Interesting Poster

April 2, 2016

 

 

 

You saw this one ? about the effects of dogmatic greens in Germany and Japan shutting nuclear

12919831_1694390654135152_7373189676435053805_n

UK is Mr Bean on Climate Change & Energy

December 7, 2015

The whole thing is that the UK thinks is Mr Bond leading the world unconscious it is really Mr Bean ..screwing up all the way.

Mr Bean Cameron and his mad energy policy
“Our most important task is providing a compelling example to the rest of the world of how to cut carbon while controlling costs. ”
WTF

We are the Mr Bean of the world’s energy policy

..Ha ha ! look the British energy policy falling over.
… look at their industry emigrating away, look at rising prices, look at their dreamy ideas what sad simpletons they are.
..Do you remember how they led the world with their Sinclair C5 electric car ?

More odd notes
originally posted in Discussion
Why’s she (Amber Rudd)say something nutty like that ? * @Greensand I don’t know
Maybe cos her team is full of PR people ..and no engineers

* “Our most important task is providing a compelling example to the rest of the world of how to cut carbon while controlling costs. ”
God it’s PPE fk-wit-speak
What more COMPELLING than staying alive ?
What more COMPELLING than having a reliable energy supply, without blackouts ?

.. Is it the UK’s duty to provide a compelling example in all other wars aswell as the war on CO2 ? (Labour says no)

……………
reporting about Harrabin/Orwell .was written by David Whitehouse BBC’s Science correspondent from 1988 until 2006
Basically says Harra holds extreme controversial views on CC which are not those of the IPCC

22 Highlighting Harra’s Disinformation 12/10/2015

October 17, 2015

Rough copy desconstructing a Harrabin piece. It’s unfinished due to the RABBIT HOLE effect : ie when you deconstruct a simple point in a deceptive story it leads on deeper and deeper into other issues like in the Alice Wonderland story.

Go straight to the deconstruction

Intro

Careful mate, Eamon the story made you angry … but was it playing you ?
… Was this BBC story  A helpful deconstructing of REAL news
or a PR trick of CONSTRUCTING news to dis-inform & manipulate you ?

The first BIG clue is that the story was edited 24 hours after after you shared it !
The headline and subheading were changed, as they described something that never happened.
That correction made after inciting us with a DRAMATIC  headline is only the first deception in his story.
This shows that BBC writer Harrabin’s habit of mixing fact with fiction to incite us.

If  Marsha Blackburn never expressed a view about the Climate bit of the Pope’s speech to Congress, then how can this be a news story ?
It does look like as usual the BBC’s R Harrabin is constructing propaganda.
TRUE CONTEXT: No The report MISLEADS on context as it contrives to try to shoehorn an old piece of “dirt” into an event of today ..It contains NO new CONTEMPORARY info about what the lady or any Republican said in relation to the Pope’s speech (before or just after).
– Furthermore even for the new version most of it falls apart on close examination.

So this post is anti-environment as it disinforms us.
– Whereas objective journalism helps us. This piece doesn’t.
The thing is TRUTH and proper process is the cornerstone of Good Environmental policy and practice so that resources can be allocated properly and efficiently.
IT’S SIGNIFICANT for us here in Borneo cos whilst Harra is pushing his own dogma he excludes others including problems that harm right NOW.
This means the issue of the HAZE and Borneo habitat loss is not be talked about and has not been stopped after 20 seasons !

BTW The old story is here
New version http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34342808
Harrabin

***
What can we do with so many misleading new-stories
#1 Don’t Panic ! (the normal Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy rule)
#2 Just CHECK IT : In this case no independent source confirmed this special story ..no video of Marsha Blackburn making a speech etc.
#3 If no confirmation, don’t be sucked in by emotional; tricks,  JUST WAIT. Most stories are not so time sensitive and in time there will either be confirmation either way.

Bottomline is I know some shortcuts when I see a story like that
* 1 It’s got some extraordinary claim, it needs checking for external confirmation (the rule is an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence)
** 2. See the BBC logo and see it’s about a hippy topic like climate : ding-a-ling warning
*** 3. See the author is Roger Harrabin – 2X ding-a-ling
**** 4.Extraordinary claim from Roger Harrabin, that means it will almost certaintly fail to live up to close examination
– The thing is we’ve see dozens of Harrabin stories before and it’s like he’s not out to shine a light on the truth, but rather DISINFORMATION as he seeks indoctrinate readers into a religion at all costs.

He cares for the environment like Najib’s PR team care for Malaysia. Like when someone challenges Najib  they use he using PR smear tricks like MONSTERING that personas unpatriotic. Just like Harra tries to monster Marsha Blackburn. .

It’s like Harra is All out For The Climate War and sits there at his desk trying to construct the climate alarm story of the day, by harvesting what he can from today’s news and joining bits together.
He’s forever making bold claims which in time get contradicted
Yes LAST MONTH the SAME writer Roger Harrabin wrote :”AA joins protest at government’s green changes”
As usual the story was reposted by activists as if were true, but eventually the AA issued a firm denial.

If Harra was interested in bringing you the truth, he would have simply waited 24 hours for the news instead of making it up.
OK he is the environment reporter.
#1. So if he wants to report on Republican response to the environment bit of the Pope’s speech..the best info would have come by waiting until after the speech and then calling the Republican’s up for their views. ?
#2. If he’s got some hot “dirt” on “Marsha Blackburn” -the best thing would be to call her and ask her, not just rely on third info from the radio prog people. (It bothers me we can’t check his version yet)

But instead he chose to construct a misleading story, propaganda style.

– Similarly as I go line by line through the report , it mostly fall apart as series of PR .tricks

** Why such reporting is anti-environment **
There is ONE real world whereas there are dozens of fantasy views of the world.
It is vital that we base our government spending, allocation of resources and restrictive laws … on a truthful REAL WORLD picture.
* Harra is a BAD thing for the environment. He may think that his spinning is a SHORTCUT which helps save the world, in the same way Najib’s PR guy thinks it would be best for him to take over the jobs of top news reporters so that only pro-Najib stories are reported.
He’d be mocking-up a smear job news-story against Anwar etc. which says that Anwar has just said that chief mufti of Saudi is wrong ..and therefore this proves Anwar is evil and should be dismissed.

* Shortcuts may seem tempting,but then you end up screwing up.
We end up with screw-ups like 20 years of SE Asia haze and Borneo extinctions through habitat loss #kabut.
For environment we have decide how to spend money and what laws and restrictions to enact. But by usurping the proper process of news media dissecting news and politics to help a public, who then vote on it, we end up getting into holes we can’t get out of.

MY guess is Harra divides into Climate fighters and baddies, he excempts his mates fromproper scrutiny and ch\allenging.

so he won’t tackle the Borneo issues,cos he doesn’t want to side against his biofuel mates or green corps ever.
We have seen it before where the government decides we have to go to war and critics are silenced.

* Harra has damaged the BBC by damaging the credibility of the BBC and journalism in general. People are much more inclined to say “BBC journalist tabloid journalist what’s the difference ?”
* The haze might have been conquered if Harra would report on it, maybe he is afraid that by mentioning it he would take the focus away from Global Warming.

* Harra habitually writes such propaganda pieces which break the BBC’s own Guidelines on impartiality which are part of its legal obligation on impartiality

* Harra damages truth by gatekeeping (instead of rigourous challenging of all assertions, he lets his friends go unchallenged, whilst at the same time completely excluding anyone who has different views.)
Harra stops truth by pushing dogma and ensuring critics are kept off the airwaves

The product of these tricks is that Harra damages the credibility of the BBC, journalism in general. People are much more inclined to say “BBC journalist tabloid journalist what’s the difference ?”
Similarly Harra damages the credibility of science by equating it with the phrase the phrase “scientists say”. The are different one is truth the other is opinion.

* Harrabin has damaged his global warming cause by mixing up truths and fantasy..so people have a bigger excuse to just dismiss everything he says.

BUT Harra’s biggest damage is that he occupys the chair of a real journalist.
It’s like if Najib’s PR guy occupys a  journalist’s chair not only does it mean that his spin gets straight to air, but it’s far worse than that, cos it a normal situation he would output his PR and then it would be dissected by a real journalist but when he’s sitting in the real journalist’s chair so that job is never done
***************

Always ask yourself : Is it helpful deconstructing of REAL news or is it a PR trick of CONSTRUCTING news to manipulate you ? Giving you a simple meme (or 2) you are likely to share & retweet
We have proper procedures for truth, and we should not be usurping them

#1 New science Info comes out
#2 Media guys challenge and scrutinise it, bringing in opposing experts.
#3 It goes back and forth and corrections are made.
#4 That science come into policy.
#5 Politicians freely debate and challenge it, as they are paid to on behalf of the public.
#6 Media guys challenge that proposed policy from all angles.

Good reporters get to the truth by shining alight, testing the original science claims and holding politicians to account about the the policy based on it. That system helps get things done in an effective and efficient manner. It is public money after all

***** It proves to us the BBC writer Harrabin has disrespect for truth.
He routinely concocts stories like this mixing fact with fiction.
The thing is TRUTH and proper process is the cornerstone of Good Environmental policy and practice so that resources can be allocated properly and efficiently. People like Harra are responsible for the screwup with Borneo palm oil which causes massive air particle pollution TODAY and for the last 20 years.
continuation of Borneo environmental problem

Right now other people are maybe getting angry and  posting on Facebook cos they are being fed similar concocted stories monstering critics of Najib. Emphasisng that those “bad guys” are stupid, “clearly unpatriotic and against Malaysia.
They would argue it’s a special situation and we can get rid of proper process that there is no need for these opposition forces criticising him, rather we should suppress them and just automatically implement Najib’s policies.

Having Harra as the BBC’s environment correspondent is like appointing Najib’s mum as CNN’s only Malaysia correspondent. would push her own cause whilst the same time

# One sided stories glorifying Najib.
# Gatekeeping keeping out challenging voices
# Smothering : IMPORTANTLY theysit in the chair ofa proper journalistwho deconstructs them real news challenging it from all angles left/right up/down to get the truth for the public.

******************************
** Deconstructing this story **
..Jesus I know the WHAT Harra does but I don’t know WHY  ..I can only speculate.

Is it news ?
We know she actually spoke months ago..so it’s NOT NEWS ..it’s not new. Rather it seems to me Harra has been holding what he considers as dirt on some I mean ONE “top US critics on climate”.  So instead of reporting Today’s NEWS of what they actually did say after the Pope spoke

False short story rather than the long TRUE story than perspective
steps he took ..asked alarmists

You’ll notice from reality TV shows , that constructed stories are easier to tweet and share, cos they give you a simple meme (or 2) you are likely to share & retweet
..rather than the many lines it takes step by step to explain the complexity of REALITY.
***
You were probably angry cos in your mind you have a picture of
#1 The Pope coming to Congress to make  a big speech ABOUT CLIMATE
#2 This lady in the photo listening to him
#3 and then in your words “Rejecting Pope” by saying “We’ll ignore the pope on Climate says US politician (Republican Marsha Blackburn)” just as the BBC title says here on your post.
#4. And that is amplified by “This lady right here claimed that this world has cooled down by 1F since the last 13 years. what a joke.”

MISLEAD #1  Harra wrote “Pope Francis is to speak on the subject in an address to Congress on Thursday.
– NOW The speech did contain a significant climate plea (a repetition of one he made in his Encyclical *) BUT was general speech rather than a “Climate speech” . 90% about other topics , environment was only about 200  words out of 3000 odd and couched in careful language ..not mentioning Climate Change nor Carbon Dioxide. (words quoted below **)
MISLEAD #3. Therefore Republicans did  listen to the Pope
BUT did not react with words against the Pope’s Climate stance. I guess they may have spent time on the other 2,800 words

CLAIM #4 “This lady right here claimed that this world has cooled down by 1F since the last 13 years. what a joke.”
Hey that seems like strong dirt BUT
Hmm, all we have is Harrabin’s assertion that we can hear that “as part of a FORTHCOMING Radio 4 documentary series” .
#4.1 Google doesn’t show her saying anything like that before.
#4.2 We should be able to check the words and CONTEXT in future..but we don’t know when cos neither Harrabin nor the BBC website tell us when this prog will be broadcast.
Of course you’ll be screaming for a disproof, but why ? Let’s just say “we don’t know yet” and wait until we do hear those words in context, before judging.
—————————————————————————————.

* (Similarly that Encyclical was not actually “about climate”, it was about the humans & environment …Climate was only a small part. However of course activists can rightly say that plea was one of the Pope’s most important bits. If you think you are saving the planet from catastrophe then it’s more important than other issues even though you wrote more pages about them.)

** Detail of the plea
(- The Pope did not directly mention Climate Change or Carbon Dioxide but a few sentences seem to be a plea
\\ In Laudato Si’, I call for a courageous and responsible effort to  “redirect our steps,” and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.  I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States — and this Congress — have an important role to play//
(that’s backed by two further phrases :
1* “the environmental challenges we are undergoing, and its human roots”
2* “avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity”…ie 3 phrases in that massive speech)
Passionate journalists often report what is in their imagination rather than what happened in realityThere was no big confrontation cos the Pope didn’t use the words
\”Words like carbon, climate and ecology were absent from his speech/
– by using ambiguous phrases the Pope dampens direct criticism

As <a href=”http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/pope-francis-skirts-environmental-tussles-in-address-to-congress/”>New York Times explains</a> there was no backlash against the Pope cos he didn’t do the big climate hype
“Words like carbon, climate and ecology were absent from his speech (read it in full here). He’s wisely saving that message for the United Nations on Friday.”
(actually NEITHER did use them much on that Friday In a 3768-word speech, there is one sentence mentioning climate:
“I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.”)

————————————————

Evidence it was constructed news : The uncorrected version makes it seem like the report is contemporary news..but look at the correction.

Firstly : The article seems to be REAL NEWS about ‘the Pope’s speech to Congress and US politicians response.’
If Harra was interested in bringing you the truth, he would have simply waited 24 hours for the news instead of making it up.
OK he is the environment reporter.
#1. So if he wants to report on Republican response to the environment bit of the Pope’s speech..the best info would have come by waiting until after the speech and then calling the Republican’s up for their views. ?
#2. If he’s got some hot “dirt” on “Marsha Blackburn” -the best thing would be to call her and ask her, not just rely on third info from the radio prog people. It bothers me we can’t check his version yet,

But instead he chose to construct a misleading story, propaganda style
The key EVIDENCE against that is that the BBC title was later “CORRECTED”.
: The title was changed 1-2 days later to “Pope unlikely to sway top US critics on climate”
The correction note makes it clear that she did not say those words the title originally quoted as when she spoke she was speaking many months ago, before the Pope spoke on climate.
* Note the “s” at the end of “US critics”
Well how many does he actually talk about ? ONE

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE supporting Harra’s BBC news story ?
Applying the rule an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence I searched for external sources backing the key claims.
But I found no external source at all. NO, we just have BBC writer Roger Harrabin’s word that this is what she said.
I could find NO external confirmation of those 2 key claims
#1 “We’ll ignore the pope on Climate”..You’d expect lots of new sites quoting her views on the Pope’s climate words to congress.. but there weren’t any.

