Sunday
Oct182015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Express on Lilley's letter
Oct 18, 2015 BBC Climate: Sceptics 
The Express has a report on Peter Lilley's letter to Lord Hall, which will no doubt be of interest to readers.
Peter Lilley, a long standing member of the energy and climate select committee, has made a formal complaint to director general Lord Hall after discovering that mandarins had issued an apology following claims he made that the effects of climate change were being exaggerated.
Appearing on BBC Radio 4’s ‘What’s the Point of The Met Office’, Mr Lilley stated that, while he “accepted the thesis that more CO2 in the atmosphere will marginally warm up the earth”, he questioned the assertion that global warming would be as dramatic as is being portrayed in some scientific circles.
You read it here first.
Reader Comments (38)
Perhaps most interesting for the unanimity of the comments at the Sunday Express. It's very hard to find anyone who is prepared to defend the BBC's coverage of climate change, or for that matter the supposed 'consensus' on global warming.
It shows just how out of step the BBC is with its audience.
TonyN, the BBC's audience is the Guardian and its readers. They just don't see why the rest of us shouldn't pay fir their superior views.
The Express have published some really stupid articles in the past about bad weather ahead, and have been ridiculed for their false prophecies.
If this article indicates a change in the Express attitude towards the non existent threat of CO2, the article represents more of a threat to the global alarmist mantra, than the actual story itself.
If the Express are using the article to make their own assessment of their readership's consensus on the the falsified 97% consensus.............. Not good for Lewandowsky and the Royal Society either.
Media storms ahead in Paris! Not looking good for the BBC, still carrying Miliband's Blairite message.
I did notice Bob “I am not a scientist but my opinion trumps anyone else’s” Ward managed to get his opinion that the consequences of climate change are going to be “huge”, and we have to think of the children and grandchildren.
We all have a reasonable idea as to why this scare is being pushed so hard, but what can we do to derail this gravy-train before it hits the buffers?
Hopefully, this attempt at journalism by the Express might be a step in the right direction.
Lilley is entitled to be angry; an apology indeed, how feeble from the biased BBC.
O/T but Paul Homewood has gone quiet at notalotofpeopleknowthat. He hasn't posted for 10 days now. When kids or pets went quiet it usually meant they were up to something....
A bit off-topic, but the petition to re-instate Phillipe Verdier doesn't seem to be going terribly well...
https://www.change.org/p/remy-pfimlin-président-de-france-télévisions-pour-que-philippe-verdier-soit-confirmé-dans-son-emploi-à-france-télévisions
CheshireRed: What are you talking about? Paul Homewood has been posting his usual 2 to 5 articles every day for the last 10 days.
@Phillip B. Indeed. Oh dear. I'd clicked on his 'no stinking data' story and for some reason that's all I had seen. Car crash!
golf charlie
What? The Express? Never!
The BBC does not report on cliamte issues differently to any significant degree from the rest of major western media.
I wonder why?
FWIW, Nathan Rao left the Express early this year (don't know if it had anything to do with his two failed winter-of-doom predictions). The Mirror ran pretty much the same front page earlier this month, warning of months of snow-bound-hell to come. The common source is Exacta Weather - their reasoning is outlined half way down this page.
Only being a lay meteorologist, what they say seems plausible but I'd question their confidence in their forecasts. The Express and Mirror simply add a large measure of tabloid scare-mongering.
It's come to something when the witch-hunters target the moderates instead.
'He's far too reasonable and logical! And he's a Cambridge-educated scientist! Burn him!'
In reference to my previous comment, perhaps I was being overoptimistic. Below that article is a link to craters in Russia being caused by… guess what?
Even worse – it is irreversible!
***groan***
Old Forge, do the BBC have Exacta in the running to replace the Met Office?
Corporate suicide seems to be the BBC's top goal at the moment, and it is an area they excel in, though rumours that Yentob is facing the boot are strenuosly denied, by those who want to be listened to, at the BBC.
Lewandowsky may become unexpectedly available to produce a 'very high' taxpayer satisfaction consensus survey for the BBC, based on a quick chat with a few insiders.
The climate science theme tune.
"Rows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere
I've looked at clouds that way
But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way
I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all"
https://eos.org/project-updates/dispelling-clouds-of-uncertainty
Bows and flows.
Gamecock
Thanks, that's much better.
Poor data source. I acted in good faith. No attempt to mislead anyone.
It has been amusing in the last few days watching the BBC trying to report on the steel crisis without getting dragged into discussing the fact that UK industrial energy prices have been bloated out of proportion with other countries by 'Green' taxes, subsidies and levies.
It is quite obvious that this is most inconvenient for their agenda re. COP 21 in November.
I have heard two fairly lengthy reports on BBC radio where there was considerable discussion of Chinese steel being dumped without any discussion of energy costs in the UK and why they are much higher than our competitors inside and outside the EU.
The Government did freeze the ludicrous Carbon Price support level (albeit at a much higher rate than EU carbon pricing) last year but relief for renewable subsidy costs for energy intensive industries will not come fully into force until October 2016.
Rather too late one might think.
BillB, China and India are guaranteed lower energy costs, by not signing anything in Paris. The EU and USA have priced themselves out of heavy industry dependent on high usage of energy. How dumb is that?
Socialist supporters of global warming, across the EU and USA should go and explain to the unemployed, how noble it is of them to give up their childrens and grandchildrens inheritance so socialist leaders can have nice holidays in the sun.
In my household we have been known to play the game: "Predict the Climate Change mention" in any given BBC production.
Here it comes...here it comes....there it is! Much exaggerated groaning then ensues.
I can only assume someone gets a bonus every time it is mentioned. A double bonus if you can slip it into an article about toasters or manhole covers.
"China and India are guaranteed lower energy costs, by not signing anything in Paris. The EU and USA have priced themselves out of heavy industry dependent on high usage of energy. How dumb is that?"
Yes pretty dumb but it has nothing to do with socialism!
The cost of energy is a major factor in the viability of the Steel Industry
The British Steel industry is on the point of being wiped out
Yet the Tory Government seem to be taking a rather detached view of the matter.
They say that they need permission from Brussels to subsidize the energy costs to heavy industry.
The Steel Industry and Power industry was planned and implemented by mainly socialist Governments in the post war years.
Frankly I'm disgusted with the attitude of the BBC over climate change, similarly the Trust. This treatment of Peter Lilley, one of a small handful of qualified scientists in the Commons, is the latest example of the disgusting bias of the corporation. As a matter of interest, is there any real, quantitative scientific evidence that the 2014 flooding could be attributed to excessive quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Bryan
You are absolutely right that the climate change argument has nothing to do with Socialist v Conservative politics, we have many socialist 'deniers' posting on BH ^.^
Lilley has right on his side: his comments were factual and true. The programme. On the other hand, was light- hearted. Factual, true and light-hearted are concepts alien to those that forced the apology out.
There is their Achilles heel.
Don't post from your phone :(
Ssat: tee hee...
Pretty much all politics is socialist these days isn't it? Big State, high taxation, compliance culture, patronage, etc. The game seems to be to push responsibility upwards when you start to lose control - to the EU, now to 'global government'. My Tory MP answers any letter pointing out the idiocy of the Climate Change Act with boiler plate responses citing 'consensus'. Nonsense.
Bryan 4.36, and others,
Miliband's Climate Change Act was designed to make UK manufacturing uneconomic, by increasing the cost of energy etc, allowing UK manufacturing to be shut down, and transferred elsewhere, with carbon credits earned for doing so.
The Guardian reported that Vaz and Mandelson were cleared over the Hinduja passport affair.
Where is the problem?
I just listened to a BBC radio program about proposed SNP changes in land ownership laws in Scotland (Car journey. I didn't control the radio). I was actually quite pleased when they managed to mention the Highland Clearances and manage to not divert the discussion towards climate change.
How low my expectations of the BBC have sunk.
I'm sure there are those at DECC who are delighted that the steel industry is shutting down - less demand that might cause blackouts and hot seats in the office. The loss of jobs is Osborne's problem for his Northern once we had a Power House called Eggborough/Ferrybridge, but we closed it down.
There was a priceless bit on BBC this lunchtime. One guest told Adnan Nawaz:
The subsidy for solar panels is being reduced from 12% to 1%. This is outrageous.
Adnan didn't ask why it was outrageous, but the guest explained anyway.
Because solar power is free, we should be encouraging it!
Er, if it's free, then why does it need ..... quite. Naturally, not a flicker from the BBC people
Rick Bradford, the BBC are very happy to refer to Unreliable methods of generating power as Renewable. It would be interesting to hear the BBC challenged on air, about the reliably expensive nature of Unrenewables. Once Renewable subsidies are cut, suppliers can't supply anything but 100% guaranteed Unreliability, and they can not back that up with any confidence at at all.
The banks don't care where things are manufactured, but building new factories is incredibly profitable for them. So is carbon trading. What global warming has done has done is accelerate the equivalent of a second global economy in India and the far east.
It will massively increase the amount of planetary CO2 and pollution. So much so, the reduction due to sustainable technologies will be basically irrelevant. Well done Messrs Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, Harrabin and Monbiot.
esmiff, please do not forget Ed Miliband and Briony Worthington from your list of thanks, as 1000's more UK steel workers sacrifice their jobs for someone else's vanity, confident that the same amount of steel can be produced with far more CO2 outside the EU, at cheaper cost.
Peter Lilley has a degree in Physics from Cambridge (natural philosophy) which is difficult to get with a two thirds wastage.Only one in three complete the degree with the others converting to other subjects. He has a better scientific education than probably anyone at the BBC. He is one of very few politicians with scientific competence.
srga, Lilley's technical expertise is probably why he is not wanted in the Cabinet. Civil servants and other Politicians are always happier briefing someone with a Degree in PPE, as they don't like being shown up.
The trouble with the word 'Socialist' is that it needs a qualifier. Mine are (in order of decreasing realism): Modern, Utopian, Champagne, Dinosaur, Marxist & loony-lefty. Only one is 'progressive' and none are actually 'liberal'.