BBC Allow Joanna Haigh To Misinform The Public
By Paul Homewood
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09dp4sj
As part of their wall to wall propaganda fest during the Bonn climate summit, the BBC Today programme wheeled on Prof Joanna Haigh of the Grantham Institute on Saturday. (30 mins in)
She followed Myron Ebell, who had claimed that the small amount of warming seen in recent years was much less than had been predicted.
In reply, Haigh made this statement, which naturally went entirely unchallenged by the BBC interviewer:
If you look at the predictions that have been made by computer models, they are bang on actually.
Either she is grossly incompetent or dishonest.
As Dr John Christy’s testimony to Congress in March 2017 showed, all models bar one have hopelessly overestimated warming.
HHRG-115-SY-WState-JChristy-20170329
She then proceeded to make another comment:
In terms of energy supplies, the cost of renewable energy is just plummeting, much faster then anybody predicted.
Again, the BBC interviewer failed to challenge this.
In reality, costs are only one small piece of the jigsaw. The simple fact is that renewable energy cannot provide the reliable power needed to run modern economies.
The new Global Carbon Project report makes this abundantly clear:
While the report states that renewables have increased by a rapid 14 percent each year, with a record installation of 161 gigawatts of renewable generating capacity in 2016, this is from a very small base and makes little difference to overall global emissions. For China, the largest emitter, the researchers state: “Solar, wind and nuclear growth is not nearly sufficient to make up for the combination of higher energy demand and lower hydro output.”
According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, renewables still only account of 3.2% of global primary energy, barely changed at all from the previous year. Renewable energy’s massive growth added 55 mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent) to global primary energy, but oil consumption grew by 75 mtoe and natural gas by 57 mtoe. Between 2000 and 2016, 80% of the increased global primary energy supply has come from fossil fuels. Oil consumption has now hit 97 million barrels per day, and is expected to cross the 100 millon barrels per day threshold in a few years.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/co2-emissions-growing-strongly-again/
There is however one other consideration. Even if wind and solar were super cheap, there is no economic advantage in shutting down trillions of dollars worth of existing fossil fuel capacity, in order to be spend trillions more on renewables. That would be the economics of the madhouse!
Haigh was clearly brought on to rubbish Myron Ebell’s short comment, a fact that once more illustrates how blatantly biased the BBC are in these matters. Why don’t they ever allow a sceptic the chance to question statements made by the likes of Haigh?
After all, it is too much to expect the BBC interviewers to do that job themselves.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Professor Haigh apparently can be emailed here:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.haigh
She has an amazing CV with many atmospheric radiation theory papers, and honours galore. She also claims involvement with the models: how could she claim that these are correct with that background???
She probably actually believes in her own bull.
Or she is just outright lying.
“Either she is grossly incompetent or dishonest.”
She is LYING!
A casual look at the Satellite data and HadCrut4 shows far less per decade warming TREND than predicted.
She must have seen the data,therefore it is willful lying.
Insulting email to Judah’s Haigh sent.
Rent-seeking liar.
I don’t think that sending insulting emails is useful.
Its always better to be polite.
Incompetence does not imply honesty.
Nor does incompetence imply dishonesty. As Forrest Gump’s mom said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
The computer models are merely responding to the assumed Radiative Forcing Function (RFF) that is used: these range from about 2 W/m2 to 9 W/m2 against an idealised 250 W/m2 basis. These predictions for the change to the emissivity are all based on an incorrect and overestimating theoretical formula for the emissivity of CO2 at low concentrations that is then amplified by a non-existent feed-back factor.
I assume that the wide spread of the model predictions reflects the assumed RFF that is used in each model, and its predicted increase as CO2 increases.
The low quality of the models would be funny if they were not losing the world £ trillions that could be used usefully for health and welfare gains.
Bryony Worthington must ‘av’ helped out with the Algorithms and anyway radiative convective models and dat stuff innit – CO2 and like Bryony’s algorithms – all of it is, just more approximate moonshine from the moonbeam distillery – in a Galaxy very far away.
Paul, I would like to point out that her statement on Renewable Energy costs was an outright lie in regards to Wind.
See
https://www.thegwpf.com/the-capital-cost-of-offshore-wind-a-further-comment/
Renewables Marketing 101 (also applies to other snake oil): compare the output with something small, such as the power consumption of a house, compare the cost with something huge, such as the cost of Hinkley Point C.
I note that one of the dotted lines seems to follow the measurements, who’s model is that and have they been removed from the funding sources? I would like to know what is different in the assumptions of that model from the high flyers, where can I find the input information?
I believe that is the Russian model.
I believe you are correct. Details in Christy’s testimony.
Phillip
Doubtless a Trump/Putin conspiracy, from some time before Trump was POTUS.
You mean they’ve actually learned from Lysenko while the rest of us still need to discover the problem for ourselves.
Are we still not grown up enough to learn from other people’s mistakes?
I believe that is the Russian one
The Russian model is INM-CM4
INM-CM Uses the correct latent heat transfer & CO2 influences & thus is close to observations.
See- INM4 & the new INM5
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/climate-model-upgraded-inmcm5-under-the-hood/
It is Russia INM CM4. It has higher ocean thermal inertia, lower water vapor feedback, and in consequence of both low ECS. Ron Clutz has dissected both INM CM4 and its new successor CM5 on his blog.
CM5 tries to get a handle on clouds and aerosols. The Russians are open about the complexity and seem honest about their short-comings. In Clutz’s analysis he makes this observation;
‘Note: Regarding the influence of rising CO2 on the energy balance. Global warming advocates estimate a CO2 perturbation of 4 W/m^2. In the climate parameters table above, observations of the radiation fluxes have a 2 W/m^2 error range at best, and in several cases are observed in ranges of 10 to 15 W/m^2.’
Well, I don’t know about models, but if find Russian razor blades to be the best.
I wonder has anyone produced an architectural model in the same way climate predictions are made by ‘computer models’? Maybe it would be interesting to 3D print the output, or even buid it.
Nick, I am partial to Occam’s razor, but I think he was English.
A general principle for the BBC is that it should make strenuous efforts to stop preachers, campaigners and marketeers from using its reach to do their thang. Not only does it fail totally to do that in many politicised areas, but it has clearly been infiltrated by such people.
Recently they introduced Harrabin as their environmental “analyst”, which I misheard as “activist”, but he then proceeded to justify my brains auto-correction.
On the BBC lunchtime news we had the combined alarmist propaganda of Matt McGrath, Roger Harrabin and Prof Le Quéré from the University of Easy Access. There was not a single sceptic voice allowed.
No sceptic voice here either: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41941265
Did you listen to it Phil and if you did, how did you endure it?
I’m not going to open the link – thank you all the same.
I agree with all of the sentiment aired on the blog and actually listed to the broadcast live. My blood pressure kept rising until the BBC Correspondent started to make some realistic counter augments on some of the external factors influencing the Professors analysis, such as the Chinese drought impacting hydroelectric energy and USA shale gas costs diverting people to coal energy sources. And then “sorry we are out of time” reared its ugly head and we were diverted to more “interesting ” subjects.
Is it worth making a complaint?
No, it is not worth the electrons.
The BBC has become convinced that opinion is the same as fact.I have complained about it on more than one occasion, but they simply don’t recognise the problem.And since it is “fact”, it doesn’t require somebody else’s opinion to balance it.
Not until they have a really independent adjudicator – with teeth!
‘Either she is grossly incompetent or dishonest’ – well this could be a clue…
‘Prof Joanna Haigh of the Grantham Institute’.
It is impossible to make a person believe something when their salary cheque/continued employment depends on their not believing it.
You don’t have to be incompetent or dishonest; you just have to prefer being employed to being unemployed while making sure you don’t get to bump into inconvenient facts while going about your daily life.
Being a devout member of the relevant cult helps, of course. Blinkers and earplugs issued when you sign up!
As Frank Carson used to say: “It’s the way I tell ’em”.
Aye, so it is………….
Has there been any response to GWPF major complaint about BBC Bias on Climate Change?
1. Jack Broughton permalink
November 13, 2017 2:53 pm
I note that one of the dotted lines seems to follow the measurements, who’s model is that ..? I would like to know what is different in the assumptions of that model….
, where can I find the input information?
Jack, try Ron Clutz’s – Science Matters – ref model INMCM4
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/temperatures-according-to-climate-models/
I vote she is dishonest. These days integrity has about as much to do with academic awards, honors, and prizes, as morals have to do with Hollywood “celebrities”.
😉
Reblogged this on Jaffer's blog.
Of course the BBC let people misinform the public, that is their whole reason for existing.
They left actual science reporting decades ago when talented scientifically trained personnel where, errr.., ‘let go’, presenters like Professor Robert Winston and Professor David Bellamy…teams that worked with James Burke, or Jacob Bronowski — all gone and never replaced.
The BBC these days appears to be only interested in trying to persuade you of their perspective (no matter how distorted) on any news items, and they seem to choose guest speakers who will reinforce the BBC’s narrative. They are after all just another propaganda outlet, that just happens to be paid for by taxation.
I’ve tried ITV News and it is as bad, both are the modern version of the Ministry of Truth!
Russia today and Al Jazeera are under massive attack from the establishment (especially in USA of course) because they tell a lot more of the truth, even if dubiously funded.
The internet is probably the one force that Orwell did not allow for!
Way back in the day when I lived abroad, I (and some mates) would listened to news on shortwave radios. We would wonder what was really true in the news reports. So a few of us would listen to Radio Moscow, BBC World service, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, and the occasional Chinese Service over a number of days. Over some beers on Fridays we would discuss what we’d heard, and came to the conclusion none of them told the whole truth. Lots of nationalistic propaganda and false flag reporting. However a close approximation to the actuality could be gleaned by picking the bones out of all of them.
I learned then that none of them tell the whole truth but listening to lots of them can tell you a better version.
Seemingly rational intelligent people accept the whole climate change/global warming make believe as gospel and are happy with the insanity of the government decarbonising the economy. The BBC must surely bear a big responsibility for this. The trouble is I’ve been waiting for the bulk of the general public to come to their senses for years and there is no sign of it happening any time soon. Do we really have to wait for global temperatures to start noticeably falling or for our power bills to outstrip our income? The facts speak for themselves (thanks Paul) so it must be possible to bring back common sense and a proper scientific approach…but how?
Some kind of crisis, or a number of them, will have to occur probably. Maybe related to electricity or severe cold weather, something like that.
Note the scurrilous trick
– Team Alarmist Grantham Member #1 makes wacky claims
– Team Alarmist Grantham Member #2 makes DramaQueening distraction complaint
‘oh lordy Myron Ebell was on the BBC are way biased twds DENIERS’
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/bbc-programme-foiled-again-by-climate-change-deniers/
Search Twitter for -r4today myron- or -r4today deniers-
to see more bile from alarmists
Many said he was not challenged ..but I thought he was on tape, so was she .. she did ask him many questions rather than let him do a speech.
It didn’t seem to be pre-recorded, i,e, not live, as the interviewer went straight to the interview with professor Haigh.
However he was asked questions by the interviewer, although not very aggressively.
I would have liked to hear a debate between Myron and Haigh, (the questions on both sides may have been more interesting), but who knows why that didn’t happen.
The BBC don’t seem to like the two sides coming into direct contact.
‘the cost of renewable energy is just plummeting’ if it has any truth at all can only mean wind and solar, which are only about 1% of global energy and are mostly dependent on large subsidies. They are also parasitical in that their intermittent output has to be backed up by other power sources, which have to face being deprived of business by them due to the rules of supply.
Hydro, biofuels and biomass aren’t likely to get cheaper, and tidal power is negligible.
“BBC Allow Joanna Haigh To Misinform The Public”
Surprise, surprise.
And this morning Michael Bloomberg (the famous billionaire financier and climate scientist) was allowed to get away with calling CO2 a pollutant.
Either neither he nor his interviewer know that it is not and are also lying, or perhaps they ought to stick to finance in the one case, and something other than journalism in the other.
In Mr B’s case I suppose he IS sticking to finance. The other is sticking to his pay cheque.
Perhaps she really said “Bang wrong”? That at least would be closer to the truth.
Yesterday, I heard Matt McGrath, one of the BBC’s environment correspondent, refer to a way of making coal clean by “stripping out the carbon” – before using it to release energy. What kind of background could he have to imagine you can strip out the carbon from a hydrocarbon like coal and have any energy left to then release? Carbon Capture and Storage might have a value, but uses a lot of energy to achieve its aims, always assuming you have access to a suitable store. Taking the carbon out first looks a bit daft to me…
I know that complaining to the BBC is a waste of time, but ….things may be changing. The Corporation is under pressure to publish more information about its complaints. It claims it is not a public body but its funding says it is. I think they will lose the argument. The second change is that Ofcom can investigate complaints if you complai to the BBC and are not satisfied by the response.
Is the graph on this page up to date and which scenarios is it based on?
My own comparison of temperatures v RCP 4.5 suggest that temperatures in 2015 & 2016 may be closer to the average than the graph suggests, although of course that is largely due to the effects of El Ninho, which will probably decline over coming years. And of course temperatures have been at the bottom end of the range since 2000.
Maybe it’s the use of a 5 year average, and/or including higher RCP 6 and 8.5 models.
The BBC have been allowed to get away with covering up how many complaints they receive regarding their programmes. However, they have been forced into publishing fortnightly data on programmes that receive 100 or more complaints. So people, now we have a greater incentive to complain and get on the list. They will also have to give more details of their investigations into complaints.