Skip to content

BBC’s Latest Propaganda For Katowice

November 29, 2018

By Paul Homewood


More propaganda from the WMO and BBC. Who would have guessed there was another climate conference next week!


The year 2018 is on course to be the fourth warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

It says that the global average temperature for the first 10 months of the year was nearly 1C above the levels between 1850-1900.

The State of the Climate report says that the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the 2015-2018 making up the top four.

If the trend continues, the WMO says temperatures may rise by 3-5C by 2100.

The temperature rise for 2018 of 0.98C comes from five independently maintained global data sets 


The BBC show this fake map, purportedly showing temperature anomalies:





In fact, the true coverage is much more sparse than the BBC pretend, as the NOAA map for October shows:

  Global Land Mean Temp Anomaly Map[]=map-land-sfc-mntp#global-maps-select

Yet the BBC pretends that we can deduce global temperatures to a hundredth of a degree. Pathetic!

Note the BBC’s comment about “pronounced warming in the Arctic”. There is zero evidence for this, as there is next to no thermometer coverage there.

The BBC version also colours in the oceans. However even the ARGO coverage is limited, and has in any event been heavily adjusted to match much less reliable data. In other words, the sea surface temperature numbers are effectively worthless.

No proper scientific organisation would announce figures for the year, before they have even got November’s numbers, never mind December. However, if they want to play that game, let’s look at the satellite data, which gives the most comprehensive analysis of global temperatures.

Assuming November and December remain on the average for the year, 2018 will come in the same as 2002, and well below the El Nino years of 1998, 2010, 2016 and 2017.

In other words, the famous pause, which so many alarmists have tried to deny, is well and truly still in existence.




Where the BBC gets its claim that if the trend continues, the WMO says temperatures may rise by 3-5C by 2100 is beyond comprehension.

Even the Met Office’s HADCRUT numbers only work out at a trend of 0.012C/yr since 1950, or an underwhelming 1.2C per century, a figure that would largely be beneficial to mankind.

This sort of warming is similar to the amount we have seen since the low point of the Little Ice Age in the 19thC. I have yet to see any convincing argument as to why we would be better off returning to those days!




The BBC article goes on to claim that extreme weather is on the increase because of global warming (accompanied, naturally, with pictures of bad weather – in this instance wildfires in Sweden). This, in spite of the fact that even the heavily biased IPCC has continually failed to prove that this is so.

And as usual, the partisan BBC print this banner at the end of the article:



  1. November 29, 2018 8:49 pm

    The current three articles on the BBC website under the heading “Science & Environment are titled:
    “Race to pull greenhouse gases from air”
    “Last four years are 1world’s hottest'”
    “CO2 rises for the first time in four years”

    Clearly the BBC is full steam ahead on propaganda ahead of some conference or other.

    Who could have predicted this from the Biased Bullshit Corporation?

    • Jon Scott permalink
      November 29, 2018 9:10 pm

      The Biased Broadcasting Collective just about sums them up. Their politics is so far to the left it is not funny.
      Here is the BBC politbureau’s docrinal line in a nutshell. All their neuroses are common to a left wing ideology.
      They see themselves as promoters and flag wavers of the ideology of climate alarmism having the shear arrogance to admit they have no interest to show balance on this subject. They see extreme left wing or marxism as socialism. They call anyone not socialist “Far Right”. They LOVE immigration but one way only. They champion the cause of economic migrants using all the emotional language you can think of to hide the real motives behind people deciding they want a Western lifestyle. They are obsessed with Islam and look to educate us on the subject every chance they get. Reading the BBC web page or listening to the radio you may be forgiven for not knowing the country where the BBC are based because they spend so much time and effort glorifying the third world. They are anti Brexit, They are anti male but specifically the bottom of the pile is any white heterosexual Christian male from England. They are very insistent on national identity within the UK except that is for English identity. Indeed No report on TV or radio from Scotland will have anything other than a Scottish person reporting. Same for Ireland and also Wales. YET when a report is about England you are presented with a selection of reporters from any of the UK countries. They judge crime and report (or not) based on the skin colour and or ideology/religion of the perpetrator rather than on the nature and or severity of the crime. They black wash history programs for small children getting their propaganda over as early as possible to the young and impressionable. Lord Reith must be turning in his grave….BUT WHO is allowing this to happen? All this from a corrupt organization telling us we can trust them!

      • HotScot permalink
        November 30, 2018 12:02 am

        Jon Scott

        On the other hand, there’s always Ken Bruce. 🙂

  2. Jon Scott permalink
    November 29, 2018 8:51 pm

    The BBC are out of control.This is a group of individuals imposing their personal ideology onto the public! They are NOT a private organization. Joe Public in the UK is paying for this tosh. Who in that sham of a news agency has the power to do this? They repeatedly make sweeping statements which assume statistically significant empirical data to back them up which simply does not exist. This being the case is it not reasonable to call them out as politically motivated liars?

    • Silver Dynamite permalink
      November 30, 2018 9:38 am

      Excellent comments Jon.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 30, 2018 2:00 pm

      Joe Public needs to wise up and stop paying.

    • BLACK PEARL permalink
      December 1, 2018 6:56 pm

      SLY NEWS isn’t much different either

  3. Ian Magness permalink
    November 29, 2018 9:06 pm

    All you need to know about the WMO and its statistics is revealed by the simple statement this week from the WMO Secretary General Petteri Taalas. Following Obama’s “the science is settled” meme, he said:“It is worth repeating once again that we are the first generation to fully understand climate change and the last generation to be able to do something about it.” Whether mankind can do anything about it is extremely debatable. You have only got to spend a few hours getting into the major scientific aspects of the atmosphere, the carbon cycle, the hydrological cycle etc etc etc etc and it becomes bleedin’ obvious that there is far more that we don’t know than what we are sure of. There is no one aspect of “climate change” that we “fully understand” and for a man in his position to state otherwise is beyond derision.

    • HotScot permalink
      November 30, 2018 12:10 am

      Ian Magness

      We can do lots about the climate!

      We can burn more coal nad improve growing conditions for plantlife which is already benefitting from our efforts.

      Indeed, the only observable change increased atmospheric CO2 has had on the planet is that it has greened by 14% in 35 years of satellite observations.

      Nothing, ~repeat~, Nothing negative has been observed from increasing atmospheric CO2 and no one has ever demonstrated by empirical means that CO2 causes the planet to warm.

      For this reason alone, every single scientific study or article associating increased atmospheric CO2 with global temperature change can be dismissed out of hand.

      • RAH permalink
        November 30, 2018 12:24 pm

        I think that one of the best things would could do for the climate and humanity in general is to shut the morons who pump this trash the hell UP! They’re harping never ends despite the fact that not a damned catastrophic thing they have predicted has happened or appears to be about to happen. It gets so tiresome.

        I gotta give Paul and all the other bloggers great kudos for being able to persevere and keep reporting and disputing and often shining the light of truth on this constant stream of lies we are all subjected to on a nearly daily basis. Thank you so much.

  4. Robert Best permalink
    November 29, 2018 9:07 pm

    Hi Paul, Just wondering if these criticisms are ever brought to the attention of WMO and if so by whom? Also, I’m guessing that it would be quite naive of me to expect that the WMO would respond? Regards Robert

    • November 29, 2018 10:00 pm

      I would suggest a complaint via the UK govt, which must be paying part of the enormous cost of the WMO, located in uber-expensive Geneva, with everyone on tax free salaries and pensions. I would estimate how much of the budget goes on their fake news propaganda, and deduct that portion.

      • Saighdear permalink
        November 29, 2018 10:47 pm

        Am I speaking on behalf of a lot of folk who read these articles too, but don’t desire to go public and write / comment etc? If so, I have many such issues and find so often that I fall between two stools (!) and cannot find the correct angle of Approach and Contact to effect any result. Most of the Politicians, whether they be Local or National, are all in together on this Act, so “don’t rock the boat” and of course the old phrase crops up – ” what’s in it for me”. Likewise any meaningful discussion with any would-be enthusiastic young journalist is met with the same disdain – they’ve already either been Brainwashed or live in Dreamland – not having learnt anything meaningful in school besides the Arts…..
        As a child I learnt many a thing from the BBC Radio and later, the TV, – Language and other factual things through their Documentaries, ….. I shudder to think where I may have been indoctrinated all those years ago. I’ve had a very good Uni Education and DO THINK for myself, – sometimes acting as devil’s advocate to stimulate some discussion
        Tonight’s 10pm News – what was that Nonsense about Slag in a bottle with injected CO2 ? – simply the process of setting Concrete ? – but THEY didn’t TELL us that….

  5. Graeme No.3 permalink
    November 29, 2018 9:37 pm

    I notice that southern Australia is shown as above average temperature in October. Speaking as an inhabitant I would dispute that, quite the reverse. NZ is rather indistinct, perhaps because of the snow in the South Island where some of the locals are speculating about a White Christmas (for summer!).
    It appears that the same scare stories were scheduled some years ago; coming Climate Conference means rising temperatures reardless.
    Red sky in the morning,
    means Climate Change is dawning.
    Red sky at night,
    BBC’s delight.

  6. November 29, 2018 10:18 pm

    McGrath, Shukman and Harrabin seem to be competing with each other over who can produce the most BS. There is more climate nonsense on the 10pm news now. I turned it off.

    • November 30, 2018 6:37 am

      Yes, I have noticed that this apparent competition between the three propagandists has increased in intensity during the last two or three weeks.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        November 30, 2018 9:21 am

        You’d almost think that there’s a Climate Concerence in the offing .

  7. Mack permalink
    November 29, 2018 10:29 pm

    Whatever the world’s weather does for the remaining months of 2018, take out the impact of the El Niño years, and there has been no statistically significant warming for 2 decades. And this is in spite of all the frantic temperature adjustments, homogenising and spurious infilling of the major data sets that’s corrupted them all (with the noble exception of UAH) to make temperatures seem much hotter now than hitherto in recorded modern history. And all this recent un-runaway non-global warming has occurred against the backdrop of the largest 20 year injection of anthropogenic CO2 ever known. But it’s all our fault anyway. Go figure!

  8. john cooknell permalink
    November 29, 2018 10:30 pm

    In the virtual modelled world of Shukman, Matt McGrath, Harrabin et al, all of this is true. They are journalists, and journalists make up stories, that is what they do.

    We know already they will save the virtual world, the UN IPCC model graph already shows what would have happened, how bad things would have been, if mitigating actions had not been taken to reduce CO2, so we should all be comforted.

    • Dave Ward permalink
      November 30, 2018 10:48 am

      “They are journalists, and journalists make up stories, that is what they do”

      That’s funny – I thought they were supposed to report on what was happening. I must be living in different world…

      • Athelstan permalink
        November 30, 2018 11:52 am

        That was the old world Dave, where the truth was something of value.

  9. JimW permalink
    November 29, 2018 11:13 pm

    The big red blob in the ‘arctic’ is the only reason the ‘anomalies’ are not now ‘zero’ in October. The ‘arctic’ is 16% of the NH and if you take out the made up, absurd numbers for the average of the rest of the NH the positive ‘anomoly’ goes away.
    How convenient that somewhere that is still in double digits negative temperatures effects the total to such an extent.
    As I have previously observed it is all complete BS.

  10. Athelstan permalink
    November 29, 2018 11:29 pm

    Whiling, a jaw fest, and away with the reindeers and rubber neckers – the hours up in t’greenland santa land, the beeb did a full hour of uninventive and staid vocabulary of hyperbole, ooh look its enormous, massive, hotest – evah. Blumin’ heck, there are more words in the lexicon erm, ladies.

    It involved some geeks from Aberystwyth tech’ and a couple of goggle eyed edgy innit explorers helen ‘glamsci’ czerski and packham, needless to say the ice is glaciatin’ innit and melting faster than evah and almost as if they’ve just stumbled on the key to the universe and hey look Glaciers calve – fantastic, we never knew!

    It’s all ice to the global warming fire – is it not?

    Ooh flippin’ heck aaaaaaaaaaaaand! lo is Katowice – the dirty COAL capital of Poland no less (irony alert) and UN climate alarmism beano conference gobfest coming up. Er yes indeed it is,

    whodathunked it?

    • HotScot permalink
      November 30, 2018 12:19 am


      Concisely put, as ever.


      • Athelstan permalink
        November 30, 2018 9:10 am

        It greatly wearies my heart, all the lies and the beeb at its blackest core.

  11. November 30, 2018 3:04 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  12. Coeur de Lion permalink
    November 30, 2018 10:38 am

    Just a minor point. A calving glacier is good news. Work it out.
    BUT I am feeling BELEAGUERED. I’ve just joined the millions (NOT!)who have read the IPCC’s recent 790 page 1.5 degrees paper full of motherhood and apple pie wish lists requiring coercive transnational actions. Then there’s the pack of lies in the USA’s climate assessment. And there’s Gove’s recent outpouring of unscientific exaggeration. And the BBC’s efforts here recorded. Are we LOSING! But it’s snowing in Katowice.

    • Athelstan permalink
      November 30, 2018 11:51 am

      I’ve said it before and often, calving means accretion in the upper reaches of the glacier, yes, we can work it out but the beeboids can’t and the viewing public would never be allowed to know.

  13. November 30, 2018 1:35 pm

    “pronounced warming in the Arctic”. There is zero evidence for this, as there is next to no thermometer coverage there.

    However sea ice is reasonably good evidence, and is on the up.

  14. dennisambler permalink
    November 30, 2018 1:43 pm

    We have to accept of course that the science is “settled”, which it was as far back as Kyoto and before, but the major uncertainties with the climate “predictions” are just ignored. But then, things like this are probably not in the press release.

    I love this from Hadley, 2004

    “uncertainties in climate change predictions lead to uncertainties in predictions of the impacts of climate change. For plant productivity and water availability, the range of uncertainties is predicted to be greater than the average predicted changes.”

    The follow up document in 2005:

    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” – January 2005 [Difficult to find now, I don’t know why]

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

    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.

    [how would they know, how do they get to decide and where do they buy the control knob from, ebay?]

    These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases. [say what? I thought it had been known since Tyndall and Arrhenius. At least that’s what they always tell us.]

    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” [Amazing admissions]

    The following month, the Hadley Centre hosted the Tony Blair requested Exeter Conference on Dangerous Climate Change, which came out with the scary scenarios and predictions of doom that are still drip fed in some way or other throughout each day by the BBC and others.

    A suitably horrified Benny Peiser reported on it:

    This was just before AR4 which came out in 2007, with the statement:
    “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, and “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    They really didn’t have a clue and still don’t, because they are trapped in their CO2 tunnel vision, but they have to make “unequivocal” statements, otherwise the funding would dry up.

  15. November 30, 2018 2:40 pm

    Yet in the UK the last four years (for which we actually have data!) were not the hottest, the ranks are:
    2017 – 5 – 9.6
    2016 – 14 – 9.3
    2015 – 18 – 9.2
    2014 – 1 – 9.9

    In the past 22 years the UK has only 13 years in the top 20 rather than 20. Of the remainder 3 were pre 1951.

    Interesting that the UK is not fitting the Global pattern.

    • RAH permalink
      November 30, 2018 3:15 pm

      Typical of places with actual unadjusted ground station data and history.

  16. Gamecock permalink
    November 30, 2018 3:08 pm

    I just want to know if I can go out for my walk now.

    • David Ashton permalink
      November 30, 2018 6:10 pm

      Take some water, wouldn’t want you to dehydrate.

  17. November 30, 2018 6:03 pm

    Whether people at the BBC are left or right wing is of little consequence when it comes to climate change. More significant is the fact that the man responsible for BBC pensions investment was also the first chairman of the International Investors Group for Climate Change. Money is the only universal driving force.

  18. Gary Kerkin permalink
    November 30, 2018 11:01 pm

    The problem of bias is not restricted to the BBC. In New Zealand we have been confronted by this on the web site ( owned by one of the major media companies—Fairfax which is Australian owned. “Stuff” describes its policy on climate change as follows:

    “Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do intend to provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy. That applies equally to the stories we will publish in ‘Quick! Save the Planet’ and to our moderation standards for reader comments”

    (This policy has also been published by “The Dominion Post”, the Fairfax newspaper which covers the region in which I live.)

    I take the policy to mean that any stories or comments contrary to Stuff’s prevailing wisdom on climate change will not be published.

  19. Gary Kerkin permalink
    November 30, 2018 11:04 pm

    Oops! Left out the word “not” in their policy.

    It should read

    “Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy. That applies equally to the stories we will publish in ‘Quick! Save the Planet’ and to our moderation standards for reader comments”

  20. nickreality65 permalink
    December 1, 2018 1:14 am

    Referring to the Dutton/Brune Penn State METEO 300 chapter 7.2: These two professors quite clearly assume/state that the earth’s current 0.3 albedo would remain even if the atmosphere were gone or if the atmosphere were 100 % nitrogen, i.e. at an average 240 W/m^2 OLR and an average temperature of 255 K.

    That is just flat ridiculous.

    Without the atmosphere or with 100% nitrogen there would be no liquid water or water vapor, no vegetation, no clouds, no snow, no ice, no oceans and no longer a 0.3 albedo. The earth would get blasted by the full 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.

    The sans atmosphere albedo might be similar to the moon’s as listed in NASA’s planetary data lists, a lunarific 0.14, 390 K on the lit side, 100 K on the dark.

    And the naked, barren, zero water w/o atmosphere earth would receive 25% to 40% more kJ/h of solar energy and as a result would be 20 to 30 C hotter not 33 C colder, a direct refutation of the greenhouse effect theory and most certainly NOT a near absolute zero frozen ball of ice.

    Nick S.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: