BBC’s Fake Climate Claims Now Becoming A Habit
By Paul Homewood
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy
Accuracy is one the fundamental requirements imposed on the BBC by its Charter.
For years, however, it has been sorely lacking in its handling of climate related matters.
Most of the time, the BBC gets away with it, simply because people don’t realise it, or if they do don’t complain, or if they do are fobbed off all too easily.
However in recent months, it has been forced to retract three totally fallacious claims, which could and should have been avoided with a few simple checks.
1) The first concerned a report on the World at One last march, which discussed rising sea levels around Florida:
The BBC correspondent, Nick Bryant made the following comment:
Sea levels at Miami are rising at ten times the global rate
When I complained, the BBC’s first response, as usual, was to prevaricate and ignore the specifics of my complaint completely.
Only after I pursued matters to the Executive Complaints Unit were they finally forced to retract their claim, which was so utterly ridiculous that it should have set alarm bells ringing at the outset.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/theworldatone270317
2) Then in October 2017, the BBC broadcast an episode of “Russia with Simon Reeve”.
The programme made certain claims about reindeer in northern Russia, as Lord Lawson of GWPF noted in his letter of complaint to the BBC:
Lord Lawson pointed out that on the contrary reindeer populations were stable, and in some cases increasing.
Again the BBC were forced to issue a retraction, as the GWPF reported in January this year:
The alarming claim that reindeer populations across Northern Russia were “in steep decline because of climate change”, was made during the first episode of the recent BBC 2 series: Russia with Simon Reeve.
Writing to the BBC Complaints department, Lord Lawson pointed out that according to a 2016 study, 17 out of 19 sub-populations of Eurasian Reindeer were now either increasing in number, or had a stable population trend.
The BBC have now accepted this evidence, and have published a correction which reads: “This programme suggested that many reindeer populations are in steep decline because of climate change. It would have been more accurate to say that many reindeer populations are threatened by it.”
Indeed it would have been less inaccurate, given that the claim is blatantly false. However, even the claim that they are “threatened” is highly questionable given their growing populations.
The false alarm highlights the BBC’s habitual attempts to exaggerate the consequences of climate change and to ignore scientific evidence that contradicts climate alarmism.
https://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-accepts-lord-lawsons-climate-complaint/
3) Then in December 2017, one of the BBC’s weather forecasters ran an article on BBC Online, provocatively headlined “Is Climate Change Making Hurricanes Worse?”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42251921
After listing some of the major hurricane events of 2017, but with no attempt to put them into historical perspective, the piece ended with this “statement of fact”:
A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5
There is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, as even the IPCC have been forced to admit.
My first complaint was fobbed off, and only after I resubmitted my complaint, complete with a list of scientific references and graphs did they grudgingly admit that their claim was utterly false.
The offending sentence has now been deleted, and a correction added:
Conclusions
Once may be an accident, twice a coincidence. But three times in just a few months suggests a pattern.
These events pose a number of questions:
1) Who is feeding the reporters with these fake claims?
It is hard to believe that they are making them up themselves. What you think of BBC reporters, they are professionals who have spent their careers learning how to build stories, based either on their own research, or on what they have been told.
So, have these fake claims originated from somewhere like Greenpeace?
2) Why were the claims not spotted and checked out beforehand by programme editors, whose job it is to do so?
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, as Booker suggested, there is a blind, unthinking global warming groupthink at work here.
Sea level rise in Florida? Well, we all know Miami is soon going to drown!
Reindeers dying because of global warming? Well, that nice man from WWF told us, and he would not lie, would he!
Hurricanes getting worse? Well, that’s what the models say!
There is a third question – why is this continued bad reporting tolerated by the BBC powers that be?
But I think we all know the answer to that!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
As I commented on the previous post, somebody has invented a new scientific unit:
“The Harrabin; a measure of the (almost infinite) capacity of the BBC correspondent to unquestioningly broadcast any old guff supporting the relentless march of climate change.”
Harrabin is the BBC’s climate change gatekeeper (he is not known as the Cardinal for nothing) and Harrabin’s first port of call for any quote on his articles is Greenpeace, so it is a fair assumption that the BBC gets most, if not all, of its fake claims from Greenpeace.
If 1 Harrabin = almost infinite
?How many Harrabins = infinity.
I think you could be on to something here.
Dark matter, anyone?
1 Harrabin / BBC’s integrity = infinity
Harrabin is also making pots of money by moonlighting (with the BBC’s tacit permission) at the trough.
Great work , well done. A few years back I submitted a Freedom of Info request to the BBC to determine how many complaints in total were received, upheld and rejected over the previous 5 years. At first they refused to answer, then they threatened me with carrying the legal costs if I appealed, finally they caved in and provided the data. The result? Of 1.2 million complaints made over 5 years, only 0.014% were upheld at the final stage.
On that basis you you’ve done extraordinarily well to get them to retract.
It is somewhat ironic that the BBC is currently having an initiative to help young people identify “fake news”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/school-report-43391188
It’s worse than that. They attempt to create a false impression of trust, when on climate at least they clearly can’t be trusted – as this post shows.
Isn’t that a bit like how online grooming is supposed to work?
The BBC are biased on many fronts these days They’ve convinced their army of overpaid celebs thats it’s all AGW and warming has never happened before the last 40 years. Every item on Radio 4 mentions Climate Change or the negative affect of Brexit. I’m beginning to think the two are linked somehow!
Climate change caused Brexit.
Seemples…………ahem.
No, the other way round, shuereley?
What is even more serious is that if the BBC
can repeatedly broadcast “fake” climate news then how many other topics are we to question?
How about Russia as a starter for ten.
Russia may be the bad guys, but we encouraged them.
Perhaps this comment should be on the previous post, however:-
Standard GHG theory would indicate that overall there should be somewhat fewer hurricanes and, in general, these should become less severe. On the other hand, each individual hurricane should tend to last a bit longer. What this means in terms of the actual number of hurricanes making landfall I don’t know.
It is interesting that the green blob doesn’t even appear to understand the “science” that it is pushing.
12 years without a major landfall hurricane in the US, until 2017, then all of a sudden, it wos climate change wot dunnit!
It’s policy at a high level- read Andrew Montford’s The Propaganda Bureau and Harrabin’s conspiracy.
“1) Who is feeding the reporters with these fake claims?”
Paul, I would dispute the use of the term ‘reporter’, these people employed by the BBC are largely just hack journalists, employed to opine, emote, and spin any story to support the BBC’s political agenda, and positively influence the viewer/listener figures.
A real ‘reporter’ disinterestedly reports on a situation, does not offer opinion but clearly states the facts of a situation as they have researched and experienced them. Reporters also make it clear when situations are unclear or disputed, and clearly state all sides of the situation leaving the viewer (or listener) to decide.
The BBC only very rarely reports on any situation.
e.g.
Apart from ‘climate change’ and ‘green issues’ (which are always filled with opinionated nonsense), when was the last time you heard, or saw, a disinterested report about Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, or Jeremy Corbyn that just clearly stated the facts of the matter, without resorting to opinions or emotional statements?
Just listen to Radio 2, the Steve Wright show, where there is a guest appearance at least once, from a Trump mimic making stupid and inane statements.
In a complete ‘U’ turn from my opinion of Trump before his election to POTUS, I’m now beginning to think the guy could be one of the greatest Presidents the US has ever had.
Just two topics one might consider, the obvious being he’s rejected the Paris agreement as anti American, which it is, but also anti free trade across the Western world, and beyond. And He’s the first President since 1994 to have forced the N. Koreans to the negotiating table. Not bad for year one of his tenure.
That should be…….a guest appearance at least once a day.
Unlike the majority of our politicians The Donald was not Oxbridge educated unlike the denizens of our Augean Stables where inestimable quantities of bull sh*t are produced.
No, his Herculean effort is more mundane; to single handedly drain the swamp!
No myths there!
He is indeed the man for our times.
You are on to something. Although those of the Oxfordian bent might scoff at Donald Trump, he is a graduate of the Wharton School of Finance of the University of Pennsylvania. Penn is among the Ivy League schools. Wharton is one that IF you can get in, you are likely to graduate. Ivanka Trump is also a cum laude graduate of that school and her brother, Donald Trump, Jr. also has his degree from Wharton. Brother, Eric Trump, has his degree in finance from Georgetown University. Tiffany Trump, also a graduate of Penn, is now pursuing her law degree from Georgetown University.
What those with their noses in the air miss, or do not care about, is the fact that Donald Trump, as with his father before him, is a builder. Even as a youngster, he was on building sites with his father in Queens where Fred Trump built housing following WWII. Donald set his sights on Manhattan. The Manhattan crowd considers someone from Queens beneath them. Sounds a bit like the royalty system you have. It is human nature to fall into the pecking-order mentality. As a builder, you must deal effectively with many people in all walks of life. Actually Donald prefers the average person and worker to the high and mighty.
Donald learned the value of detail, excellence and responsibility at this father’s knee. He has carried in on through his career. During the 2016 Convention, several of his children, including Ivanka, remarked that they went to work sites with their father and were as comfortable driving large equipment as their own cars. Building in Manhattan required Donald to deal with petty bureaucrats, mayors, mafia, etc. When he became a worldwide developer, he learned about the workings of other countries and monetary systems. He KNOWS them, much to their disadvantage. Folks have a hard time pulling the wool over his eyes and he is usually a number of steps ahead of them.
All of this is driving the left mad, but it IS a short trip.
We expect no less from the Biased Bullsh1t Cartel.
4.) Why are at least 50% of the complaints just superficial denied and the complaintant forced to re-press their point and then only ‘weakly’ do they ‘correct’. This in an of itself should be proof that they have an agenda.
Gotta luv the one piece of advice. Our own people should check their facts, (but only after we have twice been asked to do it. )
Only yesterday the BBC reported on the ongoing problems in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria. The emphasis was on the lack of a power grid but what they failed to mention was the devastation to wind turbines and solar panels. Yes, the power lines were brought down, but had they conventional power stations they would now have electricity.
And the simple solution of burying power lines in places that are prone to high winds!
Why our vast aid budget doesn’t pay for simple stuff like that is beyond me.
That whole thing with Puerto Rico galvanized my opposition to any consideration that they be made a State of the United States.
Yikes–the mayor of San Juan complaining that Trump had done nothing and they had no water while standing in front of pallets of water SHE refused to distribute.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Complacency, incompetence or mendacity. None are a good look for a state broadcaster and why I refuse to pay the license and avoid their output.
Indeed Paul, indeed.
The green agenda is killing us – our nation Britain, the beeb are the chief apologists and advocates of the green tosh but it’s not just them, is it?
Greenpiss are, EU sock puppets, that egregious pillock Kumbya Naidoo is quite open about his ‘skills’, adroit (he claims – remember the Nazca Lines farce and vandalism in Peru?) – in the darks arts which include disseminating climate tosh, yakking with the ‘great and the good’ and dealing in coercion, collusion and arm twisting and the ‘civil disobedience’ advocate – I think that the ‘great man’ Naidoo has gone Safari but his MO and operation within the offices of greenpiss are still extant. Feeding disinformation and arrant nonsense peddling barefaced lies about man made CO2 causing warming, mythologizing the great climate scam: is what Greenpiss is mainly if not these days are exclusively about.
However, I think the greater problem is in ‘our’ UK administration and governmental departments, inclusive of councils and quangos. Irrefutably, egged on by the Brussels Nomenklatura and Kommissariat, with the FoE, WWF and greenpiss whisper their poisons and their snake oil pitches and caravans are permanently outside of Westminter cabbage doll patch – metaphorically at any rate. With their green nostrums, they do fall on very receptive ‘drinkers’, and ears in all government departments, where the green agenda is regarded as ‘gospel’. Mother Theresa Mayhem, is fully signed up to the green ruinable agenda, as are the Brussels politburo ‘the UNVIRTUOUS CIRCLE’ – the bbc is funded in small but significant part by the EU (our UK taxpayer’s money actually – double insult not whammy).
The biased broadcasting cartel merely is the organ and diseased organs pass on pathogens which infect and causes green rot – the green canker which debilitates and weakens Britain and saps our whole economy and obviously its competitiveness (jobs) and makes your, mine, ours whole life that much harder – from fuel taxes, carbon floor prices, energy bills and at myriad of other unseen costs.
Unseen costs to wit, I was in Marks and Sparks earlier today purchasing some ‘growlers’ and a shirt, you cannot help but notice the slogan on the escatailor ( I know) to the effect of “we is goin; carbon neutral in 5 years (did I not notice this sign 5 years ago?) summat or other” and two things struck; how much is that cost passed on the the mugs ( ie customers) and two, how effin patronizing are these jerks – “you will believe because we do”. Oh lord now do F**k off I mouthed to myself, as I rushed off to the outside and freedom….well, a sort of freedom anyhow.
Athelstan
Bagsy the rights to your posts mate. One day I’m going to compile them into a book to be rubbed in the face of all the cabbage head greens when their futile little lives go all tits up.
Damn, I’m even beginning to sound like you!
🙂
Greenpeace banked by Russia via a shell company in the Bahamas – Putin’s useful idiots.
From far off Washington State, I check the BBC website every day.
I learn the latest fake news and the current spin being applied.
This saves me time checking a lot of other sites that are less comprehensive.
Besides, some USA news sites want me to pay and our horses provide all the manure we can use.
Cheers.
The rampant dishonest unbalanced bias is not only exposed by the fake/wildly alarmist climate stories that dominate the BBC’s science news.
It is also exposed by their obsession with saturating other programs and entertainment with constant references to and reinforcement of CAGW.
The other fabrication is the old “ocean-acidification” chestnut. Repeated in several news bulletins by Harribin on Tuesday morning. I currently have an ongoing BBC complaint on that one. But also slipped in by Attenborough on the Blue Planet. This junk science was debunked in 2014 as junk science. But the BBC can’t seem to stop themselves
Just remember that Attenborough, who is as old as dirt, wants the rest of us dead to save the planet.
When I heard this, I took my book from one of his 1980’s PBS series, and returned it to the earth and CO2. I do not pass this stuff on to others. Rather, I put it on my sizable brush pile to be burned with the next firing. It is long gone to ash and atmosphere.
Lee Berger , the American anthropologist who works in S Africa (where his team have discovered several new hominid species) talks in his book “Footsteps of Eve” about an experiment on chimpanzees by Jane Goodall.
To find out how well they communicate she set out a box containing food, showed it to one member of a troop and then sent it back to the rest . In a short time all the chimps knew where the box was and what it contained.
Then she set out 2 boxes , one containing snakes and the other food and again showed both to only one chimp and allowed it to return to the others . That chimp then brought the others to the boxes, but showed them the box of snakes . At which point they fled in panic, leaving the first chimp to go to the other box and eat all the food.
When I read that I immediately substituted global warming horror stories for the box of snakes and certain politicians and media people for the duplicitous chimp . Whilst the rest of us are so scared that we give up all the benefits of modern life, based on efficient power, they deny themselves nothing and satiate themselves on all that the bountiful Earth can provide.
The fact is though that the prominence of the first annunciation and the disconnection of the refutation goes no way to disabuse people of the original claims. It is a fact that the BBC is not merely commentating on world events but formulating its own policies, has a myriad programmes that propose their view which, disconcertingly, reinforce their message. The nature of their purpose is reinforced by the prominence they give to their like-minded, again to verify their opinion. Add to this the ‘soppy voiced’, dramatic, rendering of their facts and you have a grim form of sincerity, which we know, once you have learned how to fake that you are made. They have a plethora of under-researched, idle commentators, who rely totally on emotional appeal and find it easier to dwell on the abnormal that proposals, ideas and facts that ameliorate any given situation. Britain is a basket case, in their opinion, seemingly, which, it encourages, the people of the world really ought to come to for succour!
The BBC is too worthy which is a way of referring to charlatanism. Frightening people, constantly accusing them of being comfortable, reducing their love of country (which is then nullified by their triumphalism in respect of of British achievements in sport), the focus on the deficiencies of the State over that mountain of aid, sustenance and honest endeavour which is exemplary in the world.
