall commitment to impartiality.

That said, I appreciate you feel that this discussion should have featured an opposing view, and I’m sorry to hear that you feel your views have been underrepresented on the BBC’s output.

Please rest assured your concerns have been raised with the ‘Breakfast’ team and senior management on our audience feedback report.
These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback within the BBC and help inform both current and future programming.

Once again, many thanks for taking the time to get in touch.

Kind regards”

*world’s scientists* = people who are involved in the IPCC
.. which as WUWT points out is :
- SOME cherry picked climate scientists,
- SOME cherry picked other scientists
- and a bunch of other signers who have Law Degrees etc.
... ie a bunch of cherry picked ACTIVISTS

Oct 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Why you can't trust the BBC:

"The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage on this complex issue."

Rubbish! An out-and-out lie. There is no impartiality and no balance to their coverage of the subject. As demonstrated by this:

"I understand you feel the discussion about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was not balanced and lacked input from those who believe climate change is a lie."

I haven't seen the original complaint, but I'd be very surprised if it alleged that climate change is a lie or suggested that the BBC should have hosted the views of those (very small in number) who do. Most sceptics, so far as I am aware, accept without question that the climate has always changed, always will, and is changing now. They question the extent to which climate change is man-made. Some sceptics don't even question that. They point out things like the failure of the Paris Agreement to achieve its stated objective; the costs of attempting to mitigate against climate change (probably fruitlessly); that for the last century or two climate change has brought more benefits than harms; etc etc.

The BBC apparatchik replying to the complaint was so contemptuous of it they couldn't even be bothered to paraphrase it properly, no doubt having already condemned the complainant as an evil "denier."

Oct 12, 2018 at 12:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterForager

Paul Homewood has the story of the latest BBC climate bias:

I also noted that BBC's News 24 channel was running a feature this evening at 15 minutes to the hour, asking if climate deniers were not being given sufficient air time for their views. Note the language - not sceptics, but deniers. Given that, I couldn't bear to watch it.

Oct 12, 2018 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

"Trump: Climate change scientists have 'political agenda'"

"Analysis" by Harrabin at the end of the article, and the lack of balance is transparent (under the sub-heading "Renewable energy creates jobs, too").

"The president says he doesn't want to spend trillions of dollars and lose millions of jobs by cutting emissions.

Of course he doesn't - but all governments feel the same way. Instead, they are trying to reframe the huge investment needed in renewable energy as a money-making enterprise.

The UK's Industrial Strategy, for instance, sets out to create jobs in clean industries to replace those lost in dirty factories.

And in the US itself, the solar industry is creating far more jobs than the coal sector. Does the president know that?"

Embedded within that (the line about solar creating more jobs than coal) is a link to this

"Solar Beats Coal on U.S. Jobs
The industry put twice as many people to work last year than its fossil-fuel counterpart"

The author of that piece is Brian Eckhart, whose LinkedIn profile is here:

He looks like a sympathiser for renewables and someone who is hostile to fossil fuels (I could be wrong, of course). His piece includes this rather strange comment:

"For all the talk about coal-industry employment, solar energy accounted for more than twice as many jobs last year, about 350,000 workers, according to a report Wednesday from the Energy Futures Initiative, a Washington-based nonprofit headed by former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Solar produces about 1.9 percent of U.S. electricity, and is deepening its reach in the Southeast. And while natural gas employs about 7.7 percent more people than solar, more than 80 percent of those jobs are related to producing the fuel rather than using it to generate electricity."

This site explains the generation sources US electricity (the rest of its energy inevitably being fossil-fuel based):

"Fossil fuels are the largest sources of energy for electricity generation
Natural gas was the largest source—about 32%—of U.S. electricity generation in 2017. Natural gas is used in steam turbines and gas turbines to generate electricity.

Coal was the second-largest energy source for U.S. electricity generation in 2017—about 30%. Nearly all coal-fired power plants use steam turbines. A few coal-fired power plants convert coal to a gas for use in a gas turbine to generate electricity."


"Nuclear energy was the source of about 20% of U.S. electricity generation in 2017. "

So coal, natural gas and nuclear produce about 82% of US electricity. But solar, which produces 1.9% of US electricity, it allegedly takes more than twice as many people to produce that as are required to produce 30% (or 15 x more) from coal. It suggests that in employment terms (and therefore in cost terms too, to an extent), coal is more than 30 x more efficient than solar in US electricity generation.

A serious journalist might have noticed that and made some comment along those lines.

By the way, Energy Futures Initiative, whose report was quoted in the piece by Brian Eckhart, linked to so approvingly by Roger Harrabin, is led by Ernest Moniz. Wikipedia tells us "Moniz is one of the founding members of The Cyprus Institute".

Wikipedia also tells us this:

"The Energy, Environment and Water Research Center (EEWRC) is the first Research Center of the Cyprus Institute (CyI) formally launched in December 2007. The EEWRC addresses science, technology, economic and policy issues related to major challenges in the energy, environment, climate and water fields of the Eastern Mediterranean.[3] The current program is focused on research into the energy efficiency and renewable energies, most notably solar energy, environmental integrity, and the safeguarding and sustainable and holistic management of water resources in the region and in the EU. The Center’s work covers topics such as integrated assessments of climate change, its impacts and socioeconomic consequences, and adequate adaptation and mitigation strategies; novel observational techniques aimed at assessing atmospheric, oceanic and Earth-surface properties; methodologies aimed at realizing a sustainable built environment, including innovative technologies and materials to harness the region’s plentiful solar energy; and holistic approaches to an efficient and sustainable use of energy and water.

In the field of energy research, the Center aims to quantify the potential for reducing the use of hydrocarbon-based energy sources through enhanced energy efficiency and increased use of renewable, particularly solar energy for electrical power generation and the heating and cooling of buildings. It will explore novel technologies for producing, storing, and transmitting energy, with a focus on the applications of material sciences. In the field of environmental research, the EEWRC will first concentrate on evaluating regional climate change and its socio-economic impacts and will specify suitable and adequate adaptation strategies aimed at minimizing adverse effects of climate change, including associated political and social repercussions."

So, as usual, Harrabin quotes a source which quotes a source which is fully signed up to the agenda. Objective? I don't think so.

Oct 16, 2018 at 8:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterForager

More fantasy reporting from the BBC (this time McGrath) with (as usual) a headline not borne out by the content:

"Climate change: Five cheap ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

The 5 measure all come in apparently at between $20 and $100 per tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. Even assuming these fantasy figures are actually accurate, how much does that add up to?

As long ago as 2012, quotes like this were to be found on the internet:

"Last year, all the world's nations combined pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, according to new international calculations on global emissions published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change." Since then CO2 emissions have increased. On that basis alone, to remove a single year's emissions from the atmosphere would cost between $800Bn and $4 trillion, depending on where on the scale of $20 to $100 per tonne we are talking.

And according to the BBC this is "cheap". Maybe it is if you're on a BBC salary.....

Oct 27, 2018 at 7:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterForager