Both of those people are just saying listen to the scientists.You're right, we should listen to these people instead
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Of course, that would give you maximum profit/pension at the small cost of a thermal maximum and mass extinction.
Total no brainer for someone like you.
speaking of ignorance you seem quite confused
Bjørn Lomborg is an economist & he views issues via a cost-benefit lens
He is the former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen.
So his credentials are good
his fundamental position is a huge amount of time , effort, resources & money will be spent trying to 'FIGHT" climate change, all of which should be spent on adaptation
the fundamental flaw is thinking man kind can successfully 'FIGHT" our constantly evolving, non-linear, dynamic & chaotic climate system & "WIN"
if the climate alarmism was right ( which it is not), driving the USA emissions to zero (which is beyond ridiculous) the impact on world temperatures 50 years from now would be something like -0.1C, far smaller than the std error on most thermometers
it is pseudoscience based on brutally inadequate computer models' and billions of dollars spent on propaganda
Water vapor is the greenhouse gas, CO2 is a saturated bit player , which is also the basis for all life on the planet
Then post his crap on economics threads and not climate change.
Lomborg is a paid oil lobbyist, of course he argues that we should do nothing.
This is about science.
Dr. James Hansen testified to the US congress in the 80's.
Big oil kept the government from acting.
Now?
Greece Almost As Hot As 1987
The press says we are having “extreme heat” in Wyoming. We haven’t had any hot weather this summer and none in the forecast. Tomorrow we might make it up to 63F (17C.)
The press says we are having “extreme heat” in Wyoming. We haven’t had any hot weather this summer and none in the forecast. Tomorrow we might make it up to 63F (17C.)
What do you think those images prove?Greece Almost As Hot As 1987
The press says we are having “extreme heat” in Wyoming. We haven’t had any hot weather this summer and none in the forecast. Tomorrow we might make it up to 63F (17C.)
The climate Change/Global warming cult 10 warning signs
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses. Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.
examples in this thread
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
The conclusions of the Climate Change movement may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. Those who dare scrutinize the conclusions, methodology, or prescriptions of “climate scientists” are categorically dismissed as a “Climate Denierk” an excommunicated untouchable whose opinion is no longer valid on any subject.
examples
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
Hardly anyone knows just how much money is spent on “Climate research” every year. The cost is spread out among laughably useless study grants, wind and solar farm subsidies, carbon offset credits, “green” building code evaluation and enforcement, salaries for bureaucrats solely dedicated to “climate concerns”……you get the idea, it’s a lot of hazy money.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
This one is pretty obvious. The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain. The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple). At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Climate alarmists who leave, step back from, or even lightly criticize the movement are immediately subjected to vicious smear campaigns. Dutch professor Richard Tol experienced this phenomenon firsthand when he removed his name from an IPCC climate report and criticized the reports excessively apocalyptic predictions.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
Professor Tol is not an anomaly. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, and countless other former IPCC in-crowd climate experts were subjected to smear campaigns from their colleagues and the news media for the crime of throwing cold water on the outlandish predictions of the Climate Change movement.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
The abuses of the Climate Change movement are loud and proud. They vociferously attack their perceived enemies for public consumption, and are cheered on by fellow travelers in the journalism class. Most recently they brainwashed a bunch of kids and marched them into an octogenarian Democrat Senator’s office to beg not to be murdered by a ‘No’ vote on impossible legislation.
8. Followers feel they can never be “good enough.”
The atonement process for Climate warriors always demands more. It started with using a recycling bin and grocery bags. Now, in 2019, being a good follower means imposing veganism on the masses and issuing fatwahs against innocuous objects such as plastic straws and grocery bags. Despite all the efforts of the faithful, Climate minions maintain a constant state of dread and despair, knowing they can never truly do enough to stop the coming doom.
9. The group/leader is always right.
When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.
Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change. No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.
See how this works?
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science.” Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science. Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.
Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science,” while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism.”
The Verdict: It’s a cult
According to the established, scientific guidelines developed by cult experts, the Climate Change movement fits the bill for a potentially unsafe group. Rather than debating Climate Change activists, it may be time to start staging interventions. If someone you know is a member of the Climate Change Movement, and you are interested in intervention strategies, please visit https://culteducation.com/prep_faq.html.
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses. Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.
examples in this thread
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
The conclusions of the Climate Change movement may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. Those who dare scrutinize the conclusions, methodology, or prescriptions of “climate scientists” are categorically dismissed as a “Climate Denierk” an excommunicated untouchable whose opinion is no longer valid on any subject.
examples
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
Hardly anyone knows just how much money is spent on “Climate research” every year. The cost is spread out among laughably useless study grants, wind and solar farm subsidies, carbon offset credits, “green” building code evaluation and enforcement, salaries for bureaucrats solely dedicated to “climate concerns”……you get the idea, it’s a lot of hazy money.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
This one is pretty obvious. The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain. The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple). At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Climate alarmists who leave, step back from, or even lightly criticize the movement are immediately subjected to vicious smear campaigns. Dutch professor Richard Tol experienced this phenomenon firsthand when he removed his name from an IPCC climate report and criticized the reports excessively apocalyptic predictions.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
Professor Tol is not an anomaly. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, and countless other former IPCC in-crowd climate experts were subjected to smear campaigns from their colleagues and the news media for the crime of throwing cold water on the outlandish predictions of the Climate Change movement.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
The abuses of the Climate Change movement are loud and proud. They vociferously attack their perceived enemies for public consumption, and are cheered on by fellow travelers in the journalism class. Most recently they brainwashed a bunch of kids and marched them into an octogenarian Democrat Senator’s office to beg not to be murdered by a ‘No’ vote on impossible legislation.
8. Followers feel they can never be “good enough.”
The atonement process for Climate warriors always demands more. It started with using a recycling bin and grocery bags. Now, in 2019, being a good follower means imposing veganism on the masses and issuing fatwahs against innocuous objects such as plastic straws and grocery bags. Despite all the efforts of the faithful, Climate minions maintain a constant state of dread and despair, knowing they can never truly do enough to stop the coming doom.
9. The group/leader is always right.
When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.
Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change. No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.
See how this works?
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science.” Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science. Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.
Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science,” while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism.”
The Verdict: It’s a cult
According to the established, scientific guidelines developed by cult experts, the Climate Change movement fits the bill for a potentially unsafe group. Rather than debating Climate Change activists, it may be time to start staging interventions. If someone you know is a member of the Climate Change Movement, and you are interested in intervention strategies, please visit https://culteducation.com/prep_faq.html.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
The conclusions of the Climate Change movement may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. Those who dare scrutinize the conclusions, methodology, or prescriptions of “climate scientists” are categorically dismissed as a “Climate Denierk” an excommunicated untouchable whose opinion is no longer valid on any subject.
Nobel Laureate Silenced - CO2 Coalition
Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled. According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was “postponed.”
Dr. Clauser had previously criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming and told President Biden that he disagreed with his climate policies. Dr. Clauser has developed a climate model that adds a new significant dominant process to existing models. The process involves the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds that cover, on average, half of the Earth. Existing models greatly underestimate this cloud feedback, which provides a very powerful, dominant thermostatic control of the Earth’s temperature.
More recently, he addressed the Korea Quantum Conference where he stated, “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis” and expressed his belief that “key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.” Dr. Clauser, who is recognized as a climate change skeptic, also became a member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition last month, an organization that argues that carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial to life on Earth.
The conclusions of the Climate Change movement may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. Those who dare scrutinize the conclusions, methodology, or prescriptions of “climate scientists” are categorically dismissed as a “Climate Denierk” an excommunicated untouchable whose opinion is no longer valid on any subject.
Nobel Laureate Silenced - CO2 Coalition
Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled. According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was “postponed.”
Dr. Clauser had previously criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming and told President Biden that he disagreed with his climate policies. Dr. Clauser has developed a climate model that adds a new significant dominant process to existing models. The process involves the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds that cover, on average, half of the Earth. Existing models greatly underestimate this cloud feedback, which provides a very powerful, dominant thermostatic control of the Earth’s temperature.
More recently, he addressed the Korea Quantum Conference where he stated, “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis” and expressed his belief that “key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.” Dr. Clauser, who is recognized as a climate change skeptic, also became a member of the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition last month, an organization that argues that carbon dioxide emissions are beneficial to life on Earth.
1. Scientists are professionally not supposed to advocate. That's changing as this becomes a climate emergency.
2. Bullshit. You can question but you have to have the evidence and numbers to back your position, not some bullshit theory about IR radiation that fails.
3. Bullshit. You can always get research funding numbers but you will never get the numbers that oil&gas spends on lobbyists and disinformation.
4. Bullshit. Climate change is enough, its not like the right wing that is afraid of pedos, gays, barbie, Mexicans, Hunter Biden or whatever Fox tells you next.
5. Richard Tol believes climate change is real.
6. You're saying Tol, Lindzen and Morder got the same kind of abuse or that they deserve it?
7. ridiculous
8. Only because boomers and all redoing a old bad plan.
Its a pretty weak list.
Here are more solutions to climate change at least for those who will
receive climate help from the likes of Trudeau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has climate finance paid for? Gelato shops, a coal plant and more
Jun 01, 2023
No rules exist about what counts as climate help to developed nations, and some projects may not help.
Italy helped a retailer open chocolate and gelato stores across Asia. The United States offered a loan for a coastal hotel expansion in Haiti.
Belgium backed the film La Tierra Roja, a love story set in the Argentine rainforest. And Japan is financing a new coal plant in Bangladesh and an airport expansion in Egypt.
These were some of the findings uncovered during a climate finance investigation by reporters from Reuters and Big Local News, a journalism program at Stanford University in California.
...............................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada has pledged to spend big money on helping poorer countries
to overcome climate change. We could climate-finance people in Bangladesh
and Pakistan to install air-conditioners in their squatters as well. That is
one way to serve climate justice.
receive climate help from the likes of Trudeau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has climate finance paid for? Gelato shops, a coal plant and more
Jun 01, 2023
No rules exist about what counts as climate help to developed nations, and some projects may not help.
Italy helped a retailer open chocolate and gelato stores across Asia. The United States offered a loan for a coastal hotel expansion in Haiti.
Belgium backed the film La Tierra Roja, a love story set in the Argentine rainforest. And Japan is financing a new coal plant in Bangladesh and an airport expansion in Egypt.
These were some of the findings uncovered during a climate finance investigation by reporters from Reuters and Big Local News, a journalism program at Stanford University in California.
...............................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada has pledged to spend big money on helping poorer countries
to overcome climate change. We could climate-finance people in Bangladesh
and Pakistan to install air-conditioners in their squatters as well. That is
one way to serve climate justice.
I would suggest listening to Johan Rockstrom , Stefan Ramstorf, Michael Mann, Tim Lenton off the top of my head. All physicists. Bjorn Lomborg is a follower of neo classical economics and seems to be in the camp of Nordhaus along with his friend William Toll. Neo classical economists have only recently accepted energy plays a key role in what we do within society and economies. Growth forever is their belief on a finite planet. Thus making them a religion more than an objective look at how things work.You're right, we should listen to these people instead
I've been following Bjorn since 2018 listening to what he has to say. Clearly wants to mitigate any warning from climate scientists by saying don't worry. Climate is heading for 2.7 degree increase which will be amusing.
You are quite right water vapour is a clear danger to the atmosphere. Unfortunately we have also addesd giga tons of pollution in the form of carbon which heats the climate even more.because of the volume of emissions. Some quite interesting studies on the damage of water vapour being done by Dr James Anderson a chemical scientist at Harvard who worked on solving the ozone hole issue in Antarctica and now is seeing the large super cell storms in the american mid west and south punching holes in the stratosphere and affecting the ozone layer over north america.
Increased Risk of Ozone Loss above United States
Link to climate change seen
Exxon Mobil's climate model based on their research in the 1960s and 1970s has been spot on with observed data and projects a grim future. Currently in the legal system for lying to the public
Yes physics is cleary a psuedo science. Sun resolves around the earlth, newton was not hit on the head by an apple, calculus is just a game, Einstein, Hawkings, Oppenheimer, fermi, schrodinger was just another looney. Your position that physics is a psuedo science is on par with the catholic church in the 1600s. nobody expects the spanish inquisition
cheers
Good luck with larue, I've been through all that before with him.I've been following Bjorn since 2018 listening to what he has to say. Clearly wants to mitigate any warning from climate scientists by saying don't worry. Climate is heading for 2.7 degree increase which will be amusing.
You are quite right water vapour is a clear danger to the atmosphere. Unfortunately we have also addesd giga tons of pollution in the form of carbon which heats the climate even more.because of the volume of emissions. Some quite interesting studies on the damage of water vapour being done by Dr James Anderson a chemical scientist at Harvard who worked on solving the ozone hole issue in Antarctica and now is seeing the large super cell storms in the american mid west and south punching holes in the stratosphere and affecting the ozone layer over north america.Increased Risk of Ozone Loss above United States
Link to climate change seenwww.harvardmagazine.com
Exxon Mobil's climate model based on their research in the 1960s and 1970s has been spot on with observed data and projects a grim future. Currently in the legal system for lying to the public
Yes physics is cleary a psuedo science. Sun resolves around the earlth, newton was not hit on the head by an apple, calculus is just a game, Einstein, Hawkings, Oppenheimer, fermi, schrodinger was just another looney. Your position that physics is a psuedo science is on par with the catholic church in the 1600s. nobody expects the spanish inquisition
cheers
He'll start spamming the thread with old fudged charts and bullshit from his disinformation cites.
But he can't figure the difference between feedback and forcing effects and whatever you do, don't talk IR with him.
Eventually he'll just put you on ignore.
no
his fundamental position is a huge amount of time , effort, resources & money will be spent trying to 'FIGHT" climate change, all of which should be spent on adaptation
Not because of CO2
Your value is based on the RPC8.5 scenario which has been the basis for all the climate alarmist propaganda
The RPC8.5 scenario has been shown to be implausible as it is based on a massive increase in coal usage & the scenario is also internally conflicted as iit projects both explosive growth in 3rd world development & the 3rd world becoming an uninhabitable wasteland
the RPC8.5 scenario is not going to happen
We are still emerging from an ice age , so temperature increase are plausible
but that is not due to C02
Do not misrepresent me & do not be so ridiculous.
water vapor is not at all a danger to the atmosphere
Water / Water vapor is the universal coolant / temperature regulator
Carbon dioxide is the basis for all life on the planet, C02 is not a pollutant
you exhale 5000 ppm of CO2 with every breath
Absorption of electromagnetic radiation by organic molecules has a logarithmic relationship to concentration
diminishing incremental absorption with incremental increases in concentration
the 15 micro absorption band is saturated
water vapor concentration is variable across latitude , longitude and altitude
water covers 2/3 of the planet & has for billions of years
believing water vapor causes damage mankind can control is absurd
And Exxon Mobil also very likely had research papers which took the opposite position the 1960s and 1970s as the climate lunacy did not start until the 1980s
the 1960s & 1970 were more of an ice age cometh kinda decades
too funny
the climate models have been am abysmal failure,
they have consistently run too hot
they can not reproduce the past
They do not account for cloud formation
They all have a primary driver CO2
our climate system is non-linear, dynamic and chaotic
you can not model chaos
btw the surface temperature data record is mess
a court of law does not validate or invalidate a scientific hypothesis
not at all
physics is an amazing discipline, based on testing experimental observations vs hypothesis & the repeatability of test observations
climate science has degenerated into pseudo science, where fraudulent hockey stick graphs are generated for propaganda purposes
there is nothing to cheer about wrt climate alarmism
the proposed solutions to a non-problem will kill millions and drive billions into abject poverty[/quote]
Last edited:
I suggest observing daily activities of rather than listening to climate scientists.
I am sure they do believe results of climate simulation showing that Earth triggering
tipping point of irreversible climate change within a decade can only be averted by
drastic reduction of global emission like 40 to 50% in the next few years. It is indeed
acceptable to treat predictions based on data of computer simulations as correct
so long as you understand that the predictions are only as accurate as the model
employed. Scientists can for instance perform a Monte-Carlo simulation of changes of the thermodynamic properties of a mixture of gases trapped in a spherical flask
upon addition of carbon dioxide. Results of the study on temperature changes of
the gas mixture would only be as accurate as the inter-molecular potential between
gas molecules among other input parameters upon comparison with laboratory
measurement. Likewise computer simulation based on a climate model
would also be only as accurate as the model itself.
Since vast majority of people are not specialists who understand the intricate
details of climate modelling one pragmatic way to scrutinize the scientific truth
of climate change is to observe how climate scientists themselves cope with the
climate crisis. There is no lack of able climate scientists around us. You can easily
pay a visit to some of them in Environment Canada in Toronto, York Univ and McGill.
I personally have crossed path with a few of them. As far as I can tell life on Earth
will be business as usual in the coming years. This is not to say we all should
just sit back and do nothing about the environment. If growing carbon emission
is your concern the right thing to do is to support political leaders who don't just
promise zero emission but to bring emission down for real in the immediate future.
Eighty percent of the US was in drought during July 1934
another hypocrite who refuse to reduce his "carbon footprint" while whining about the climate and the use of fossil fuels
The BBC was accused of hypocrisy after its Climate Editor jetted off to Spain to report on its heatwave – which he blamed on carbon emissions.
The Corporation repeatedly refused to say if Justin Rowlatt, 57, had made the 1,800 mile round trip to Spain by plane.
But our exclusive picture shows the moment he arrived back at his £2.8 million north London home on Thursday afternoon – with Iberia Airlines bag tags attached to his backpack.
Tory MP Craig Mackinlay accused the BBC of 'sheer hypocrisy'.
He added: 'If they're so convinced this is all to do with global warming, surely they could have used reporters already in Spain to do the job rather than clocking up more air miles, which supposedly just adds to the problem.'
Mr Rowlatt reported for News at Ten from a Spanish beach as temperatures across the south of Europe soared above 40C.
He warned breathlessly of the need to cut carbon emissions to stop climate change, adding: 'Unless we begin to reduce our use of fossil fuels quickly, we simply aren't tackling the real problem.'
Yet it is understood he then boarded a plane at Alicante airport on Thursday morning.
He arrived home in London at 2pm – hours after reporting for the BBC in Spain.
The return flight will have produced an estimated 0.32 tons of carbon emissions, equivalent to driving 1,550 miles in a petrol car.
Conservative MP Sir John Hayes said: 'You can't fly if you are going to be a climate zealot.
'But now we have the BBC Climate Editor jet-setting to Spain to tell us that we should not be jetting anywhere because it is too hot because of emissions.'
The Mail on Sunday can also reveal that the corporation flew senior BBC journalist Azadeh Moshiri from London to report from Greece.
A round trip from London to Athens emits 0.73 tons of Co2–- equivalent to driving 2,700 miles in a typical petrol car.
The Corporation also put its Italian correspondent Sofia Bettiza on a flight from Rome to Sicily to report on the hot weather.
Tory former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith said: 'I don't think it was necessary for the BBC to fly their reporters to Europe.
'There is plenty of video available from other broadcasters that they could have used.
'It's ironic, really, when they are the same people complaining about emissions. In fact, flying them over makes me wonder if they were campaigning, rather than reporting.'
Last night the BBC again refused to admit that its reporters took fossil fuel-guzzling flights to cover the European heatwave.
Despite repeated questions from this newspaper, the broadcaster declined to say how its reporters travelled to Europe.
another hypocrite who refuse to reduce his "carbon footprint" while whining about the climate and the use of fossil fuels
The BBC was accused of hypocrisy after its Climate Editor jetted off to Spain to report on its heatwave – which he blamed on carbon emissions.
The Corporation repeatedly refused to say if Justin Rowlatt, 57, had made the 1,800 mile round trip to Spain by plane.
But our exclusive picture shows the moment he arrived back at his £2.8 million north London home on Thursday afternoon – with Iberia Airlines bag tags attached to his backpack.
Tory MP Craig Mackinlay accused the BBC of 'sheer hypocrisy'.
He added: 'If they're so convinced this is all to do with global warming, surely they could have used reporters already in Spain to do the job rather than clocking up more air miles, which supposedly just adds to the problem.'
Mr Rowlatt reported for News at Ten from a Spanish beach as temperatures across the south of Europe soared above 40C.
He warned breathlessly of the need to cut carbon emissions to stop climate change, adding: 'Unless we begin to reduce our use of fossil fuels quickly, we simply aren't tackling the real problem.'
Yet it is understood he then boarded a plane at Alicante airport on Thursday morning.
He arrived home in London at 2pm – hours after reporting for the BBC in Spain.
The return flight will have produced an estimated 0.32 tons of carbon emissions, equivalent to driving 1,550 miles in a petrol car.
Conservative MP Sir John Hayes said: 'You can't fly if you are going to be a climate zealot.
'But now we have the BBC Climate Editor jet-setting to Spain to tell us that we should not be jetting anywhere because it is too hot because of emissions.'
The Mail on Sunday can also reveal that the corporation flew senior BBC journalist Azadeh Moshiri from London to report from Greece.
A round trip from London to Athens emits 0.73 tons of Co2–- equivalent to driving 2,700 miles in a typical petrol car.
The Corporation also put its Italian correspondent Sofia Bettiza on a flight from Rome to Sicily to report on the hot weather.
Tory former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith said: 'I don't think it was necessary for the BBC to fly their reporters to Europe.
'There is plenty of video available from other broadcasters that they could have used.
'It's ironic, really, when they are the same people complaining about emissions. In fact, flying them over makes me wonder if they were campaigning, rather than reporting.'
Last night the BBC again refused to admit that its reporters took fossil fuel-guzzling flights to cover the European heatwave.
Despite repeated questions from this newspaper, the broadcaster declined to say how its reporters travelled to Europe.
The oil&gas industry made $1 trillion last year, there is no way they want to give that up.
