Just look at this BBC news item today and the way it is presented in a deliberately emotive way - that photo for starters. This one news item is a good example of the way that the BBC does not just report news anymore but is doing the bidding for others as well, in this case on climate issues.

An interesting item nonetheless but take a look at the also emotive reddening coloured graph, the apparent steep rise since the year 2000, yet the industrial revolution began 200 years ago. Why the steep increase in the last 25 years since the millemmium? The massive expansion of China's industrialisation since then? Or is it steep, or just the way the graph is presented. Yes, I know 1c is a big deal when talking long term climate figures as opposed to daily weather changes.

But despite all the manmade talk, items like this still come back to talking of natural events like the sea currents off South America like El Nino & La Nina to try and explain fluctuations. The item admits this natural phenomenon boosted global temperatures last year.

What "scientists" expected to happen in January hasn't happened, so how can we have confidence about predictions years, decades or centuries ahead?

BBC News - Record January warmth puzzles climate scientists - www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyjk92w9k1o

If the establishment stopped cloud seeding and using HAARP.

Notice it never rains on a Royal celebration.

Last night it was frozen here, like a normal January Winter weather. This morning was nice and crisp.

Do the MSM still send their crew to runways of busy airports to get the highest temperature they can find and record?

Not forgetting using red when the weather is only in the low 20s, sometimes weather forecasts look like a used period pad.

Climate changes all the time, even the Chicxulub impactor caused climate change 66 million years ago. Nature always sorts itself out.

People need to know only the fittest survive and it's not humans. Even the Book of Genesis skips hundreds of billions of years.

"In the beginning" beginning of what?

To be fair GM, it poured down heavily on 6th May 2023 much of the day and was very overcast, Charles's Coronation day, just the same as it had done in 1953 on 2nd June too for the Queen.

But look at that photo of raging fire to begin that climate story. That's not weather! Plus, the recent LA wildfires are nothing to do with climate change, such things are a normal annual occurence there. The only reason they spread badly was human error, empty hydrants and other human factors like not properly cutting back the brush in areas like they should have been doing to prevent potential fire spreading quicker and widely.

I never thought I'd see the day when weather forecasts on the BBC would become politicised and agenda driven, and the fact that they like giving out so many weather warnings nowadays with any kind of weather from wind, rain, snow and sunshine, basically everything, is designed to maintain this "emergency" or "crisis" mantra.

Rich wrote:


What "scientists" expected to happen in January hasn't happened, so how can we have confidence about predictions years, decades or centuries ahead?



Because you will find random fluctuation and unpredictability within any complex and long term system. This does not undermine in any way the long term predictability the scientific consensus points to.

This is what so many get confused about on climate change when they say something like, "It's all bollocks 'innit mate. Last summer we only had three bleedin days of sun..."

Last summer we only had three bleedin days of sun..."

Maybe in Surrey, in the West Country, we had many days of warm days and horrible sticky and humid nights.

I know the difference between "climate" and "the weather" Wyot, I've been taking data since I was 12 years old and still do so.

Not everyone with a meteorological background or amateur interest has swallowed the entire narrative you know. Yes, climate change exists but climate has always ebbed and flowed from heat to cold and we've been hotter in the recent past without industrialisation to blame.

There is a very strong case to say that in a warming world where it gets noticeably hotter, the UK could infact go the other way and become a very much colder country with long freezing snowy winters like Canada at the same latitude as us, do you know why?

Rich wrote:
I know the difference between "climate" and "the weather" Wyot, I've been taking data since I was 12 years old and still do so.



Why ask the question you did then Rich if you already knew the answer?

How arrogant of us, as a species, to assume we have any part in climate change or can reverse it being "green." As has been said already, climate has fluctuated since forever. You could grow grapes in England in the 12th century!

Angel wrote:
How arrogant of us, as a species, to assume we have any part in climate change or can reverse it being "green." As has been said already, climate has fluctuated since forever. You could grow grapes in England in the 12th century!

If I remember rightly didn't Romans also grow and plant oranges in England? They must have been boiling in their sweat.

Angel is quite correct about the climate in the far north of England back in the 1200's with grapevines, places like Northumberland actually had a climate at that time along the lines of the Mediterranean, and it wasn't caused by the mass burning of fossil fuels.

Then we had what was called the "Little Ice Age" which took place a couple of hundred years after that and lasted roughly 400 years from 1450 to 1850. The Thames froze over frequently. Many of the UK's harshest winters of the last millennium occured in the late 17th century all close together during the 1680's and 1690's.

As I've said before, why was I being taught in the 1970's and 1980's that climate science was suggesting there would be a new ice age cometh by about 2050 only for another impending freeze to suddenly become a furnace instead?

Nobody is now allowed to question the current narrative and what can be more unhealthy or dangerous than scientific closed minds. Scepticism is healthy, it's not ignorance.