Here is the text of a formal complaint made this week to the BBC about the last programme in the BBC2 series "How the Earth made Us" ...
The series "How the earth made us" has been visually attractive but otherwise shallow, poorly-argued and really rather silly. The final episode on man's effect on his environment went entirely too far, and turned into a polemic on anthropological Global Warming.
The science quoted was flimsy in the extreme. For instance, the suggestion that the next ice age should have started seven thousand years ago but was held up by primitive farmers burning stubble and domesticating wild animals is laughable to anyone who realises that large parts of the Mediterranean, western America and Australia have for many thousands of years experienced regular and massive wild fires that dwarf anything primitive farmers could manage. It is ridiculous when you remember the enormous herds of bison, wildebeeste and other ruminants that have inhabited large tracts of America and Africa in the past entirely without human intervention - or are you suggesting that wild animals don't fart? Far more likely is that scientists don't know quite so much about climate as you think, and the next ice age is just a bit late. Seven thousand years is just a heartbeat in geological terms. Your presenter's a geologist - didn't he explain that to you?
At a time when it is becoming apparent that many of the IPCC's claims were spurious, some based on poor and highly selective data, others on little data at all and some deliberately fabricated, it is disreputable conduct on the BBC's part to continue trying to pull the wool over viewers' eyes. When reputable scientists are deserting the Global Warming lobby in droves, it is childish to expect that one enthusiastic geologist perched on the top of a cliff can make any kind of creditable case. When many of the hysterical predictions of recent years are proving to be nothing more than fantasy in the face of observable facts, it is wildly irresponsible of the BBC to be prating rubbish about "carbon" in the atmosphere (the atmosphere is gas. Carbon is not a gas. There is no carbon in the atmosphere. There is some carbon dioxide, which is a naturally occurring and generally beneficial gas. Plants, for instance, can't manage without it. We need lots of plants).
When the majority of the public on both sides of the Atlantic are loudly rejecting the theory of anthropological Global Warming it is an irresponsible perversion of the BBC's remit to be so determined to change their minds whether they like it or not. Stop preaching old news to us, BBC. Stop lying to us. Stop treating us like naughty children who can be nagged into believing the same as you. We won't believe it, and we resent you trying to make us.
If only the BBC apparatchiks could pull their heads out of their bottoms long enough to glance through this major article by Professor Fred Singer of the Heartland Institute (click the link at the bottom of the page to see the full text, which is a .pdf file).
If you prefer to see the man's face, here is a video of an excellent lecture by Singer. Be patient - the introduction is rather long and almost incomprehensible. Professor Singer, when he arrives, is admirably clear. The comments below the video are interesting, too.
Not everyone can be convinced by Professor Singer's clarity and logic - or even by the facts, apparently. Lisa Jackson, Head of America's Environmental Protection Agency has just announced publicly that "Fifteen years with no statistically significant increase in global temperatures does not mean that the human race is not causing the climate to change". She reasserted her "faith" (that was CNS News's word, not ours) in man-made global warming in response to a question from CNS News.com asking if she agreed with the recent statement by prominent climate scientist Phil Jones that there had been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
EPA's Lisa Jackson with ... some bloke or other ...
Well, Ms.Jackson, by that logic I suppose the fact that no fairies have been seen for the last century means that they do actually exist? And the fact that for ten years we've had no genuine and lasting consensus among scientists about global warming is some kind of proof, is it? And 33 years with no sightings of Elvis doesn't mean he isn't still alive? And the fact that you, Ms.Jackson, appear to walk about unaided, talk, eat, defecate and scratch doesn't prove the existence of any discernible directing intelligence, presumably?
For a more intelligent and literate round-up of the current state of play in the global warming non-debate, have a look at Walter Williams's article. Williams says "man-made global warming might turn out to be the greatest hoax in mankind's history". That's a pretty bold claim when you look at the competition. I mean ... religion ... weapons of mass destruction ... the Orgone Institute ... the current Labour so-called government ... Boyzone ...
Be careful, though: Williams is black, so if you dispute his views that probably makes you racist. We particularly liked this reaction to the article posted by a visitor to the Human Events website ...
The AGW crowd is comprised of two groups. The first group (the followers) includes the uninformed, the gullible, the well intentioned but naive, the sincere but mislead, many journalists and researchers, and yes, the just plain stupid. I would think it safe to say that these people all believe that most of the recent global warming must have been or was caused by human activity, primarily CO2 emissions, and that wind farms fix the problem. These people are not evil, they are just wrong. How anyone could rationally think that the IPCC fairytales prove their position is beyond hope and not worthy of debate.
The second group (the leaders) includes primary, government funded researchers, left leaning political leaders, activist and environmentalist leadership, and, of course, the Hansens, Gores, Manns, Briffas, Pachauri, and the rest of the extremists with which we are burdened. To the surprise of those in the first group, but not at all to the rest of us, these people do not necessarily believe or, for the most part, even care if global warming is anthropogenic. And, unlike the first group, these people are not only evil and wrong but also dangerous. They are not out to save the world but to gain political power and financial control over individuals, businesses and countries. There are legitimate environmental issues. Surly we must continue to fight for and to find a way to protect our environment, reduce stress on fisheries, manage water, land and forest resources, protect endangered species if possible and were practical, and a myriad other environmental issues and crises we face. The real tragedy of the AGW shibboleth is that it will destroy the credibility of legitimate environmental movements, divert needed funding away from them, and make the efforts of those movements even more difficult. And this is why the people of the first group, if and when they ever figure it out, should forever condemn those of the second.
The rest of us already have.
The GOS says: Me too. In fact, I tend to play safe and condemn everybody. That way you can be sure you haven't missed anyone out.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2010 The GOS