Given that the BBC has given exhaustive coverage to the Bali Conference and many other conferences that have been dedicated to promoting the theory of man-made CO2 driven Global Warming and given that the recent Global Cooling (as scientifically verified by all four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS)) stands in stark contrast to the Global Warming "Hysteria" falsely reported as scientific consensus, and given that the BBC is supposed to be politically neutral and report reasonable facts and opinion on all sides of science, politics and the human condition in general, Why has there been no coverage of the New York conference at all? I could find no reference to it at all on the BBC news website.
Uniquely, The New York Conference has been convened in order to definitively demonstrate to the wider world that there is no scientific consensus whatsoever on the theory of man-made global warming, or even on global warming as a definitive direction or outcome of on-going permanent climate change.
The opening remarks of the conference,delivered Sunday, March 2, 2008, include the following:
"Welcome to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.
This is a truly historic event, the first international conference devoted to answering questions overlooked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We’re asking questions such as:
* how reliable are the data used to document the recent warming trend?
* how much of the modern warming is natural, and how much is likely the result of human activities?
* how reliable are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions? and
* is reducing emissions the best or only response to possible climate change?
Obviously, these are important questions. Yet the IPCC pays little attention to them or hides the large amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding them.
Are the scientists and economists who ask these questions just a fringe group, outside the scientific mainstream? Not at all. A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found
* 82 percent said global warming is happening, but only
* 56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only
* 35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.
Only 27 percent believed “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years.”
That’s a long ways from “consensus.”It’s actually pretty close to what the American public told pollsters for the Pew Trust in 2006:
* 70 percent thought global warming is happening,
* only 41 percent thought it was due to human causes,
* and only 19 percent thought it was a high-priority issue.
The alarmists think it’s a “paradox” that the more people learn about climate change, the less likely they are to consider it a serious problem. But as John Tierney with The New York Times points out in a blog posted just a day ago, maybe, just maybe, it’s because people are smart rather than stupid."
CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE LINK (please take the time to read all of the opening statement. It is simply awesome).
Is it not newsworthy to show that the very basis upon which major serious global political and economic decisions (that are being forced upon the entire global population) is, in actual fact, completely, totally and absolutely wrong? Namely that the science of AGW is settled and there is global scientific and political consensus demanding that severe global action to tackle climate change be taken immediately?
Hundreds of the world's top scientists and other experts on climate change, [from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States including from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University, George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics, The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and others] are meeting in New York and presenting cold, hard scientific data that not only contradicts AGW and shows that man is NOT responsible for climate change, (and never has been) but that we may already be entering a prolonged period of dramatic global cooling. There has been no global warming at all for a decade and solar activity points towards much more cooling to come. Some of the scientists and experts attending disagree and say that the earth is generally warming still but mankind is not the cause, others claim mankind may be having a tiny almost negligible effect, but that is the point, there is NO scientific consensus. These scientists are arguing on the scientific principle in analysing the raw data and extrapolating accurate, genuine peer reviewed hard, honest and reliable scientific information. Many of these eminent and world leading scientists include people who actually contributed to the IPCC research (that was subsequently ignored in the summary and final reports due to their scientific conclusions being contradictory to the political outcome of the summary, eg they contradict the theory that man is to blame for the moderate and temporary warming of the last 150 years).
This is a serious and newsworthy conference and to omit it from news coverage, that has been radically supporting climatological news, leaves the BBC open to charges of blatant political bias.
That the BBC will continue to broadcast news that assumes that man-made climate change is a reality and this assumption will be broadcast as if it is actual conclusive proven fact is a given, regardless of the fact that man-made global warming is, in reality, a poor and debatable theory at best.
The BBC, as a public service broadcaster, surely has a duty to inform the British public that this conference is taking place and what this conference is covering and to what purpose.
I am extremely angry and disappointed in the BBC for this blatant omission from the scientific news.