By Paul Homewood
From the BBC:
The BBC should have challenged the views of climate sceptic Lord Lawson in an interview in August, the complaints unit for the corporation has ruled.
The ex-chancellor claimed in an interview with the Today programme that “official figures” showed average world temperatures had “slightly declined”.
This view, shown to be false by the Met Office, was not challenged on air.
The BBC admitted it had breached its “guidelines on accuracy and impartiality”.
Conservative peer Lord Lawson’s appearance on Radio 4’s flagship Today programme sparked a number of complaints from listeners.
He had been invited on to discuss the latest film on climate change by former US Vice President Al Gore.
During the interview, Lord Lawson said “official figures” showed that “during this past 10 years, if anything… average world temperature has slightly declined”.
He also claimed the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had confirmed there had not been in an increase in extreme weather events for the last 10 years.
Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, came on the programme the following day to confirm that Lord Lawson’s statistics, which he did not cite at the time, were incorrect.
Dr Stott also said the IPCC has clearly indicated an increase in extreme weather events across the globe were linked to human use of fossil fuels.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a campaign group chaired by Lord Lawson, later confirmed his statistics were “erroneous”.
The BBC’s media editor Amol Rajan said the Today programme had a remit to offer dissenting opinions, aimed at challenging lazy thinking and consensus views.
But he said the BBC’s complaints department ruled that a lack of scrutiny of Lord Lawson’s claims meant the interview fell short of editorial standards.
It ruled that the peer’s statements “were, at the least, contestable and should have been challenged”.
A paper by Skeptical Science claims that 97% of scientists across the globe believe climate change is caused by humans.
In 2014 the BBC Trust stated the corporation has “a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately”.
The tragedy is that this could have been so easily avoided if Lord Lawson had been properly briefed.
All he needed to say was that according to the satellite data, which is the most comprehensive we have, last year was not statistically warmer than 1998.
He could also have added that computer models have consistently overestimated warming by a large margin.
While such statements may have been controversial, neither is untrue, and both would be highly relevant to the public.
BBC Hypocrisy
The hypocrisy of the BBC here is of course stunning, if not unexpected.
There have been frequent occasions when they have, for instance, interviewed Al Gore without even attempting to challenge his view.
As an example, in July 2014, they interviewed him in Australia:
Referring to floods and wildfires there, Gore clearly stated that there had always been floods and fires in Australia, but not like now, they’re more extreme, more frequent.
The BBC’s interviewer, Jon Donnison obviously confused Gore with the Pope, as he let him make this claim without any challenge whatsoever.
In fact, both of Gore’s allegations can be readily challenged.
A study by Ishak et al in 2010, Preliminary analysis of trends in Australian flood data, found that:
Preliminary trend analysis results show that about 30% of the selected stations show trends in annual maxima flood series data, with downward trends in the southern part of Australia and upward trends in the northern part.
And another study by Doerr and Santin, “Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world”, in 2016 declared:
For example, data for Europe and Australia/New Zealand show a strong decline in area burned of 5% yr
Nobody would expect Donnison to be aware of the detailed facts, and other scientists might disagree, but this is not the point. It is the BBC’s duty to question and statements made, regardless of the source or subject.
Stott and the 97% Scam
To cap it all, the BBC wheeled out the Met Office’s Peter Stott the next day to “correct” Lord Lawson’s statements.
According to the BBC:
Dr Stott also said the IPCC has clearly indicated an increase in extreme weather events across the globe were linked to human use of fossil fuels
This statement is in fact utterly false.
The IPCC’s Special Report on Extreme Weather Events, published in 2012, actually finds little evidence to support Stott’s wildly inaccurate claims.
As a reminder:
1) There is little evidence of any trends in cyclone activity.
2) Some evidence of heavier rain in certain places, but the opposite in others. (Heavier rainfall, it needs to be pointed out, is very often a good thing, as the alternative is drought)
3) Droughts are worse in some regions, but less intense in others.
4) No evidence at all about flood trends.
It also needs pointing out that these changes identified are not necessarily connected to global warming, whether man-made or not. It is well accepted that changing natural ocean and climate cycles have a major impact on such matters, and always have had.
Again, the exact facts here are not particularly important. The issue is that the BBC interviewer should not be accepting statements, such as this one by Stott, as gospel truth.
And if that was not enough, the BBC ends up quoting the Cook 97% paper:
A paper by Skeptical Science claims that 97% of scientists across the globe believe climate change is caused by humans.
As careful analysis of Cook’s work actually reveals, only 1.6% of the papers surveyed find that “humans are the primary cause of recent global warming”.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
October 25, 2017 at 12:06PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 