Month: March 2019

BBC’s Climate Lies Becoming A Habit

By Paul Homewood

 

They say once is an accident, twice is a conspiracy. I wonder what eight times is?

 

 

18 - Copy

18 - Copy

As I revealed yesterday, the BBC has formally upheld my complaint about their African penguin story. I am pleased to see then that The Times has now picked it up.

 

This complaint is now the eighth climate-related one I have been involved with which has been upheld against the BBC in the last two years. There may of course be others that I am not aware of.

  • In March 2017, World at One made the ridiculous claim that sea levels at Miami were rising at ten times the global mean.

The BBC were subsequently forced to admit that sea levels there showed “little divergence from the global mean”

 

 

  • Then in October 2017, the BBC broadcast an episode of “Russia with Simon Reeve”, which linked the deaths of “tens of thousands of reindeer” to climate change.

After a complaint was submitted, the BBC accepted that reindeer populations were in fact stable or increasing.

Written by Chris Fawkes, the BBC meteorologist, it categorically stated  that “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5”

The actual data shows this is simply not true, as the IPCC themselves have made perfectly clear.

Eventually, the BBC printed a correction that their claim was based on “modelling and not historical data”

 

Harrabin claimed that investment in clean energy had slumped following a fusillade of policy changes, including a ban on new onshore wind farms.

There has been no such ban, only the removal of subsidies.

The BBC Executive Complaints Unit accepted that the article was materially misleading, and that there had been a serious lapse of editorial standards.

 

 

  • In June 2018, John Humphrys interviewed Lord Deben, allowing him to get away with wildly inaccurate claims about wind power unchallenged. In particular, Deben stated that “even where a community wants to have an onshore wind farm, it can’t have it.”

In fact there is no such ban, and the Government has actually devolved the decision to approve onshore wind turbines to local councils.

As a result, the BBC Executive Complaints Unit found that Deben should have been challenged on this point to ensure listeners were not left with a materially misleading impression.

 

  • December 2018 saw an episode of the BBC Weather World programme, which was little more than a free puff for onshore wind farms.

At one stage, the presenter casually commented that “Already about 30% of the UK’s power is produced by wind energy”. The actual figure is 15%.

Following a complaint, the BBC accepted their claim was wrong, and have now withdrawn that segment of the programme from their website.

 

 

Central to the IPPR’s case was this statement:

Since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold. “ [“Since 2005”, was subsequently amended to “since 1950”.]

Harrabin made absolutely no attempt to challenge or query this statement, or some of the other contentious claims in the IPPR report, despite the fact that it was patently absurd.  Instead his article was effectively just a cheerleading exercise.

The IPPR claim is in reality a totally fake one, as they misinterpreted the International Disasters Database used for their analysis. As the organisation which maintains the database makes totally clear, many disasters occurred in past decades but were never officially recorded in the database, purely because of better methods of reporting nowadays.

After considerable controversy, the IPPR made substantial changes to that section of their report, accepting that the original claims were false. The BBC then withdrew the fake claims and issued a correction.

 

 

Introducing a video report from South Africa, the presenter baldly stated that:

The next report is about the African penguin population and how it’s rapidly declining. Conservationists are saying their habitat is being hit by rising tides caused by climate change.

And it’s interesting that since that report by the UN last week on climate change, so many different organisations have been coming forward to emphasise the importance it has on their work.

Amazingly the video which followed made no mention of climate change or rising tides at all. Zilch! Nada! Instead, the local ranger, who was interviewed, categorically blamed the decline on overfishing.

This is actually very well understood by experts, such as those from the Organization for the Conservation of Penguins.

Despite the efforts of the BBC to fob off my complaint, the Executive Complaints Unit agreed that there was no evidence for the presenter’s claim and criticised their journalists’ failure to check claims.

I have no doubt that these eight cases relating to climate change are just the tip of the iceberg. Many other such fake reports are broadcast and go unnoticed.

It is also true that the BBC regularly try to fob off complainants with spurious replies, leading many to simply give in. This is even the case when their inaccurate claims are obvious, easily proven and factual.

Indeed, one of the things which continue to astound me is how the BBC continues to broadcast so many claims about climate change which are so utterly preposterous that even my dog would find them suspicious. Are their reporters and presenters so absorbed by global groupthink that they believe every bit of tripe and junk science put before them?

Are they more interested in propaganda than facts?

Are they just lazy?

Or are they simply following orders from higher up?

Unfortunately it is a fact that the BBC’s coverage of climate change has been unreliable for many years, and has long since abandoned any pretence of impartiality. It has got so bad that Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s director of news and current affairs, sent out a missive to all of her staff last year, which itself was full of factual errors, directing staff how they should report climate change and how they should marginalise sceptical scientists.

As a result of this one sided, blinkered approach to climate issues, the BBC frequently finds itself accused of misinformation, lack of objectivity and promulgating downright falsehoods.

But no matter how many times they have complaints upheld against them, one problem remains. The original fake news has gone around the world and back before the real truth emerges. By this time, nobody actually gets to see the “corrections” hidden away in the online news reports originally published months before.

Something has to change.

    via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

    https://ift.tt/2UDodNT

    March 15, 2019 at 05:39PM

    WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?

    The Green New Deal or some similar schemes would cost $65,000 per family per year.
    – John Droz
    _________________

    “It has often been said that only people who have the poorest, stupidest, worst ideas demand that they and their ideas be shielded from questions and criticism,” says Paul Driessen. “Maybe that’s why diehard climate alarmists and renewable energy advocates insist that “the science is settled” … that their asserted (and fabricated) “97 consensus” eliminates the need for any further discussion … and that we must immediately begin the process of dismantling and eliminating all fossil fuel use in the United States. They know they and their ideas would not survive scrutiny.”

    “Or as physicist John Droz puts it in this article: Why are they so adamantly opposed to the creation of an independent, expert review of their “irrefutable” claims that the world faces an imminent and existential threat of manmade climate disaster? Why do they so vehemently oppose President Trump’s proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Science? WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?”

    After reading John’s thought-provoking article, please consider forwarding it to your friends and colleagues – and taking a moment to send Mr. Trump a short note saying you support this committee. The links embedded below will make sending a note even easier than shouting “97% consensus.”

    ___________________

    Make America Greater: Approve the PCCS!

    America absolutely needs outside expert review of climate claims used to oppose fossil fuels

    John Droz

    Should the United States conduct a full, independent, expert scientific investigation into models and studies that say we face serious risks of manmade climate change and extreme weather disasters?

    As incredible as it may seem, US government climate science has never been subjected to any such examination. Instead, it has been conducted by government agencies and assorted climate, environmental, history, psychology and other “experts” paid by the same government agencies – to the tune of literally billions of dollars per year.

    Moreover, all that time, effort and money has been spent on studies that claim carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” are causing unprecedented climate and weather cataclysms, requiring the immediate and total elimination of fossil fuels that supply 82% of all US energy. Virtually none of it has been spent on studies of the powerful natural forces that have driven global warming and cooling, other climate changes and innumerable extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history.

    Replacing all that energy – under the Green New Deal we hear so much about lately, or some similar schemes – would cost this country up to $93 trillion by 2030! That’s $65,000 per family per year!

    Even worse, those same agencies and government contractors have actively prevented any independent review of their work. They have intimidated, silenced and vilified anyone who attempted to question or examine their data, computer models, assumptions, algorithms and conclusions.

    They are adamantly opposed to any such review now. So are some 97% of all Democrats, environmentalists and “mainstream” news media.

    You have to wonder: If their work is as solid, above-board and honest as they claim – wouldn’t they be delighted to defend it in public, and prove their detractors wrong?

    Since they so totally opposed to any independent review – what are they trying to hide?

    President Trump’s proposed investigation would be conducted by a brand new Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS), led by physicist and presidential advisor Dr. Will Happer. It would be carried out by climate scientists and experts who did not participate in the original (alarmist) studies.

    A decision about launching the PCCS will be made very soon. Support for the PCCS is urgently needed.

    Many who oppose the PCCS claim human responsibility for climate change and extreme weather has already been resolved scientifically. That is simply not so. A genuine scientific assessment has four necessary components. It must be comprehensive, objective, transparent and empirical.

    There has never been a true scientific assessment of global warming claims, anywhere on the planet.

    In fact, even repeatedly referenced reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have faced no such review – and would fail at least three of those four criteria! That is largely because the IPCC computer models and claims of climate disasters are supported by virtually no real-world evidence.

    PCCS opponents also say President Trump is acting irrationally on global warming. In reality, he is taking a far more scientific position than his critics are. Skepticism is the primary pillar of Real Science. So being labeled a “skeptic” is high praise to real scientists.

    If it’s Real Science, questions, skepticism and constant reexamination are essential. Consensus is out.

    If it’s consensus – and questions and skepticism are prohibited – it’s not Real Science.

    PCCS opponents are telling us we have to accept their “consensus science” without question. Eliminate the fossil fuels that make our factories, healthcare, jobs, heating, lighting, food, internet and living standards possible. And put the federal government in control of all future energy and personal choices.

    Certainly, the “science” that supposedly supports those demands should be examined carefully and scientifically before we rush to judgment on 82% of our energy. Not according to PCCS opponents.

    The bottom line is very simple. President Trump should be applauded for proposing the PCCS, and for being open-minded enough to reconsider global warming claims – before he or we accept them as gospel.

    Americans need to support him against the very vocal (and self-interested) people and organizations that oppose the PCCS.

    We need to take immediate action to support President Trump on this vitally important initiative.

    Use the link. Send him a quick note. Real, evidence-based climate science demands that we have this PCCS review. So does the future of our country and our children.

    John Droz, Jr. is a physicist and director of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), which promotes energy policies and programs that are technically, economically and environmentally sound.

    The post WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE? appeared first on Ice Age Now.

    via Ice Age Now

    https://ift.tt/2TJloxB

    March 15, 2019 at 05:25PM

    Polar Bears and Solar Flares – April 10, 2019 at 6pm, Calgary Red+White Club

    Polar bears are the poster child of climate change.

    But are they really on the brink of extinction?  What happens if there is less sea ice – do they all … Continue reading

    via Friends of Science Calgary

    https://ift.tt/2Jfm8Gz

    March 15, 2019 at 05:01PM

    A Great Plains cyclone of historic proportions

    About 1,100 motorists stranded across Colorado.

    ____________

    Nearly 3,100 flights were canceled over two days as a “bomb cyclone” unleashed blizzard conditions and hurricane-force winds across parts of the country.

    The intense storm forced closure of all runways at Denver International Airport on Wednesday due to icy conditions and extremely poor visibility. Roads around the airport were also closed or blocked by traffic accidents for much of the day.

    Wind gusts of 50 to 70 mph were expected through Thursday morning across Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma. Some areas braced for gusts as strong as 110 mph.

    High winds knocked out power to 125,000 people, mostly in Colorado and Texas.

    State offices were closed in Cheyenne, Wyoming, while South Dakota’s governor ordered state offices closed in 39 counties.

    On Wednesday, 100 vehicles were involved in an accident on I-25 near Wellington, Colorado, according to Wellington Fire Protection.

    The National Weather Service called it “a Great Plains cyclone of historic proportions.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/bomb-cyclone-forces-nearly-3100-flight-cancellations-as-major-storm-moves-across-us/ar-BBUKF96?li=BBnb7Kz

    The post A Great Plains cyclone of historic proportions appeared first on Ice Age Now.

    via Ice Age Now

    https://ift.tt/2HmykDM

    March 15, 2019 at 04:55PM