#2 “This lady right here claimed that this world has cooled down by 1F since the last 13 years. what a joke.”
Hmm, all we have is Harrabin’s assertion that we can hear that “as part of a FORTHCOMING Radio 4 documentary series” .
#2.1 Google doesn’t show her saying anything like that before.
#2.2 We should be able to check the words and CONTEXT in future..but we don’t know when cos neither Harrabin nor the BBC website tell us when this prog will be broadcast.
Of course you’ll be screaming for a disproof, but why ? Let’s just say “we don’t know yet” and wait until we do hear those words in context, before judging.

___________________
There are 2 obvious problems

1. This news story was written on Wednesday after the WhiteHouse address but BEFORE the speech to Congress, instead of waiting for actual speech on Thursday
, but was that about climate ? See how the Pope’s photo is labelled “The Pope’s recent encyclical was about climate change” I bet many readers were misled. In fact the pope only mentioned climate for a few minutes of his speech to congress (“only 225 words of his 3,396-word speech”)
For the Wednesday White address the Paragraph about Climate/Poverty was
186 words of his 616-word speech.

“An earlier version of this report implied that Marsha Blackburn’s comments were made in relation to the Pope’s address”
We know she actually spoke months ago..so it’s NOT NEWS ..it’s not new. Rather it seems to me Harra has been holding what he considers as dirt on some I mean ONE “top US critics on climate”.  So instead of reporting Today’s NEWS of what they actually did say after the Pope spoke , he decided to incorporate the dirt into the report so he can create a false impression of their reaction.
– A dirty PR technique he seems to frequently use is to try to smear the names of people challenging climate alarmism, instead of addressing the arguments one by one.
… He is very partisan you can be sure he’ll hardly cover an alarmist making a dramatic failed claim, like Gore saying 2015 the Arctic will be ice free, or someone predicting a large increasein temp by 2010,2015 etc. that never happened nor the IPCC chairman’s arrest and dismissal from day job on sexual harassment. So it’s not like he tackles alarmists equally.

See how Harra constructs smear
he quotes her

“I don’t think you will see me being persuaded.”
but early on he has framed her by saying
“she said no evidence would persuade her of man-made warming.”
em no she didn’t. See the difference in the phrases.
..but he ends by reinforcing the misinterpretation
“If no evidence will persuade Ms Blackburn of climate change, that shows how well-founded her views are.”
You will of course remember what he asserts rather than what she actually said

Then he says
\\She also rejected the theory of evolution.//
OK it is strange to say that you don’t accept the theory of evolution. (just as many people have unscientiifc hippy views eg Steve Jobs)
but what is interesting is that Harra chooses to reinforce with the phrase
\\Scientists say her views are “complete nonsense”.//
It seems sloppy ..what scientists ? what views ?
If something is beyond dispute then Just state what her views are, and what the SCIENCE says.
– When I see the phrase “Scientists say” in a news report it tells me, it’s likely spin. Cos of course you can cherry pick a few scientists carefully to give an impression that a particular OPINION is 100% proven.
To me it seems like he seems to be constructing a smear to say that there’s some official source that says all her views on science are nonsense.

** Note Harra chooses not to mention  that some extreme alarmists are creationists : “Warmist Katharine Hayhoe does not believe in evolution or big bang, but does in CAGW. ” says Twitter

Summary :
Not news It’s old info : Pope’s speech hardly mentioned climate : the BBC admitted they misled

BTW The old story is here
….web.archive.org/web/20150924174145/http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34342808
The title was changed and some of the sentences moved around but it’s mostly the same.
Except “Ms Blackburn declined to name the sources of her scepticism about mainstream science.”

he saw opportunity to sex it up to
…….”Ms Blackburn – who represents Tennessee, a big user of coal – declined”

Bottomline : You don’t know Harrabin, but I am

JustwhatRopgerHaarabi

but is this BBC story truthful ?
It seems a big story

is your choice, but what Pope said was true.

..but that was it’s job to create anger in people like you and re-inforce a belief.

thye make stuff up Harrabins post
and this

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34437703
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2015/05/31/new-open-thread-9/

222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
Bottomline is you should be angy..but about how “writers” like Harrabin deceive
Without Harrabin the Environment would probably be no haze , no rhino extinction

In the real world people are suffering TODAY and

Bottomline the article is deceiptful propaganda.
And this reall yreally matters

cos the result of that writers actions

That we wou

(1) First The Malaysian CONTEXT would be is that that BBC reporter Harrabin is equivalent to appointing Najib’s mum as CNN’s only Malaysia correspondent.
“Now the News on Malaysia”
– “Unpatriotic troublemakers like jailed opposition politician Anwar are unlikely to sway Najib on 1MDB”
– “And here’s some new pictures of Najib with cute kittens”

There is ONE real world whereas there are dozens of fantasy views of the world.
Reality is full colour complex not black and white simple ..so long explanations are needed.

but good journalists help us get to the truth. See part (5)
Roger Harrabin the writer of that article is more like Najibs’s mum

There are 3 types of information source.
#1 PR : Corporations and  Politicians seek to promote their own agenda whilst at the same time excluding or damaging their competition’s.
#2 Partial Journalism : like a newspaper owned by a political party, who are open they have chosen a side.
#3 Impartial Journalism like the BBC, which receives public funding precisely so that it can remain above any special interests.

Normally BBC journalists do a useful public service : On issues like consumer products and politics ..they gather the evidence and test it by bringing in opposing viewpoints. You know like challenging corporations and politicians claims against each other.

However in certain issues the BBC management have failed to implement it’s own impartiality charter rules and the output of some staff has become like the worst PR excesses of
corporations and politicians.

Harrabin is a prime example his output is as if he works for GreenBlob corp. He uses all the extreme dirty PRtechniques to highlight their achievements, whilst at the same time he both ensures that the opposition are shown in a bad light and their viewpoints suppressed.

Wow EXTRAORDINARY… is it news ? is it true ?#1 It’s writer is Harrabin ..and I say he has a bad reputation for saying one thing which in time doesn’t stand up **
#2 Who says so ? Well Harrabin himself CHANGED this article : AFTER you shared it.
Harrabin went back and materially changed it, including changing the headline from :
“We’ll ignore Pope on climate, says US politician.”to “Pope unlikely to sway top US critics on climate”

Got that ? In the title he is quoting her, but she cannot have said those words, cos the interview was recorded months ago before the pope spoke on climate.

( note #3 This time Harrabin acknowledges the changes but he has in the past used STEALTH CORRECTION changing stories days later without leaving an acknowledgement just like his GuardianNewspaper friends and SkS sometimes do.)

Yes well, but I can hear you say “that woman still said some crazy things”
Yes so in a further comment I will mention them

xxxxx

** last month’s example :
BBC writer Harrabin comes up with UNIQUE extraordinary headline which was massively reposted over the web.
..but no supporting evidence turned up except for a firm contradiction.

I am familiar with him and have seen dozens of occasions when he make claims which then turn out out to be not what they first seem.
Yes LAST MONTH the SAME writer Roger Harrabin wrote :”AA joins protest at government’s green changes”
…Wow an extraordinary claim , and extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence, but when checked the AA websites I found no evidence to justify the headline.
Furthermore in time the AA issued a firm denial.
QUOTE :”Please rest assured that Edmund King, AA president, has been back to Roger Harrabin at the BBC pointing out that the headline and introduction to his piece didn’t represent the AA view as we only commented on VED and what our members thought of the proposed changes.
We also pointed out that members, such as you, were unhappy with the coverage.”

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/harrabin-making-it-up-as-he-goes-along/

Well ..What’s the takeaway ?
It’s this :
#1 The OLD title :”We’ll ignore Pope on climate, says US politician.”
#2 “This lady right here claimed that this world has cooled down by 1F since the last 13 years. what a joke.”
#3 the NEW headline “Pope unlikely to sway top US criticS on climate”

Is it Deconstructing REAL news or is it PR :CONSTRUCTING news to manipulate you ?

or Manipulative PR designed to play on your emotion ?#1 Harrabin admits he made that up
#3
You make claim, then you show your evidence ..that is the way. So lets look at that claim
#3.1 Note the “s” at the end of “US critics” How many does he actually talk about ? ONE

#3.2 Would you SHARE these BBC headlines ?:
1.”Jailed opposition politician Anwar unlikely to sway Najib on 1MDB” or even
2. “Pope unlikely to sway top US critics on abortion”
No of course you wouldn’t ..Those things are completely expected ..There is no NEW info that makes them news ..they are 100%predictable.
SO it’s NOT NEWS

Re Point #2

Harrabin has a reputation #2 Anyway any extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence.

Anything back him up ? No no third source on the internet I can find.
.. There’s just his words :
\\as part of a forthcoming Radio 4 documentary series “Climate Change – Are we Feeling Lucky?”, she asserted that the earth had cooled in the last 13 years by 1F. And she said no evidence would persuade her of man-made warming.//

Is it truthful ? There is no real need to SHOUT today cos.Of course in the future we will get the full words and CONTEXT when the prog is broadcast
…but there is no broadcast date and no info on that prog apart from Harrabin posts.
It is quite an extraordinary claim that she said this ..and extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence.

The ONLY evidence here is that Roger Harrabin says she said that .. no other source on across the web seems to back up that claim.

useful balanced

Wow, but hang on a moment
We wqill see the full context when it is broadcast. What is true is that Harrabin has said stuff that turns out to be unsupported last month his big reposted story wass

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

News vs propaganda
News informs you of NEW contemporary info, giving context, perspective, balance, validation.
Propaganda : Tries to spin any news item into an advantage for a cause. Lets test this piece :

NEW ? – The idea that Top Republican’s oppose climate alarmism is not new info ..It’s already known.

TRUE CONTEXT: No The report MISLEADS on context as it contrives to try to shoehorn an old piece of “dirt” into an event of today ..It contains NO new CONTEMPORARY info about what the lady or any Republican said in relation to the Pope’s speech (before or just after).
– #2 It misleads us to thinking the Popes speeches were ALL about climate  when they were 80-90% about other issues.
PERSPECTIVE : Is it proportionate ? Hey, there is one big interesting line that is the focus

…that she said: “I think we’ve cooled almost 1 degree (F).” ..Yes that is challengeable
And only made by ONE person  on ONE occasion so it is rather weak story. Harra re-titled the story with a plural, so he should really present evidence of flawed climate thinking of multiple Republicans.

BALANCE : Harra could have dealt with the claim quickly by calling her or her colleagues to challenge her ..but instead he chooses to call just one person : an opposer a top climate alarmist.

VALIDATION :Before we get angry or retweet we should seek validation from another source. Yet for
this report the main claims have only been seen by Harrabin. The big claim is not on the net elsewhere, we can only check it by listening a future radio prog.
Only then to me is it news, when we have listened to it and thefull context is the time to start retweeting.
Eamon : validate a claim before you get angry or retweet

Source Check ..What sources does Harrabin go to ?
#1. ‘Secondhand’ He didn’t actually go to ask her, but relied on words from “a forthcoming Radio 4 documentary series” recorded “earlier this year”
..We can’t check this source and we don’t know when it is

#2.Brian Hoskins, “said her remarks were “absolutely staggering”.
NOTE Harra is never going to tell you that the same guy Brian Hoskins described Climate Models as “lousy” and “terrible” in an interview with the Economist in 2010.
50% of Hoskins’ work is as figurehead for Grantham Institute for Climate Change, which is partially funded by Jeremy Grantham the millionaire behind the world’s largest green hedgefunds.

If the headline said something extraordinary like Eamon will say on a forthcoming radio show “I am really the Pope”
What would Harrabin do ?
He’d probably call up all your enemies and print the most extreme lines they said.
He wouldn’t actually call you or any of your friends

What is the first step a GOOD journalist would take ?
They’d call YOU Eamon up to ask if it’s really true and what’s your explanation.
And you’d say “oh yes we were playing some crazy game ata party and I said ‘I am the pope of Penampang”

Is the report truthful ?
OK The 1st shortcut : The BBC’s OWN CORRECTION : The report was edited AFTER you picked it up. With both the title and subtitle being changed
What’s Harra told us

1. Title : Ignore Pope on climate, says Republican Marsha Blackburn
2. Subtitle : “One of the most influential US energy politicians says she will reject the Pope’s plea to tackle climate change.”

You click cos of  the story in your mind

We have to base decisions on the TRUE world not the fantasy world

Green cloak

but we have to base our POLICY on the truth not just what story forms in our head
and we have systems to get to the truth.
And news media deconstructing news
and opposition politicians challenging policy decisions is part oftthat process

Passionate journalists often report what is in their imagination rather than what happened in reality

There was no big confrontation cos the Pope didn’t use the words
\”Words like carbon, climate and ecology were absent from his speech/
– by using ambiguous phrases the Pope dampens direct criticism

As <a href=”http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/pope-francis-skirts-environmental-tussles-in-address-to-congress/”>New York Times explains</a> there was no backlash against the Pope cos he didn’t do the big climate hype
“Words like carbon, climate and ecology were absent from his speech (read it in full here). He’s wisely saving that message for the United Nations on Friday.”
(actually NEITHER did use them much on that Friday
In a 3768-word speech, there is one sentence mentioning climate:
“I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.”
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/06/18/laudato-si-chapter-one-what-is-happening-to-our-common-home/

Congress transcript : http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/pope-francis-speech-to-congress-transcript-text-video-214016#ixzz3o8U8kau1

—————————

The story you were fed
“Ignore Pope on climate, says Republican Marsha Blackburn”

#4 So there is no record of Marsha Blackburn saying anything like Harra wrote she did.

BBC acts as an advertising agency for Greenblob

October 17, 2015

bbcswansea
in reply to Paul Homewood’s story
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/polar-bears-are-coming-to-town/

#1 That BBC Report ends “Source: Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd”
So it has to be breaking the BBC rules as it is basically a Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd PR sheet with a BBC stamp on it.
Have you ever noticed a BBC fracking story where the photos and videos are supplied by the fracking company ?

I made other comments on the original story
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/tidal-lagoon-desperately-needs-mouth-watering-subsidy/

How reporters spin – First article was edited replacement of second

July 24, 2015

The National Media Museum Bradford Exhibition shows that all newspaper photos are manipulated to create a narrative, so it stands to reason that the stories are often spun. So that 2 completely articl scan come from the same set of notes. Here are 3 examples.

e.g. 1 The Farmers Weekly article Flindt mentioned I found originally had a totally different title and therefore spin

“How 1 acre of land can earn farmers up to £60,000/year” How to get a good deal on farmland for backup power sites

e.g. 2 TOMO’s PA story concern
Now Look at this story and see how it also comes in two different versions. It almost looks like the PR guy at the renewables association had taken a redpen and re-arranged the article. The first few papragraphs are completely different but the latter ones are the same.

Plan to stop solar subsidies ‘absolutely nonsensical’ – green energy campaigners

Planned cuts to solar energy subsidies have been criticised as a “short sighted” move that will not lower energy bills.The Government has announced proposals to close the subsidies scheme a year early in April 2016 for “small-scale” solar farms, which can be up to 25 acres in size, to save up to £100 million a year by 2020.Changes have already been announced to close the subsidy scheme for the largest solar farms, above five megawatts (5MW), and for new onshore wind schemes.

Ministers are trying to grapple with a £1.5 billion overspend on the cap for subsidies to boost clean power by 2020, with spending expected to be £9.1 billion rather than the £7.6 billion limit.

The extra spending – due to changes in the wholesale price of power, more efficient technology such as wind turbines which generate more energy than expected and greater deployment of renewable schemes – is set to add an extra £18 to bills by 2020.

Consumers are already facing costs of around £92 on their energy bills by the end of the decade to pay for more low-carbon power, with the overspend pushing it to £110.

But the cuts to smaller solar farms will shave an estimated £1.20 off bills.

The Government’s assessment also shows it would push up carbon dioxide emissions by 7.3 million tonnes.

Officials said the plans, which also include curbs for biomass power plants, are needed to rein in rising bills and control spending.

There will also be a review of the scheme that pays householders for solar panels on their roofs later in the summer.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd said: “We need to keep bills as low as possible for hardworking families and businesses while reducing our emissions in the most cost-effective way.

 “Our support has driven down the cost of renewable energy significantly.

“As costs continue to fall it becomes easier for parts of the renewables industry to survive without subsidy.

“We’re taking action to protect consumers, while protecting existing investment.”

But critics said the proposals would put jobs at risk and undermine investment in renewables, while failing to reduce people’s energy bills.

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Daisy Sands, head of the energy campaign at Greenpeace said: “The proposals to stop solar subsidies that will save the average household about the same as a loaf of bread per year is absolutely nonsensical when comparing it to the 30,000 jobs and the investment in the UK economy that will be lost.

“This is a hugely short sighted proposal that will wipe out innovative community solar energy schemes but continue to pour money into subsidies and tax breaks for multinational energy giants like EDF.

“If the government is serious about keeping energy bills down, they would choose to slash subsidies and tax breaks for the oil, gas and nuclear corporations which have been propped up and polluting for decades.”

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Alasdair Cameron said: “This latest attack on the green economy will cast a long shadow over the UK solar industry, and undermine efforts to tackle climate change.

“This won’t lower electricity bills – all new energy is being subsidised to some extent and solar is already cheaper than nuclear and will soon be cheaper than gas from new power stations.”

Industry body the Solar Trade Association (STA) said the move would hit large rooftop schemes, which the Government has been keen to back, as well as solar farms.

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
STA head of external affairs Leonie Greene said: “There is no pledge in the Conservative manifesto about cutting support for solar, so we are disappointed by this move.

“Solar is the nation’s most popular form of energy, as the Government’s own opinion polls have shown.”

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
She called for more efforts to unlock the potential of rooftop solar, which only accounts for a small proportion of the market.

The Government also announced plans to extend the “levy control framework” cap on subsidies past the current end date of 2020/21 to give investors the certainty they have been asking for.

Cutting solar energy subsidies ‘will reduce household bills’
.

Solar energy subsidies will be cut under plans set out by Energy Secretary Amber Rudd which she claimed would reduce household bills. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is consulting on plans that would see subsidies for some small-scale new solar farms close by 2016.Ms Rudd said the renewable energy industry could not be given a “blank cheque” and the level of subsidies should be reduced because of a fall in the cost of delivering solar power.She launched a consultation proposing the early closure of the renewables obligation (RO) scheme for new solar projects generating less than five megawatts from April 2016.

Ms Rudd told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I’m not ruling out further subsidy for the solar industry. What we are doing today is introducing measures to limit that subsidy.

“We can’t have a situation where industry has a blank cheque and that cheque is paid for by people’s bills.

“I’m going to ensure that people’s bills are kept down in terms of this extra subsidy for renewable energy.”

The solar subsidies add around £3 to bills, she said: ” It all adds up doesn’t it? It’s £3 for solar then it comes to other sources as well. I’m going to make sure that those sums don’t keep adding up on to people’s bills.”

She added: “Bills having additional costs to them is never going to be painless. I welcome wholesale prices coming down, and bills coming down, but nevertheless we can’t have a system which we have had up to now where there is basically unlimited headroom for new renewables, including solar.

“Solar has been a great British success story and we will continue to support solar, but on a different level, on a capped level, so that I continue to look after bill payers’ interests as well. It’s getting that balance right.”

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Critics labelled the proposals short-sighted, putting jobs at risk and undermining investment in renewables at the same time as continuing to subsidise nuclear and fossil fuels.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said: “This proposed cut to support for solar is utterly short-sighted.

“While the Government continues to subsidise fossil fuels and nuclear, it’s undermining investor confidence in clean, renewable energy generation.

“This cut would further undermine Britain’s commitment to meeting our climate change targets and deepen our addiction to dirty fossil fuels.”

Daisy Sands, Greenpeace head of energy campaign, said: ” If the proposals to the consultation are implemented the Government will be choosing to protect subsidies to EDF whilst withdrawing support for the communities, businesses and households’ efforts to install solar panels.”

She said no one should be getting “easy money” at a time of financial stress, but a huge opportunity existed to deliver subsidy-free clean energy.

“Cutting the subsidies now will see businesses go bust and investment dry up. The timing couldn’t be worse as the sector is on transition to subsidy-free and is a cheap form of renewable energy.

“It is galling when tax breaks and subsidies have propped up the oil, gas and nuclear industries for decades.

“Jobs will go and emissions will stay higher at a time when policies and funding should be in place to ensure that people can participate in contributing to the UK’s diverse energy mix,” she said.

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Alasdair Cameron said: ” This won’t lower electricity bills – all new energy is being subsidised to some extent and solar is already cheaper than nuclear and will soon be cheaper than gas from new power stations.

“This is entirely a problem of the Government’s creation. The Treasury has placed arbitrary limits on clean power, but solar has proved too popular and efficient, and the Government seems to lack the imagination to adapt.

“If David Cameron wants to have any credibility ahead of this year’s crucial climate talks, he must end his support for dirty fossil fuels, such as fracking, and stop his Government destroying the UK’s burgeoning renewable sector.”

Industry body the Solar Trade Association said the move, which affects bigger solar installations up to around 25 acres in size, would hit free-standing farms and larger rooftop schemes. It comes after the Government closed the subsidy scheme early for the largest solar farms of more than 5MW (megawatts) in size.

The Solar Trade Association’s head of external affairs Leonie Greene said: “This is damaging for big solar rooftops as well as solar farms, both very cost-effective ways of generating solar power.

This contrasts with repeated commitments from Government to boost the commercial solar rooftop market.

“The possible removal going forwards of the guarantee on a set level of support throughout a project’s lifetime once built is a real blow to investor confidence.”

She said: “There is no pledge in the Conservative manifesto about cutting support for solar, so we are disappointed by this move.

“Solar is the nation’s most popular form of energy, as the Government’s own opinion polls have shown.”

She called for more efforts to unlock the potential of rooftop solar, which only accounts for a small proportion of the market, and warned that if the Government pulled the rug from under solar farms too soon the market would have nowhere to go.

“We also regret this move because solar farms are close to competitiveness with new gas generation,” she said, adding solar subsidies only added £3 to household bills.


e.g. 3 The PA one is the direst and has no open comments

 Plan to stop solar subsidies ‘absolutely nonsensical’ – green energy campaigners
Press Association 2014 / Wednesday 22 July 2015 / News
Planned cuts to solar energy subsidies have been criticised as a “short sighted” move that will not lower energy bills.The Government has announced proposals to close the subsidies scheme a year early in April 2016 for “small-scale” solar farms, which can be up to 25 acres in size, to save up to £100 million a year by 2020.Changes have already been announced to close the subsidy scheme for the largest solar farms, above five megawatts (5MW), and for new onshore wind schemes.Ministers are trying to grapple with a £1.5 billion overspend on the cap for subsidies to boost clean power by 2020, with spending expected to be £9.1 billion rather than the £7.6 billion limit.

The extra spending – due to changes in the wholesale price of power, more efficient technology such as wind turbines which generate more energy than expected and greater deployment of renewable schemes – is set to add an extra £18 to bills by 2020.

Consumers are already facing costs of around £92 on their energy bills by the end of the decade to pay for more low-carbon power, with the overspend pushing it to £110.
But the cuts to smaller solar farms will shave an estimated £1.20 off bills.

The Government’s assessment also shows it would push up carbon dioxide emissions by 7.3 million tonnes.

Officials said the plans, which also include curbs for biomass power plants, are needed to rein in rising bills and control spending.

There will also be a review of the scheme that pays householders for solar panels on their roofs later in the summer.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd said: “We need to keep bills as low as possible for hardworking families and businesses while reducing our emissions in the most cost-effective way.

“Our support has driven down the cost of renewable energy significantly.

“As costs continue to fall it becomes easier for parts of the renewables industry to survive without subsidy.

“We’re taking action to protect consumers, while protecting existing investment.”

But critics said the proposals would put jobs at risk and undermine investment in renewables, while failing to reduce people’s energy bills.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Daisy Sands, head of the energy campaign at Greenpeace said: “The proposals to stop solar subsidies that will save the average household about the same as a loaf of bread per year is absolutely nonsensical when comparing it to the 30,000 jobs and the investment in the UK economy that will be lost.

“This is a hugely short sighted proposal that will wipe out innovative community solar energy schemes but continue to pour money into subsidies and tax breaks for multinational energy giants like EDF.

“If the government is serious about keeping energy bills down, they would choose to slash subsidies and tax breaks for the oil, gas and nuclear corporations which have been propped up and polluting for decades.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Alasdair Cameron said: “This latest attack on the green economy will cast a long shadow over the UK solar industry, and undermine efforts to tackle climate change.

“This won’t lower electricity bills – all new energy is being subsidised to some extent and solar is already cheaper than nuclear and will soon be cheaper than gas from new power stations.”

Industry body the Solar Trade Association (STA) said the move would hit large rooftop schemes, which the Government has been keen to back, as well as solar farms.

STA head of external affairs Leonie Greene said: “There is no pledge in the Conservative manifesto about cutting support for solar, so we are disappointed by this move.

“Solar is the nation’s most popular form of energy, as the Government’s own opinion polls have shown.”

She called for more efforts to unlock the potential of rooftop solar, which only accounts for a small proportion of the market.

“We also regret this move because solar farms are close to competitiveness with new gas generation,” she said, continuing that s olar subsidies added just £3 to household bills at the moment,

The Government also announced plans to extend the “levy control framework” cap on subsidies past the current end date of 2020/21 to give investors the certainty they have been asking for.

Tory Government pulls funding for Green Deal home efficiency programme

Press Association 2014 / Thursday 23 July 2015 / News
The Government’s flagship “Green Deal” home energy efficiency programme is to fold as ministers announced they were pulling its funding.The Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) said there would be no further funding for the Green Deal Finance Company, which delivers the programme, in light of low take-up and concerns about industry standards.There will also be no more funding for the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund cash back scheme, which gave households money back on home energy efficiency improvements.
Measures have been installed in around 10,000 properties under the Green Deal scheme, in which providers meet the upfront costs of installing efficiency measures and householders pay the money back from savings they make on their energy bills.Today’s announcement does not affect existing Green Deal plans taken out by householders or existing Green Deal Home Improvement Fund applications and vouchers, Decc said.

The end of the Green Deal is the latest announcement in a review of wider energy policies, which has already seen cuts to subsidies for smaller scale solar farms and onshore wind and a decision to ditch targets to make new homes “zero-carbon” by 2016.

The energy efficiency programme, which has been running for around two-and-a-half years, was last year labelled a “disappointing failure” by the Parliamentary Energy and Climate Change Committee.

Under the scheme, householders could avoid the upfront costs of insulation, efficient heating systems, draught proofing, double glazing and renewable energy generation such as solar panels, paying back the cost of their installation with savings on bills.

But the loans were too expensive, the scheme was frequently changed and householders did not take up the finance plans at the expected rate.

The latest figures up to June 2015, showed there were 9,999 “live” Green Deal plans, where all measures had been installed in a home, and a further 5,597 in process.

Tens of thousands of vouchers have been issued under the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund, with payments worth £114 million paid out to finance 27,140 measures. A total of £171 million has been committed under the fund.
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd said: “We are on the side of hardworking families and businesses – which is why we cannot continue to fund the Green Deal.

“It’s now time for the building industry and consumer groups to work with us to make new policy and build a system that works.

“Together we can achieve this Government’s ambition to make homes warmer and drive down bills for one million more homes by 2020 – and to do so at the best value for money for taxpayers.”

The Energy Company Obligation (ECO), which requires suppliers to provide energy saving measures to vulnerable and low-income households, with the money recouped on consumer bills, will continue this year.

Fuel poverty and environmental campaigners have called on the Government to make energy efficiency a national infrastructure priority, to help cut climate emissions, save money on their bills and improve health by stopping people living in damp, cold homes.

Julie Hirigoyen, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council, said the Government’s strategy for cutting high energy bills through energy saving measures such as insulation was now “dead in the water”.

“With each passing day, this Government puts an end to another green policy. Government’s strategy on dealing with high energy bills through home energy efficiency is now dead in the water.”

She said the Green Deal scheme was finally becoming established just as it was pulled.

“This is yet another announcement with no forewarning that will leave the energy efficiency industry battered and bruised.”

Ed Matthew, of the Energy Bill Revolution, said the Green Deal had clearly failed in its current form but should be reformed, not scrapped.

“The UK has among the worst-insulated homes in western Europe and as a result we waste huge amounts of energy.

“Zero interest loans to make homes energy efficient would be far more popular and could generate more tax revenue for the Treasury than it costs to subsidise.”

And he said: “The Government needs to make home energy efficiency an infrastructure priority.

“The Treasury plans to invest £100 billion in infrastructure over the next five years. Just a tiny proportion of this investment could help insulate millions of UK homes and drive down energy bills in the most cost-effective way.”

 

Greenpeace UK head of energy Daisy Sands said: “The Green Deal was far from being a success, but coming right after the scrapping of the zero-carbon homes target, this latest move suggests ministers are giving up on efficiency.

“This would be a false economy. Fixing our heat-leaking homes is a triple-win policy that can bring down bills, cut carbon emissions and reduce our dependence on energy imports.”

She added: ” If ministers really want to cut emissions at the lowest price for consumers, they can’t afford to ditch energy efficiency. A new ambitious programme for warmer homes is sorely needed.”

Consumer group Which? executive director Richard Lloyd said: ” We welcome this move as the Government can’t keep throwing money at a scheme that has spectacularly failed to take off.

“Ministers should now work with consumers to put together a realistic new approach that is genuinely good value and helps people to save money by saving energy.”

Shadow energy and climate change minister Jonathan Reynolds said: “The Green Deal was billed by the Government as ‘the biggest home improvement programme since the Second World War’ but has been a flop from start to finish.

“Today’s announcement simply serves to confirm that the Government’s approach to energy efficiency has been a complete and utter failure.”

He urged: ” With more than two million households in fuel poverty, the Government urgently needs to lay out what plans they have to replace the Green Deal.”

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: “Today’s news is yet another blow for green industry and British jobs. The Conservatives claim they want to tackle climate change but this is further evidence they don’t care about the environment.

“For five years we fought sceptical Tories to ensure we were the greenest government ever by investing billions in renewables and setting out ambitious climate change targets.

“By quietly dumping the Green Deal, David Cameron has yet again shown how little he cares about the future of the planet.”

New Fracking Opinion Report is a sexed up version of his 2013 report

July 15, 2015

Bottomline the POSITIVE phrase is in the old report, but NOT the new one based on the same data !
“Many participants OFTEN spoke for the relative merits of domestic unconventionals, with energy security, domestic production, and shorter transport distances seen as their main benefits. ”
..see that word “often” ..it wasn’t just an odd comment

– Context and Perspective are everything
It’s quite important that the interviews were conducted more than 2 years ago now.. Issues move fast and there has been election since then
– It is relevant that it was Laurence Williams masters thesis work published at the the end of 2013 and that he then moved to SPRU and has taken the same data and made this 2015 paper.
Could even be or not that he scored 2 grants for overlapping work.

– The context is also that Universities and SPRU Brighton in particular are hotbeds in greenism.
.. The thing is they are likely to be involved in Green energy research projects so hava bias towards them
That same Durham department had quite a few research programmes about Photovoltaics, Geo-Energy, Nuclear Energy, Biofuels, Energy Storage for Low Carbon Grids, Green Growth Diagnostics for Africa, Smarter Grid etc whereas they don’t have any research about developing fracking.

I note there is another new report  Framing Fracking: Which Frames Are Heard in English Planning and Environmental Policy and Practice? by Chris Hilson

……………

What is the public’s opinion on fracking ?
Certainly not robustly opposed nor robustly supporting..various results have been obtained
Does it he public’s opinion matter that much ? Informing them is good. But if you give people vetos they’ll aways vote against change, you’d never get anything done, yet the same people then have a different one after it’s started
.. or if the questions are framed properly. eg Of the last 10 years of US shale which successful projects should taken down ?

– We know Guido reported Greenpeace had to hide their poll results earlier this year
“Hoping to demonstrate that pro-fracking parliamentary candidates could lose their seats, the far-left pressure group commissioned Com Res to survey the British public’s attitude towards hydraulic fracturing. The results? 65% of the Great British Public ARE NOT opposed to fracking. ”
– OK Guido is being tricky he added the 43% who would vote for a pro fracking guy to the 22% don’t knows vs the 35% against…note the question”vote for a pro fracking guy ”

– In January YouGov poll for the Sunday Times – support for shale gas at 35% and opposition at 41.
– February’s DECC attitudes survey found only 24% of the UK public support shale gas extraction.”
.. however that is also spin cos DECC stress NO/Yes are about the same but the don’t knows are much larger at 44%
The DECC poll is not a very good polling system says the expert
I reckon, they must be using skewed questions to get things like “Solar sees 81% in favour” ..most people know they are paying a subsidy for their neighbours panels.
– A 2013 report from Nottingham Uni spoke of continuing growth in fracking support due to cheap fuel perception.

 

Bish’s comment :
“Remarkably, almost nobody seems to have thought that a new industry in their area would bring any benefits at all. ”
is contradicted by an earlier report SAME data, SAME author
– A POSITIVE phrase is in the old report, but NOT the new one based on the same data !
“Many participants OFTEN spoke for the relative merits of domestic unconventionals, with energy security, domestic production, and shorter transport distances seen as their main benefits. ” pg 84-85 Jan 2014
..see that word “often” ..it wasn’t just an odd comment. ..is the change “sexing up” ?

 

other contexts

 

– Proper questions

eg Of the last 10 years of US shale which successful projectscshould not have taken place ?

—————————-
The above came from looking at this BH post 

My first comment was

New Focus Group study about opinions on  Fracking from SPRU
by Laurence WilliamsHang on it’s a reprint of older research from 2013 ..Whilst I searched for other focus group projects i find this one from Durham University  published in Jan 2014
WILLIAMS, LAURENCE,JOHN (2014) Framing Fracking: Public responses to potential unconventional fossil fuel exploitation in the North of England. Masters thesis
and when I check the new paper I can see that it’s the same data and none comes from after September 2013

page 84-85 gives an indication of engineer type support
“Many participants often spoke for the relative merits of domestic unconventionals, with energy security, domestic production, and shorter transport distances seen as their main benefits. However, on balance, the majority of those who were willing
to accept unconventionals as a good response to any looming energy ‘crisis’ were only able
to do so because abstract and global environmental discourse left them feeling alienated.
On the other hand those that were persuaded by environmental politics….”
– Does he mean they feel alienated by the domination by GreenReligion calling them deniers ?
– What’s he mean by \\looming energy ‘crisis’// ?

I’ve seen that paragraph before from 16 Dec 2013  Durham U magazine; which is a summary of the  focus group research  … “Many participants spoke for the relative merits of shale gas, with energy security and the apparently self-evident logics of more general domestic production often highlighted. However, for the majority this resulted from a feeling of  alienation  generated by abstract and global environmental discourse. On the other hand…..
———————————————-

– SPRU is based in BRIGHTON green-loony central
– They chose the Guardian as the place to launch their fracking opinion research 1year ago
– 1000 green fantasies on their blog page eg “that during the weekend before, 8% of the UK’s electricity generation had come from solar”
… they mean not 48 hours but rather 7.8% of daytime electricity, on 21 June 2014 estimated by the solar trade association.
on their About us “The aim of our research is to identify ways of achieving the transition to sustainable, low carbon energy systems … core partner in the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research…”
– Their latest Facebook post ” the government’s radical decision to scrap the UK zero carbon homes target .. how this major setback will affect the UK’s low-carbon future. ”
– some might suspect bias.

RealWorld/GreenFantasyWorld : Newsweeks lies about solar

July 14, 2015

“Europe’s under-exploited solar industry is about to experience a new dawn
By Rory Ross 7/8/15 at 1:05 PM”
http://europe.newsweek.com/europes-under-exploited-solar-industry-about-experience-new-dawn-329957

Haha it then contains “China wants to double world solar energy production within two years. Hanergy, the world’s largest thin-film solar power company based in Beijing, is doing its bit by supplying IKEA, which has installed 700,000 solar panels worldwide.” ..em that’s Hanergy the virtually bankrupt corp whose shares are still suspended after 6 weeks

The only good thing about the article is David Bergeron‘s comment

Image milk producers can make and sell milk profitably at $3/gal. Now image a new ‘green’ ‘organic’ company can make milk for $12/gal, but claims it is better for the environment. Almost no one buys the $12 milk, so the green milk producers go to the government and are granted special favors (subsidies) so they can sell their $12 milk for $2.95. So people start buying it. It also makes the people feel good about buying “green” milk. But the real cost is $12 and the $9 subsidy is hidden in taxes and fees so the general public does not know the real cost is $12. THIS IS SOLAR ENERGY.

Now image a part of the subsidy for the green milk is put on real milk, so the price of real milk starts to go up. Now the green milk people say, look at the price of milk, is it going up, you better hurry and buy our green milk and save money. THIS IS SOLAR ENERGY.

The more green milk we buy the higher the price milk becomes and we are all worse off. We can all afford less milk. Our standard of living is diminished. THIS IS SOLAR ENERGY.

Now image a careful analysis of the green milk industry reveals the money spent reducing CO2 with green milk was actually a very poor investment. Green milk saves CO2 at a cost of $120/ton, but carbon credits trade in Europe for $5-$10/ton. So every dollar we spend on green milk could have produced about 10X more CO2 savings had it been spend more wisely. THIS IS SOLAR ENERGY.

LCOE of solar ~ 12 cents/kWh (DOD EIA Report), marginal operating cost of traditional plants, ~ 3 cents/kwh (Same report). (That is a proper apples to apples comparison)

Cost to mitigate CO2: solar ~ $120 to $200/ton. Carbon credits trade in the EU for $5-$10/ton.

Solar energy is a political solution, not a real solution.

That Toronto Star story

July 13, 2015

There is a torrent of Green Religion disinformation, everyday half the story all the time.
Friday it was Porter’s fabricated story, today it’s the BBCr4Today prog reporting
“Over the last 40 years we have lost 50% of the world’s wildlife”
a claim based on wacky WWF extrapolations for VERTEBRATES which @BBCmoreOrLess debunked 1 year ago
– Are Media Ec0-warriors lying or self deceiving ? both I guess.
I think it’s a perfect storm Noble Cause Corruption added to a media culture of fakery

#1 Distorted worldview  : RealWorld vs fictiousWorld ie GreenReligionFantasyWorlds.
In that Green issues are not as full colour complex as we see them, but more black and white  simple EMOTIONAL narratives
* Environment is perfect/catastrophe  * The Jesus of Green magic solutions *The Devil of rightwing bogeymen in the pay of BigOil
– All hat causes the Noble Cause corruption(NCC) mindset, which fuels to “End Justifies the Means EJM behaviour.

#2 The Fakery culture of the media, they get so used to faking to improve the story that they forget where the boundary to reality is.
As the BBC competitions scandals  showed it is often expeditious to fake things eg animal footage from months is edited to make the perfect story for 1 day.
.. So EJM behaviour is facilitated by that media  fakery culture. Thus we get Greenspun stories with opposition voices demonised and excluded .
Which I am calling Mummying Bias Not so much DramaQueening as DramaMummy-ing..coming from a ‘Mummy knows best’ mindset ..We know this is par for the course in the way that Climate/Green/Liberal issues are presented thru media like BBC, ABC, Guardian etc.
– That the heartfelt issues are so important and Mummy’s conspiracy theories of imagined powerful BogeyMen so strong that the Mummywriters feel they have to give “truth” a helping hand.

Bish puts its “Among the environmentally concerned, playing fast and loose with the actualité is seen as a tactic that delivers good results quickly and it’s easy to see why”

as Joel O’Bryan said Noble Cause corruption(NCC) mindset leads to “End Justifies the Means EJM behaviour.

– “I bet she believes it happened the way she wrote it up.” says @Slywolfe
Exactly and she’ll be able to find a ‘97% of cherrypicked small sample of scientists’ who also believe her version is true.

– I note the loaded emotive language she used : “right-wing bully”, “belittling”, “preparing to brawl with” , “The one doubter” …especially since Levant’s full video show those claims to be false.

———-

– There’s RealWorld and there are fictiousWorlds particularly GreenReligionFantasyWorlds.
And what world do you get from Lie-beral media ? They’ll put anyone like their mates if they are ON MESSAGE.
..whereas most of the public will never get to see a nobel prize winner cos he’s OFF MESSAGE
Heres’s another for the Skeptics video channel Norweigen Ivar Giaever: Global Warming Revisited (2015) He knocks back all the main alarmist arguments ..intro via Climate Depot

Jul 11, 2015 at 5:52 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

or Maybe MummyBias or ParentalInstinct bias is a better expression to describe the way articles are automatically skewed in writing by the writers genuine emotional concern.
– With Green issues that emotional concern has 2 parts : There’s impending catastrophe / Green solutions are magic.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Brilliant ethics code, Pity the Toronto Star exempts GreenReligion from it

July 13, 2015

as Political Junkie observes
“Just this week, one study found that even if we manage to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius — the target for current climate negotiations — sea levels may still rise six metres above their current heights, drastically affecting millions of people and altering coastlines around the world.” (IPCC projections are typically way lower than this like 1m)

Nearly TEN THOUSAND ‘climate change’ articles in the last few years – this is typical.

The Star has a policy to misinform. When sufficiently alarmist, IPCC is their trusted go to source, but when AR5 results proved to be not scary enough – crickets. Not a word about the hiatus, failed models, inability to attribute extreme events, etc.
“All studies, but particularly health and science studies, should be based on peer-reviewed, reputable journals and should include independent comment. -” I wonder if they comply ?
from 2011 Toronto Star Newsroom Policy and Journalistic Standards Guide (which is brilliant)

– Some more quotes
“Truth emerges from free discussion and free reporting. An informed public
is essential to fostering and preserving Canada’s democratic society. ” ..have you got that Guardian and BBC ?
“With this right comes a responsibility for the media to be accurate, fair, honest and transparent.”

“Journalists who abuse the power of their professional roles for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that public trust.”
“The Star is a forum for the free interchange of information and opinion. It should provide for the expression of disparate and conflicting views.”

“That good faith rests primarily on the reader’s confidence that what we print is true. Every effort must be made to ensure that everything published in the Star is accurate, presented in context, and that all sides are presented fairly.”

“..errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and as prominently ..”
“There can be no compromise with accuracy”

(generally) “the Star does not unpublish content from our websites or archives, but does append corrections”
“Columnists .. not engage in personal axe-grinding ..”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Surely there an quick test of whether Gobal warming causes Extreme weather

July 13, 2015

The narrative is that Global warming causes more extreme weather ..as the climate system has more energy.

Surely there an quick test of whether Gobal warming causes Extreme weather
– What about the years in the past when volcano eruptions were so strong there wasn’t a global summer. I wonder if just after these colder years there were LESS extreme weather events due there being less energy in the climate system.

Hours Later the Naked scientists had an article about 16 volcano events spotted in ice cores, they found 15 match “no summer” years shown in tree rings.
– Other media report the angle that the research quantifies the temperature effects and  that this is proof volcanoes cause short term climate change. IBT, antarctica.ac.uk
(BTW Wikipedia says there were more extreme weather events in   cool year 535AD

The same prog had 2 more GreenBlob stories, in each the scientist seemed to be true-believers first who frame their research around that
#1 The Bumble bee story : basically claimed BBC seem to have moved away from southern extreme, but not moved further up noprmal extreme “as we’d expect from the warming climate”. Well since the measured temps are largely stable or fudged (as Paul Homewood claims) then that explains why they are not moving north
#2 Robot Taxis are going to massively improve vehicle emissions UPTO 94%. The researcher seemed to have a lot of wishful thinking, that even the  reporter from this “on message” show questioned .e.g. claimed robot drivers mean the vehicle is smaller
536AD

How could you check that ..only by waiting for warmer decades ?

Yesterday I was checking up on Greenpeace/UCS’s story  BigOil has a big climate denial campaign.. this turns out to be about a memo from 24 years ago 1991, they’s have you believe that a big report leaked and discovered by Gelbspan. but when you go to the actual document which has sat hidden on the Greenpeace servers for years you find that the 50 pages are not one report but a dossier and only Page 10 is the actual memo itself. It is unstamped whilst the rest of the 50 pages are stamped with ‘Information Council on the Environment” (ICE) or the mark of some other client. That plain 1 page memo  was a campaign proposal by opinion survey firm Cambridge Reports of Massachusetts. But alarmists make out it’s like page 1 of a big strategy document.
– Indeed That 1 page memo is quoted in NY Times 1991 July 8 Article<a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/business/pro-coal-ad-campaign-disputes-warming-idea.html”>Pro-Coal Ad Campaign Disputes Warming Idea By MATTHEW L. WALD</a> so it’s not true to say it was discovered by Gelbspan
“A packet of internal correspondence and other information relating to the campaign was provided to The New York Times by the Sierra Club

globalwarming.org 2014 article
Cheryl Varley , is BBC’s ‘social mobility executive’ and head of Raw a BBC  online TV channel. It made a series starring her son, one of his progs mainly featured her other sons record store. What is social mobility about ? Daily Mail
16 summers in last 2500 years
http://scitechdaily.com/new-timescale-firmly-implicates-volcanic-eruptions-as-the-dominant-drivers-of-past-climate-variability/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.