Skip to content

BBC Don’t Understand Fahrenheit!

September 3, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




More on this later, but as reader Lezz points out, the BBC don’t seem to understand the Fahrenheit system!




Roger Harrabin wrote part of the report, but it is not clear if he was responsible for this bit.

  1. September 3, 2016 9:56 am

    Dumb and dumber. Not only does the author not understand Fahrenheit but also fails simple math.

    Not even wrong!

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      September 3, 2016 10:10 am

      To be fair, apart from the missing decimal point I think the maths is right. (9/5C to indicate an amount; 9/5C+32 to show an absolute temp). Is that not so?

      The point is that if they can’t proof read a temperature figure what else have they failed to proof?

      • Joe Public permalink
        September 3, 2016 10:16 am

        But to be unfair – how can anyone translate 1.5C to 27F?

        Heck, even “-1.5C” >> “29.3F”

      • September 3, 2016 10:36 am

        But they made the decimal point error in both conversions. (3.6F, 2.7F)
        And it was a rookie mistake so should have been spotted.
        ..Bottomline it could have misled an American or old person.

      • Joe Public permalink
        September 3, 2016 11:55 am

        Thanks SG, I did wonder how they arrived at the digits.

        The fact Aunty employs bods in its Sci/Env/CC section who can’t even eyeball that one figure was above freezing & the other was below freezing speaks volumes for its dumbing-down.

      • A C Osborn permalink
        September 3, 2016 3:04 pm

        What they don’t understand is not F to C, it is that it an ANOMALY value from the temperature in the 1800s.

      • John F. Hultquist permalink
        September 3, 2016 4:50 pm

        Stew @ 10:36

        “old person” — Please!

        I think I learned this issue in 9th grade, but that was awhile back when my slide-rule was yellow and came in a leather case with a belt strap.

  2. Maggy Wassilieff permalink
    September 3, 2016 10:00 am

    I can play this game….
    2C ( 275.15K )
    1.5C (274.65K)

  3. Dick Barton permalink
    September 3, 2016 10:02 am

    Oh God, how long before these numbskulls accept that CO2 HaS nothing To do with global warmkng which is not happening anyway

  4. Harry Passfield permalink
    September 3, 2016 10:14 am

    Further to my comment….the BBC seem to have tidied up their report – by removing any reference to conversions to F.

  5. rwoollaston permalink
    September 3, 2016 10:28 am

    On the main thrust of the article, China seems in an uncharacteristic hurry to ratify the Paris agreement. Unsurprising as the agreement cements a massive competitive advantage for developing nations (I wonder when China will cease to be one?) over the developed world, as they only need to reduce the carbon intensity of new capacity while the developed world agree to massive cuts in carbon emissions of existing capacity. Not even winning a world war would bestow such treasures! How can out politicians be so utterly gormless? I guess, increasingly, they are young, inexperienced outside politics, and ambitious for themselves, and children of an academic tradition that increasingly favours virtual worlds they can create over the inconvenient nature of reality.

    • September 3, 2016 5:28 pm

      Most of our politicians are arts graduates from good unis: they are brilliantly trained to debate either side of any abstruse subject. But few are capable of understanding any argument requiring basic numeracy or scientific understanding.

  6. September 3, 2016 10:29 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Once maybe, but this seems to be becoming a bit of a habit:

  7. September 3, 2016 10:44 am

    Horrorbin has never been the “sharpest tool in the box”

  8. September 3, 2016 10:49 am

    Decimal point typo

  9. September 3, 2016 10:51 am

    Go to BBCNews home page ctrl-F helps you find a summary of the story ‘Why do lithium batteries explode?’
    the link photo they use is of alkaline and silver oxide batteries. (screenshot)
    The actual article itself has no photo of lithium batteries, just that same ‘alkaline battery photo 2/3rds of the way down the page

  10. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    September 3, 2016 11:13 am

    “$100bn a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future”.

    Of course the latest and greatest M. Benz (fleets of) will be required to drive about developing countries ensuring that the poor barely get a drop of the cash. And I can’t see China opting to deal some of that out except for some large industrial return…rare earth please.

    And Trump will need $ loads for his wall I suspect? Don’t think Mexico will cough up for walls.

  11. Keith BC permalink
    September 3, 2016 11:48 am

    I think I can see how they arrived at the second error. Having failed to distinguish between a change of 2C and a temperature of 2C, they arrived at 35.6F which is rounded to 36F.
    Now 1.5 is 3/4 of 2 so 3/4 of 36 Is 27!, The Daily Telegraph makes this mistake repeatedly in its so called weather column!

    • September 3, 2016 12:31 pm

      No each 1C difference is equal to 1.8F difference.
      So 1.5C difference is equal to 2.7F difference.
      2C difference is equal to 3.6F difference.

      (°C to °F, Multiply by 9, then divide by 5,
      of course you don’tr need to do the add 32 bit for differences)

  12. Scott Scarborough permalink
    September 3, 2016 3:41 pm

    Many do not understand the conversion from Centigrade to Fahrenheit. I have read technical manuals that get it wrong and when I tried to tell the engineers responsible they just tell me that they correctly took the C value and plugged it into the equation to get the F value and they do not understand what I am talking about!

    • Joe Public permalink
      September 3, 2016 4:01 pm

      Us older engineers were taught to use K when referring to temperature differences.

      • September 3, 2016 5:33 pm

        Absolutely right Joe, the Centigrade and Fahrenheit scales are differences from a defined value, the Kelvin scale is the absolute value above absolute zero: thus values can be subtracted as differences in degK.

        I wish that was the only issue in junk science!

  13. John F. Hultquist permalink
    September 3, 2016 5:29 pm

    About 40 years ago a textbook about meteorology was printed wherein anything with the degree symbol (°) was converted in the manner of this story. References to Latitude and Longitude, and all the nice maps, got the treatment. I was given a copy of this text and somewhere (in a dusty box) it still is.

  14. cinaed permalink
    September 3, 2016 6:10 pm

    It’s delta(F)=9/5*delta((C) – so they did the calculation correctly.

    And to get the numbers they got they had to understand F.

    It was most likely the person who was proof reading the article decided to check the number and typed 2 C into Google which would have given 35.6 F – and rounding off would give 36 F – so they changed the decimal point on both numbers.

    But it’s unfair to claim they don’t understand F.

  15. tom0mason permalink
    September 4, 2016 12:19 am

    I too, like the BBC, have problems converting from Centiheit to Fahrengrade.

  16. catweazle666 permalink
    September 4, 2016 1:04 am

    A few months ago one of the climate bloggers in the Guardian made precisely the same mistake…

  17. September 5, 2016 9:34 am

    ‘BBC Don’t Understand Fahrenheit!’

    In climate matters, they only understand that warmist propaganda has to be pumped out as often as possible, even if it makes no sense and/or the numbers are all screwed up.

  18. September 6, 2016 11:58 am

    Well, we have noted most of the press are morons. This is just affirmation.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: