Those who doubt that the Brussels Brainwashing Commissariat is biased need only listen to Dame Jenni Murray’s interview with mezzo-soprano Christine Rice on Thursday’s Woman’s Hour. This should remove all doubt. At one point Dame Jenni asked Christine about her pre-singing career researching “global warming.” The response was not want the BBC wanted. The singer recounted her disillusionment with the field of climate change studies, which she described as “the buzz subject… with a lot of money”:
“……I was amazed really by the inadequacy of what we had, because we’re talking about climate change which is over tens of thousands of years as opposed to the twenty years of data that we had. So in a way we were putting out a lot of ideas and not really having concrete scientific research to support it, and I suppose at that point I did lose a little bit of my spark, thinking well I could propose an idea and I could probably draft a thesis that would support it and yet I wouldn’t really convince myself necessarily……”
At this point Dame Jenni changed the subject! Herewith the recoding:
Speaking the Truth unto the Nation
Oh how wonderful to hear that….on the BBC!
I have forwarded this to all of my address book!
Good for her. When I hear or read people such as Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph trying to elaborate and justify their mad unsubstantiated warming theories, I reply by asking why they don’t put in some simple but thoroughly workable preventative measures such as doling out free condoms and planting trees. That way eventually, I won’t get barged off fthe overcrowded pavements of Chichester High St. when shopping for the few bawbees my shrinking income will still purchase and I can contemplate the greening of the lump of blank soulless concrete that passes for my neighbourhood.
But no, that’s too simple and obvious. Let’s instead spend huge amounts of money that we don’t have on capital projects that are endemically flawed and won’t deliver as specified. I should know, I’ve got a PhD in ’tilting at windmills’.
What on earth was she doing using only 20 years of data? There are observations going back much longer than that.