Bob Ward Loses Again (And Again)!

By Paul Homewood

 

 

As well as David Rose’s report attacking the BBC Attenborough programme, Bob Ward also had two complaints against the Telegraph rejected by IPSO last month.

One was this piece by Bjorn Lomborg, the other was a Telegraph editorial which made similar points:

 

 image

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/06/10/theresa-may-spend-1-trillion-pointless-policy-climate-madness/

 

Ward’s complaints centred around the following claims by Lomborg:

 

1) Renewable energy had only increased by 1.1 per cent since 1992, from meeting 13.1 per cent of the world’s energy needs in 1992 to 14.2 per cent today

2) The transition from fossil fuels to low carbon alternatives would be “incredibly expensive”.

In particular, Lomborg noted that the UN’s climate scenario modelling predicted that the Net Zero scenario would cost 5.3% of GDP globally– an annual cost of £187 billion for the UK by 2050, much more than the £50bn claimed by the Committee on Climate Change.

3) These costs could double if the transition was not done efficiently.

4) A New Zealand government commissioned report found that costs could rise to 16% of GDP, equivalent to £12 trillion cumulatively in the UK by 2050.

5) According to the UN Climate Panel, the impact of global warming by the 2070s will be the equivalent to a 0.2-2% loss in average income.

Ward countered that:

1) Renewable energy had increased by 140% since 1992, (which of course missed the point that this was from an already tiny base)

2) Reducing costs meant that renewable energy had become more competitive rather than “incredibly expensive”.

3) He disputed the cost of £50bn from the CCC, and all of the other costings shown by Lomborg.

4) He also disputed the UN cost for the impact of warming.

 

IPSO ruled that:

1) It was perfectly accurate to report that the share of renewables had only risen by 1.1%

2) It was not in dispute that achieving zero carbon emission by 2050 would cost billions of pounds; it was not misleading to describe this as being “extremely expensive”

3) The estimated cost of 5.3% of GDP was correctly derived from the official Shared Socioeconomic Pathways study, which has been adopted extensively by the IPCC and used in its research and predictions on climate change. It was therefore not misleading to describe this as “UN modelling”.

4) Two separate studies backed up the doubling of costs claim.

5) The New Zealand study had not been “misreported”, as Ward claimed. Instead it had been correctly reported. IPSO said that “the complainant appeared to be referring to a different source in making his complaint”.

6) The UN report on the economic impact of warming had also been correctly reported.

 https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=04772-19

 

Game, Set and Match!!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/3mWtEoA

November 7, 2020 at 06:09AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s