Skip to content

GWPF Criticises Ofcom For Getting It Wrong On IPCC And Extreme Weather

April 10, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

The GWPF has responded to a controversial ruling from OFCOM:

 

image

London, 10 April: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has criticised Ofcom for its ruling against a BBC interview with Lord Lawson.

In his interview with the BBC’s Today Programme on 10 August 2017, Lord Lawson pointed out that while some extreme events had increased, others had diminished. Overall, however, extreme weather events had not increased according to the IPCC:

“For example, for example he [Al Gore] said that there has been a growing, increase which is continuing, in extreme weather events. There hasn’t been. All the experts say there hasn’t been. The IPCC, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the sort of voice of the consensus, concedes that there has been no increase in extreme weather events. Extreme weather events have always happened. They come and go. And some kinds of extreme weather events, there’s a particular time increase, whereas others, like tropical storms, diminish”.

Lord Lawson’s statement was based on the IPCC’s key findings in its 2013 5th Assessment Report (see summary of IPCC conclusions at ttp://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html)

  • “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
  • “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
  • “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
  • “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
  • “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
  • “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
  • “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

Without providing any evidence to justify disputing the IPCC’s conclusions, Ofcom claimed that Lawson’s statement about extreme weather was incorrect and not sufficiently challenged by the BBC presenter during the interview.

Ofcom, however, appear to base its ruling on information from unnamed complainants, the BBC (and possibly from other unnamed sources) without publishing that information or where it obtained it from. As a result, nobody is able to see it and judge its credibility. It did not ask Lord Lawson for any information regarding his statements.

That Ofcom should judge on scientific matters without justifying their decision sets a worrying precedent concerning the oversight of journalists.

Presenters are not experts and cannot be expected to be. For them to provide a detailed examination of competing viewpoints would be a burden on them and a limitation of the freedom of broadcasters and the BBC, and severely inhibit live discussions, as well as investigative journalism.

https://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-criticises-ofcom-for-getting-it-wrong-on-the-ipcc-and-extreme-weather/

 

It certainly does appear to be extremely bad judgment by OFCOM to have accepted the word of some anonymous complainant, without attempting to ascertain the true facts, or get the GWPF’s views.

One wonders whether there is also the hand of someone at the BBC, like Harrabin, guiding the OFCOM judgment here, as an attempt to enforce more discipline on their news staff, who might otherwise be tempted to seek out dissenting views.

It is clear that OFCOM have fallen into the same groupthink we have seen lately, and automatically assumed that extreme weather must be on the increase.

I wait with baited breath for OFCOM to criticise the BBC next time they interview Al Gore, and fail to challenge the palpable nonsense he spouts. But I fear I will be waiting a long time!

18 Comments
  1. April 10, 2018 5:37 pm

    BBC/Guardian/Ofcom = “The LibEstablishment old pals Club”
    ..and indeed most MSM are members

    The libmob habitually judge people by a quick glance of their political skin
    hence purple-skins are always wrong, but Brendan Cox (and other lechy lefties) count as OK and get a free pass

    • HotScot permalink
      April 10, 2018 11:54 pm

      Stew

      Concise as ever.

      Excellent comment.

  2. April 10, 2018 5:50 pm

    It is everywhere. Even Ofcom has the CO2 virus.

  3. Joseph Sharp permalink
    April 10, 2018 6:07 pm

    The expression is “bated breath”. Otherwise, I concur with everything you say. Ofcom should be ashamed.

  4. Bitter&twisted permalink
    April 10, 2018 6:08 pm

    The Biased Bull$hit Cartel is a law unto itself.
    I complained about the BBC article about Lake Chad, using material that Paul had posted (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/lake-chad-might-be-shrinking-but-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-climate-change/)
    I made it clear that I objected to the statement “Lake Chad – a source of water to millions of people in West Africa – has shrunk by nine-tenths due to climate change, population growth and irrigation”. was misleading as it listed “climate change” first, implying that this was a major cause of the shrinkage.

    This is the slimy, self-serving response:

    Thank you for contacting us about the BBC News article titled ‘Lake Chad: Can the vanishing lake be saved?’
    I understand you feel that the article displays bias by noting climate change as a factor contributing to the shrinkage of Lake Chad.
    In light of your concerns I have reviewed the article in question.
    The aim of the report is to explore the possibility of refilling the lake by “diverting water from the Congo river system 2,400km (1,500 miles) away.”
    As stated, the article also strives to shed a little light on why the lake is diminishing. It has shrunk by 90% since the 1960s, and although climate change is stated as a factor, as is “an increase in the population and unplanned irrigation”.
    Although we appreciate your strong feelings on the matter, it is important to recognise that a fundamental part of the role of our correspondents is to offer analysis of issues such as this using their research, but this is not indicative of bias.
    As with all of the issues we look at, the BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage on the complex issue of climate change. We accept that there is broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly. However, we do on occasion offer space to dissenting voices where appropriate as part of the BBC’s overall commitment to impartiality.
    Please be assured that your concerns have been passed forward on a report which will be read by senior BBC management and the teams at BBC News online.
    Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.
    Kind regards
    Hollie Bann
    BBC Complaints Team
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

    NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

  5. April 10, 2018 6:34 pm

    Maybe Ofcom gets its information from BBC radio 4, this afternoon we had a collective wail about how the poor critters of the UK are in the firing line of climate change, including “every kind of weather extreme”. Richard Betts of the Met Office was typically economical with the truth, failing to point out that Spring temperatures jumped around 1990 (when there was a big switch in the AMO index), and have done nothing since:

    • dennisambler permalink
      April 11, 2018 9:08 am

      Richard Betts should revisit this document from 2005:

      Prepared by Geoff Jenkins, Richard Betts, Mat Collins, Dave Griggs,Jason Lowe, Richard Wood

      “Stabilising climate to avoid dangerous climate change — a summary of relevant research at
      the Hadley Centre “- Hadley Centre January 2005

      Summary:
      “What constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change, in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remains open to debate.

      The physical (chemical and biological) climate system — or components of
      it — are capable of changing rapidly, and the trigger point for such abrupt
      changes could provide one of the ways of defining ‘dangerous’

      We can also investigate the impacts of relatively gradual change — and their
      associated costs — to seek ways of defining a dangerous change

      The inertia of the climate system means that we could be committed to
      dangerous change, many decades before we reach the dangerous level

      Once we decide what degree of (for example) temperature rise the world can
      tolerate, we then have to estimate what greenhouse gas concentrations in the
      atmosphere should be limited to, and how quickly they should be allowed to
      change.

      These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the
      climate system responds to greenhouse gases. (Really???)

      The next stage is to calculate what emissions of greenhouse gases would be
      allowable, in order to keep below the limit of greenhouse gas concentrations.

      This is even more uncertain, thanks to our imperfect understanding of the carbon
      cycle (and chemical cycles) and how this feeds back into the climate system”

      Remember, the “science was settled” even 13 years ago.

  6. April 10, 2018 6:36 pm

    A very good source tell me the reduction is due to Climate Change

    another, another,

    See many people tweeting that BBC story tweet the link, yet drop mention of other more major factors.

    • dave permalink
      April 10, 2018 8:53 pm

      The BBC modus operandi is to publlsh stale, banal, news about somewhere remote, and rely on the the echo-chamber to turn it into fake news.

      • HotScot permalink
        April 10, 2018 11:58 pm

        dave

        Top comment!

    • Bitter@twisted permalink
      April 11, 2018 7:16 am

      Thanks Stewgreen this is great evidence that the BBC Lake Chad article has been seen by the Public as been caused by climate change. As intended.
      I am going to complain again.

  7. April 10, 2018 6:47 pm

    In my experience it is a complete waste of time complaining to the BBC or OFCOM. In the extremely unlikely event that a complaint is upheld, nothing changes, and the biased behaviour continues.

    • dennisambler permalink
      April 11, 2018 9:10 am

      They are staffed by the new generation of “believers” who have come through the school system.

  8. daveR permalink
    April 10, 2018 10:54 pm

    Beeb Scotland is particularly infatuated with promoting Dixon and Banks – two mouthpieces endlessly spouting alarmism. There will be a reckoning against our state-legislated propadandists.

    • daveR permalink
      April 10, 2018 10:57 pm

      ‘g’ of course.

  9. Coeur de Lion permalink
    April 11, 2018 6:57 am

    Unbelievable.

  10. mikewaite permalink
    April 11, 2018 10:05 am

    For a long time now I have wondered who it is the BBC is working for .
    Clearly not for the British people who allow for their enormous salaries via licence money and Govt funding.
    The governors and senior people at the BBC may think that Brexit was a bad decision, but they insist on making the outcome far worse than it need be for Britain by their incessant pessimism and false forecasts.
    On the subject of AGW, renewables and Climate Change every position they take seems to be deliberately intended to destroy Britains economic future
    The BBC supported Britain in WWII even during times of bad news and sometimes dubious decisions by the War Cabinet , but now when we face eg the extinction of manufacturing by an irresponsible and incomprehensible energy policy there is no support, no research or investigation, at all.
    So who are they working for?

  11. It doesn't add up... permalink
    April 11, 2018 5:51 pm

    As I have just noted elsewhere:

    Ofcom seem to be a right dodgy lot load of lefties. So far they’ve gone after Lord Lawson’s comments on the BBC about climate change, Andrew Neil’s comments about one in five Scots leaving primary school functionally illiterate – and now this. Impartial regulators? No way.

    “This” is a large compensation payout to Bill Emmott, who became head of Ofcom’s Content Board in 2015.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: