Take a look at this prime example of a propaganda piece from BBC scaring people into believing anthropogenic global warming:
24 November 2009, BBC
subtitle: "Where do greenhouse gas emissions come from?"
"Which countries are most responsible for causing human-induced climate change?"
They say "most" but it excludes natural sources of CO2. It's trick that most people will be unaware of. As I show in my summary page humans emit 26 billion tons of CO2 and nature 700 billion.
So, nature emits 27 times more CO2 than humans but this crucial qualifying fact is swept under the rug by these charlatans. Here comes the first dodgy graphic:
It contains a very clever device which would go unnoticed by many. This is a graph of CO2 "equivalent". Most will read it as just CO2 but the figure is boosted from 26 billion to 47 billion tons by assuming these following radiative potentials:
We emit a tiny amount of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) but taken as the CO2 equivalent it looks much scarier because it's multiplied by those values.
A total distortion cause they leave out natural sources of CO2, NH4, N2O, but most importantly: H2O, the number one greenhouse gas.
Here is the real proportion of greenhouse gas contribution including H2O (fig 4). But the BBC doesn't want you to know that cause the BBC has an agenda.
Again, same trick as before. This pie chart is the breakdown of the sliver of 0.28% in fig 4. Now you see the scale of the deception. The BBC purposely ignores 99.72% of the greenhouse effect to achieve their objective.
With that put in context you can see how silly the rest of the article becomes.
This is an outrage but we know why it is so. In a guideline circulated June 2007, ironically titled "Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century" the BBC stated that they would no longer be presenting a fair and balanced assessment of AGW but would instead only promote the pro-AGW case. An excerpt from the BBC guidelines:
"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."