The BBC has become a major outlet for activists of all colours and their old habit of deferring to organisations which are founded on one person and their dog but which have titles that suggest great gravity, are legion. From John Humphrys having the nerve to talk-over people he is supposed to be interviewing for their views to the promotion of their commentators as being experts in all fields of human activity; we have a national broadcaster that may not be party partisan but is certainly a party in its own right that really needs to be curbed.
The time has come when they should abandon that environment whereby they can deride people that are not of their temper and come to the understanding that there are more questions than answers; that being centred in London does not make them privy to truth it only seems to bury them in fashion, cliques and a desire of notoriety within the chattering classes. Their treatment of the Government, in its broad based, and persistent, scepticism is tantamount to that of an opposition party rather than an even-handed public broadcaster whose remit surely is to represent the nation as a whole, with whom it supposedly charged to communicate with and to represent its views fairly.
I stopped listening to “Today” when it became clear that the purpose of the 7:10 political interview was to set the news agenda for the morning.
Provided the victim co-operated and inserted their foot in their mouth at least once or havered over a question to which they probably didn’t even need to have the answer anyway, that would provide the lead for the 7.30 and 8.30 summaries, the 8.00 bulletin and with any luck the 9.00 headlines on R2 as well as R4.
I’m not suggesting a return to the days of obsequiousness — my great achievement was to wrong-foot (only ever once!) a Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject of PFI — but it is not the BBC’s function, nor was it mine, to set the agenda. Interview and report and leave the editorialising and comment for editorials and comment columns/programmes.
The Beeb has forgotten long since how to separate its news reporting from its opinions. And arguably, as the national broadcaster, it’s not supposed to have opinions.
How it is supposed to differentiate between different views on subjects like climate is another question, and to an extent I sympathise, but it could start with the principle that served the great journalists well — “why is this guy telling me this, is it true, and what does he really want?”
The BBC has simply spun out of control. I have given up complaining because you get nowhere.
Their latest wheeze is to present what is mere opinion as fact, often bizarrely in the fact-checking section.They also just pick and choose what they report – this week we had the IFS anti-Brexit analysis (which is seriously flawed) but the various analyses by others at least as competent which are pro-Brexit are simply ignored.
Even University Challenge got in the act a few weeks ago, with pictures of coastlines swamped by 50m of global warming sea rise.
The problem seem to to be the younger generation of reporters, who have simply no understanding that reasonable people can disagree on many things. They are the most dogmatic bunch I have ever come across, and that dogmatism colours everything they do.
This is a deliberate ploy. How many people actually read the redaction as opposed to the number who are exposed to the lies in the first instance? It’s not just the BBC, almost all the “activist” media that are guilty of trumpeting falsifications only to have to “apologise” discreetly after the damage is done.
The local BBC news has been busy reporting from Hemsby, where a number of “homes” (in reality, “holiday chalets” which are now lived in year round), are about to fall into the sea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-43472150
In one evening TV bulletin their reporter blamed “Rising Sea Levels” as the main culprit, but made no mention that the East coast has been slowly receding for hundreds of years. Indeed just a few miles further up the coast at Happisburgh, far more dramatic cliff falls and property loss have taken place since I had a childhood holiday there some 50 years ago. And yet the unfortunate householders, when interviewed, all trotted out lines such as “We didn’t realise” – “Nobody told us” etc.
During a recent family gathering nearby (at yet another sea incursion) I had the opportunity to explain to a young nephew that the reason for these regular occurrences is primarily the underlying geography. Below the sandy topsoil is an impermeable layer of clay – rain water soaks down until it hits this and then effectively “floats” the sand, making it an easy target for high tides. My nephew clearly had no idea about this, or the gradual tilting of the UK mainland.
If I can remember the basics from my school days, why can’t our “national broadcaster” – instead of trotting out the usual biased rubbish? If they did their job properly the millions who rely on them might be better informed…
Hemsby is on the same North Sea coast as Dunwich , the town occupied by the Anglo Saxons , but which has progressively disappeared into the sea due to coastal erosion over the centuries , and , in particular, storms in the 13th Cent.
Ironically the BBC are well aware of this because they made it the feature of an archaeological investigation a few years ago using new techniques to image the ruins in the murky sea offshore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunwich.
Well,I say that they are well aware of the centuries old history of erosion on that coast , but that might have been true of the older , now removed, journalists and producers , but the current breed do not appear to share the same attitude to research and “getting the facts right”.
“And , in particular, storms in the 13th Cent”
As the model on display at the village museum shows only too well. From memory, Dunwich once had no less than EIGHT churches – now only one remains!
“That might have been true of the older , now removed, journalists and producers”
The particular presenter in question is old enough to know better, but I’ll bet he has a much younger producer breathing down his neck…
I ran a piece on Dunwhich a few years ago:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/coastal-erosion-in-east-anglia-before-it-was-due-to-climate-change/
I think one problem is that the incentives are wrong. It’s not the job of the journalists to be accurate and objective. Their job is to get readers, which brings money, pays their bills and allows them to produce more content. Sensatiolist headlines with bold statements and in ALL CAPS capture people’s attention and brings readers. More careful and objective headlines do not.
Except where you have a charter that rules against this and you are funded by a tax, that should be unlucky enough to be caught, non-payment gets you a criminal record and failure to pay the fine gets you gaoled.
I recall a quote from a business book back in the early 70s, about how a communications strategy should work. “If all else fails, try honesty”. I guess that’s too tricky for the Biased Broadcasting Corporation!
Don’t forget the Tony Newbery case
https://www.thegwpf.com/tony-newbery-bbcs-disclosed-foi-documents/
Tony Newbery: The BBC’s Disclosed FOI Documents
Date: 12/01/14
Tony Newbery, Harmless Sky
The funding for the 2006 BBC climate change seminar came from a government department. The funds were channelled through environmental lobbyists who were organising the seminar. It is possible that the government department that provided the funds had some input about the topics selected for the seminars…………………. more”
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/
”
SECRET 28 ‘scientific experts’ who Greened the BBC – Revealed!
Beeb spent a mint to suppress list on Wayback Machine (includes Greenpeacers)
By Andrew Orlowski 13 Nov 2012 at 13:25
193 Reg comments SHARE ▼
A list of attendees at a climate-change seminar the BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep secret has been unearthed on an internet archive. The listed names emerged after the publicly-funded broadcaster fought off requests for the list under freedom of information (FOI) laws. ………… more”
What I find very irritating about the BBC is not only the News agenda but how the phrase ‘climate change’ finds its way into any if not all programmes about the natural world and even ‘Countryfile- a programme about farming and the daily lives of us rustic types who are of course struggling with ‘climate change’.It is the total and unquestioning way in which it is slipped into the presenters narrative or commentary as if it’s a done deal.
With regard to complaining. If you watch or listen to any of the audience feedback programmes it becomes quite clear that producers at the BBC don’t give a toss. Even when faced with valid audience complaints about the way they chose to present or perhaps more correctly, flood, the transmission with their own and their colleagues agendas and obsessions, there is never a hint of an apology that says yes, we got it wrong this time.
“If you watch or listen to any of the audience feedback programmes it becomes quite clear that producers at the BBC don’t give a toss”
At least they had a sense of humour in years gone by:
Because of their recent warmist and other advocacies, as well as their shift from news to op ed, they lost my long ago.
The BBC publish any old guff about plastic as well,
A fourth one for your list. I find the initial falsehood and the denial in their responses quite shocking.
https://cliscep.com/2018/03/23/bbc-in-denial-over-fake-news/
I will continue to pursue it.
Becoming s habit indeed…
BBC REGRETS CLIMATE ERROR AND FAILURE TO MEET USUAL STANDARDS OF REPORTING — THEN DOES IT AGAIN
Date: 26/03/18 Dr David Whitehouse, GWPF Science Editor
http://www.thegwpf.com/bbc-regrets-climate-error-and-failure-to-meet-usual-standards-of-reporting-and-then-does-it-again/
It didn’t fail to meet its usual low standard of climate reporting.