BBC climate change ‘facts’ are fiction

Posted: September 25, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, bbcbias, censorship, climate, Critique, greenblob, propaganda
Tags: ,

Earth and climate – an ongoing controversy


‘Move along please, nothing to see here, science is settled’. Is that the BBC’s climate reporting policy? Does controversy have to be swept under the carpet, for fear of upsetting the ‘greenblob’? What happened to their charter duty of impartiality?

H/T The GWPF

In order to avoid giving ‘false balance’ to the climate alarmists at the BBC, I thought it would be a good idea to fact-check their new internal guidance on climate change, writes Harry Wilkinson.

This is their totalitarian memorandum aimed at stamping out free scientific discourse, on the basis that certain facts are established beyond dispute.

The problem is that these ones aren’t, and the BBC is guilty of repeatedly failing to describe accurately the nuances of climate science and the degree to which certain claims are disputed.

The crucial paragraph reads:

‘Most climate scientists regard a rise of 2°C as the point when global warming could become irreversible and the effects dangerous. At current rates, we are on track for a rise of more than 3-4°C by the end of the century.’

There are so many things wrong with this short statement.

That global warming can be somehow ‘irreversible’ is pure propaganda; the climate has always been changing and it always will. The briefing later describes the idea of catastrophic tipping points as a ‘common misconception’, so they have comically failed their own test right at the start.

A temperature rise of more than two degrees is not inherently dangerous either. The majority of economic impact studies put the cost of climate change by the end of the century at between 1.5% and 3% of world GDP, but these studies often make the inaccurate assumption that either no or little adaptation will take place.

In contrast, even the IPCC has admitted (p.15) that the cost of reducing emissions (‘mitigation’) to meet the 2°C target may be up to 4% of world GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050 and 11% in 2100.

These numbers do not incorporate the benefits of reducing our emissions, which are primarily the avoided costs of climate change. But given that a certain amount of warming is already ‘baked in’, it looks almost certain that this ‘mitigation’ will actually be far more expensive than not doing anything.

If warming actually turns out to have a positive effect, the gamble will have failed even more spectacularly.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. tom0mason says:

    The BBC is little more than GreenPeaceUK/WWF-UK/UN-IPCC mouthpiece. They do little but opine on the certainties espoused by these organizations regardless of what ALL science says.

  2. wolsten says:

    Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    Can not begin to describe how much I despise the BBC

  3. oldbrew says:

    As Dr Roy Spencer bluntly puts it:
    This is the state of climate science today: if you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors (and make them resign),and even violate the law.

    As long as you can say you are doing it for the children.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/my-tucker-carlson-interview-last-night-and-calling-out-bill-nye-james-hansen/

    NB this quote is at the end of the above article, so see that for context.

  4. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Quite surreally, the document also describes the statement that ‘climate change has happened before’ as a ‘common misconception’. How much longer before the BBC renames itself The Ministry of Truth?

  5. gallopingcamel says:

    The best time for mammals was the PETM (Paleo Eocene Climate Maximum). That is when mammals took over the niches previously dominated by dinosaurs. Back then the polar oceans were 18 Kelvin warmer than today with alligators where Spitzbergen is today.

    Global average temperature was 5 or 6 degrees hotter than today so it is nonsense to suggest that an increase of 2 degrees would not be beneficial.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Donna Laframboise: BBC Ignores Widely Publicized IPCC Problems

    The release of the IAC’s August 2010 report should have been a game changer. After all, the report identified “significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’s assessment process”
    . . .
    Being a UN bureaucracy, the IPCC is essentially a law unto itself, an entrenched culture with no meaningful oversight mechanisms.

    But the BBC wouldn’t know that. Because rather than performing due diligence to determine how much progress has been made since 2010, the BBC chooses to behave as though the IAC report doesn’t exist. The IPCC’s fall from grace simply never happened.

    https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2018/09/26/bbc-ignores-widely-publicized-ipcc-problems/

  7. tom0mason says:

    I note that Mr Watts blog now reports that “The BBC formally bans climate skeptics”.

    The BBC has told staff they no longer need to invite climate-change skeptics on to its program.
    It instructs staff:

    “Be aware of ‘false balance’: as climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
    “There may be occasions to hear from a denier” but only “with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer”.
    BBC journalists “need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively.”

    “To achieve impartiality you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage.”

    A section of the new policy entitled ‘What’s the BBC’s position’ asserts that “man-made climate change exists.”

    And as is said “So much for the myth of ‘balanced news.’”
    See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/27/the-bbc-formally-bans-climate-skeptics/ for more.

    Seems to me that the BBC alarmists are panicking with moves of banning real analysis and debates about so called ‘climate science’. Is this what everyone pays their license fee for? To be told to shut-up and just obey the message — as craigm350 says “How much longer before the BBC renames itself The Ministry of Truth?
    As winters turn cooler it should be interesting how long the BBC can hold this position as more of the population notices the lack of warming.

  8. oldbrew says:

    “How much longer before the BBC renames itself The Ministry of Truth?”

    Due to its climate ‘mis-information’ it would be The Ministry of Fake Truth 😎
    – – –

  9. nickreality65 says:

    I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong – or not.

    Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):

    1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
    But how, exactly is that supposed to work?

    2) There is a 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that traps/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. – Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
    And where does this magical GHG energy loop first get that energy?

    3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible.

    No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.

    Got science? Bring it!!

    Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78, CO PE 22774

  10. nickreality65 says:

    The point of this second experiment is to demonstrate that a surface with multiple outgoing heat transfer pathways cannot radiate as a BB. Just as reflected, transmitted, absorbed incoming radiation must equal 1.0 the outgoing radiative and non-radiative heat transfer processes must equal 1.0. Radiation does not function independently from the non-radiative processes.

    The immersion heater is feeding 1,180 W of power into the insulated pot of water which is boiling at an equilibrium temperature of 200 °F. (6,300 feet) The only significant pathway for energy out of this system is through the water’s surface.

    Any surface at 200 °F radiates at 1,021 W/m^2. This is 2.38% of the 42,800 W/m^2 power input to the system. That means 97.6% of the power input is carried away by non-radiative heat transfer processes, i.e. conduction, convection and evaporation.

    Likewise, the significant non-radiative heat transfer processes of the atmospheric molecules render the 396 W/m^2 LWIR radiation upwelling from the surface impossible.

    No 396 W/m^2 upwelling BB LWIR means there is
    No energy to power the 333 W/m^2 GHG out-of-nowhere perpetual energy loop,
    No energy for the CO2/GHGs to “trap” or absorb and re-radiate “warming” the atmosphere/surface,
    No RGHE or 33 C warmer and
    No man-caused climate change.

    This second experiment validates the findings of the modest experiment.

    Modest experiment:
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552

    Annotated TFK_bams09
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6447825132869218304

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