The BBC: are claims of political bias justified? Part 2.

OneTenner

LE
Book Reviewer
Do you mean paleoclimatologists?

I wonder why we don't hear much from them.
I think that's probably a specialised bit of the Geological study area, the chap I know is just a rock-chipper but knows his stuff about historical climate change - none of this Johnny-come-lately 'since records began' guff.
 
I think that's probably a specialised bit of the Geological study area, the chap I know is just a rock-chipper but knows his stuff about historical climate change - none of this Johnny-come-lately 'since records began' guff.
Yep, paleoclimatologists study the Earths climate over billions of years (it is always changing), modern climatologists are using just over a hundred years worth of data.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Yep, paleoclimatologists study the Earths climate over billions of years (it is always changing), modern climatologists are using just over a hundred years worth of data.
Ah but. Yes! The climatologists are claiming that the past hundred years are exceptional and all down to us humming beings.
 

Site Admin

War Hero
Oh dear...

So presumably Totty Scotty will turn down her BBC punditry job for the Qatar World Cup given that most of the infrastructure has been built with slave labour…?

Or maybe now with her newly discovered heritage she’ll want to go to get back in touch with her roots?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Surprised not to see David "The New Messiah" Attenborough in that picture. He usually gets wheeled out when its time for them to tell us why the licence fee is so good for us.

Old
White
Male
And you can't see why he is not depicted? :rolleyes:
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Surprised not to see David "The New Messiah" Attenborough in that picture. He usually gets wheeled out when its time for them to tell us why the licence fee is so good for us.

Hypocritical old twat he is telling us that flying is bad, feck me how many air miles as he racked up?
 

OneTenner

LE
Book Reviewer
Gentlemen,

this might be a bit easier to understand.

I understand they're cherry-picking the last 22000 years, yep, it looks to comply with climatologists (it's an 'ology' of course you'll make money from it) predictions - just like they did in the 1970's where we had, what was it? ten years? to save the world....
 
I understand they're cherry-picking the last 22000 years, yep, it looks to comply with climatologists (it's an 'ology' of course you'll make money from it) predictions - just like they did in the 1970's where we had, what was it? ten years? to save the world....
What point should the timeline start from? Why would you choose that point? What would the temperature be at that point and how can you be sure that those temperatures are reliable?
 

OneTenner

LE
Book Reviewer
-Triassic Period-
This was when the first dinosaurs appeared; it began 248 million years ago. The earth was one large land mass surrounded by a huge ocean. This super continent was called Pangaea. There were no ice caps. Except for coastal areas, much of the land was indeed hot and dry. There were frequent violent monsoons. Temperatures were in the mid-to-high 30’s Celsius, (80’s Fahrenheit) with very little fluctuation.

-Jurassic Period-
This period began 190 million years ago. It saw the separation of the large land mass into two bodies of land. Laurasia was to the north and Gondwana was to the south. Rivers and lakes formed, and the climate, although still hot, was now humid with periods of heavy rainfall. Temperatures were in the mid-30’s Celsius (80’s Fahrenheit) with only some small fluctuations.

-Cretaceous Period-
This period was from about 144 million years ago to 65 million years ago. Most dinosaur life flourished at this time, there were more species and more animals. The period ended with the large mass extinction of the dinosaurs. This time is also when flowering plants started to develop and spread.

The continents continued to break up, forming a more familiar look to what we have today. The temperatures started to fluctuate, if only slightly; the overall climate was still hot and humid. Temperatures averaged about 4 degrees hotter than they are today.
from The Climate during the Time of Dinosaurs

Now that's a record of climate change.
 

OneTenner

LE
Book Reviewer
What point should the timeline start from? Why would you choose that point? What would the temperature be at that point and how can you be sure that those temperatures are reliable?
As far back as reliable data is available for. - multiple sources are of course needed for it to be classed as reliable, as ever, show your workings class!
 
As far back as reliable data is available for. - multiple sources are of course needed for it to be classed as reliable, as ever, show your workings class!
If you do that then you are including a huge amount of data including several ice ages and the human period would be all but invisible. Just going from your earlier link: from the Triassic to the Jurassic was 58 million years. In that time the temperature decreased by maybe 4 degrees Celsius (the quoted "mid-to-high 30s" to "mid 30s"). That's taking 14.5 million years to decrease by 1 degree Celsius ie. 656 times longer than the whole timeline you are objecting to

If you were to plot that data you would see comparatively massive swings but over a much, much, much longer timescale such that the change over a standard time period would be virtually nothing. The whole point of the timeline posted is that the scale of change is still small but the rate of change has increased significantly.

Metaphorically, it's like looking at average income and being shown data showing we are now worse off in real terms due to inflation over the last 10 years*, then complaining that the data is cherrypicked and actually we are much better off because for the last 250,000 years the average income was some berries, occasionally a bit of meat and fresh mud for the cave.

* no idea if that's true or not, it's a metaphor
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
If you do that then you are including a huge amount of data including several ice ages and the human period would be all but invisible. Just going from your earlier link: from the Triassic to the Jurassic was 58 million years. In that time the temperature decreased by maybe 4 degrees Celsius (the quoted "mid-to-high 30s" to "mid 30s"). That's taking 14.5 million years to decrease by 1 degree Celsius ie. 656 times longer than the whole timeline you are objecting to

If you were to plot that data you would see comparatively massive swings but over a much, much, much longer timescale such that the change over a standard time period would be virtually nothing. The whole point of the timeline posted is that the scale of change is still small but the rate of change has increased significantly.

Metaphorically, it's like looking at average income and being shown data showing we are now worse off in real terms due to inflation over the last 10 years*, then complaining that the data is cherrypicked and actually we are much better off because for the last 250,000 years the average income was some berries, occasionally a bit of meat and fresh mud for the cave.

* no idea if that's true or not, it's a metaphor
Sod it - I'm turning the heating up, then.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer

OneTenner

LE
Book Reviewer
If you do that then you are including a huge amount of data including several ice ages and the human period would be all but invisible. Just going from your earlier link: from the Triassic to the Jurassic was 58 million years. In that time the temperature decreased by maybe 4 degrees Celsius (the quoted "mid-to-high 30s" to "mid 30s"). That's taking 14.5 million years to decrease by 1 degree Celsius ie. 656 times longer than the whole timeline you are objecting to

If you were to plot that data you would see comparatively massive swings but over a much, much, much longer timescale such that the change over a standard time period would be virtually nothing. The whole point of the timeline posted is that the scale of change is still small but the rate of change has increased significantly.

Metaphorically, it's like looking at average income and being shown data showing we are now worse off in real terms due to inflation over the last 10 years*, then complaining that the data is cherrypicked and actually we are much better off because for the last 250,000 years the average income was some berries, occasionally a bit of meat and fresh mud for the cave.

* no idea if that's true or not, it's a metaphor
All I know is we're having our pants pulled down by some fake 'ologists', paying for the privilege based on some numbers massaged to show what the money behind the agenda wants us to see with no measurable, empirical facts. There are lies, damn lies & statistics - and (to get it back on topic) the BBC have embraced it as it's saviour - the BBC can't be criticised or binned if it's saving the planet - right?

Sure, there are lumps and bumps in climate - otherwise we wouldn't need weather forecasts. Taking the long view (small.... far away, to quote Fr. Ted) enables you to see a broader scope, not just the bit under the magnifying glass. Or as it's also known, context.
 
Top