Skip to content

BBC’s Latest Climate Indoctrination

December 2, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Philip Bratby

 

The BBC have now stopped even trying to camouflage their bias on climate change, with this latest piece of propaganda:

 

image

Representatives from nearly 200 countries are gathering in Poland for talks on climate change – aimed at breathing new life into the Paris Agreement.

The UN has warned the 2015 Paris accord’s goal of limiting global warming to "well below 2C above pre-industrial levels" is in danger because major economies, including the US and the EU, are falling short of their pledges.

But scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the leading international body on global warming – last month argued the 2C Paris pledge didn’t go far enough. The global average temperature rise actually needed to be kept below 1.5C, they said.

So how warm has the world got and what can we do about it?

1. The world has been getting hotter each year

The world is now nearly one degree warmer than it was before widespread industrialisation, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The global average temperature for the first 10 months of 2018 was 0.98C above the levels of 1850-1900, according to five independently maintained global data sets.

The 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with 2015-2018 making up the top four, the WMO says.

If this trend continues, temperatures may rise by 3-5C by 2100.

One degree may not sound like much, but, according to the IPCC, if countries fail to act, the world will face catastrophic change – sea levels will rise, ocean temperatures and acidity will increase and our ability to grow crops, such as rice, maize and wheat, would be in danger.

2. The year 2018 set all sorts of records

This year saw record high temperatures in many places across the world amid an unusually prolonged period of hot weather.

Large parts of the northern hemisphere saw a succession of heatwaves take hold in Europe, Asia, North America and northern Africa – a result of strong high pressure systems that created a "heat dome".

Over the period shown on the map below (May to July 2018), the yellow dots show where a heat record was broken on a given date, pink indicates places that were the hottest they had ever been in the month shown, and dark red represents a place that was the hottest since records began.

image
The concern is that such hot and cold weather fronts are being blocked – stuck over regions for long periods – more frequently because of climate change, leading to more extreme weather events.

 

3. We are not on track to meet climate change targets

If we add up all the promises to cut emissions made by countries that have signed the Paris climate agreement, the world would still warm by more than 3C by the end of this century.

image

Over the past three years, climate scientists have shifted the definition of what they believe is the "safe" limit of climate change.

For decades, researchers argued the global temperature rise must be kept below 2C by the end of this century to avoid the worst impacts.

Countries signing up to the Paris agreement pledged to keep temperatures "well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5C".

But scientists now agree that we actually need to keep temperature rises to below 1.5C.

 

4. The biggest emitters are China and the US

The countries emitting the most greenhouse gases by quite a long way are China and the US. Together they account for more than 60% of the global total, according to 2017 data from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

 

image

The US’s environmental policy has shifted under the Trump administration, which has pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda.

After taking office, President Donald Trump announced the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement.

At the time, Mr Trump said he wanted to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage US businesses and workers.

 

5. Urban areas are particularly under threat

Almost all (95%) of cities facing extreme climate risks are in Africa or Asia, a report by risk analysts Verisk Maplecroft has found.

And it’s the faster-growing cities that are most at risk, including megacities like Lagos in Nigeria and Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Some 84 of the world’s 100 fastest-growing cities face "extreme" risks from rising temperatures and extreme weather brought on by climate change.

6. Arctic sea ice is also in danger

The extent of Arctic sea ice has dropped in recent years. It reached its lowest point on record in 2012.

image

Sea ice has been reducing for decades, with melting accelerating since the early 2000s, according to the UK Parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee.

The Arctic Ocean may be ice free in the summer as soon as the 2050s, unless emissions are reduced, the committee has said.

The WMO found the extent of Arctic sea ice in 2018 was much lower than normal, with the maximum in March the third lowest on record and the September minimum the sixth lowest.

 

7. We can all do more to help

While governments need to make big changes – individuals can play a role too.

Scientists say we all have to make "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes" to our lifestyles, in order to avoid severely damaging climate change.

The IPCC says we need to: buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter; eat more locally sourced seasonal food – and throw less of it away; drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances; take trains and buses instead of planes; use videoconferencing instead of business travel; use a washing line instead of a tumble dryer; insulate homes; demand low carbon in every consumer product.

The single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet is to modify your diet to include less meat – according to recent studies.

image

Scientists say we ought to eat less meat because of the carbon emissions the meat industry produces, as well as other negative environmental impacts.

A recent study published in the journal Science highlighted a massive variation in the environmental impact of producing the same food.

For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land produces 12 times more greenhouse gas emissions than those reared on natural pastures.

Crucially, the analysis shows that meat with the lowest environmental impact still creates more greenhouse gas emissions than growing vegetables and cereal crops in the least environmentally-friendly way.

But as well as altering our diets, research suggests that farming practices need to change significantly to benefit the environment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46384067

 

As usual with the BBC, there are many exaggerations, omissions and factual errors which all slant the report towards their alarmist agenda. This time, however, they have even had the nerve to tell us what we should be doing to “help”.

Interestingly the four authors of this article all seem to specialise in presenting on data and visual analysis, and none have any relevant experience on matters of climate change. In other words, the BBC has given them the job of putting together a propaganda piece, designed to persuade people.

 

Let’s look at some of the detail:

  • But scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the leading international body on global warming – last month argued the 2C Paris pledge didn’t go far enough. The global average temperature rise actually needed to be kept below 1.5C, they said.

There is no evidence at all that the world’s current climate is any worse than the 19thC, when it was maybe a degree colder.

Where then is the BBC’s critical analysis of the IPCC’s warning?

 

  • The world is now nearly one degree warmer than it was before widespread industrialisation

Nowhere is there any acknowledgement of the Little Ice Age, which was just ending as industrialisation started. Nor that the Little Ice Age was probably the coldest period since the Ice Age.

How much of the warming since then has been due to natural factors?

Neither is there any mention that the current global climate is still cooler than most of the last 10,000 years.

 

  • If this trend continues, temperatures may rise by 3-5C by 2100

If the trend continues, a degree of warming over 150 years cannot lead to 5C in 80 years.

 

  • One degree may not sound like much, but, according to the IPCC, if countries fail to act, the world will face catastrophic change – sea levels will rise, ocean temperatures and acidity will increase and our ability to grow crops, such as rice, maize and wheat, would be in danger.

There is no evidence that any of this will happen, other than the insignificant amount of sea level rise already seen in the past century.

 

  • This year saw record high temperatures in many places across the world amid an unusually prolonged period of hot weather.

This is accompanied by an interactive map, with colour markers where these “records” occurred.

The vast majority are daily records, ie records for that particular day. With 365 days a year, on average you will get plenty of these every year, particularly when many locations may have less than 50 years of data.

This is particularly irresponsible reporting.

  •  The concern is that such hot and cold weather fronts are being blocked – stuck over regions for long periods – more frequently because of climate change, leading to more extreme weather events

There may be “concern”, but no actual evidence.

According to HH Lamb and other scientists of the time, we had exactly the same phenomenon in the 1960s and 70s, when the world was cooling.

 

 

  • The biggest emitters are China and the US

 image

To their credit, they do actually admit that the Paris pledges will not do anything to keep warming below 3C, a rare admission by the BBC.

They also correctly state that China, US and India are by far the greatest emitters.

But then they only make comment about the US:

The US’s environmental policy has shifted under the Trump administration, which has pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda.

After taking office, President Donald Trump announced the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement.

At the time, Mr Trump said he wanted to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage US businesses and workers.

For some reason, the BBC fails to mention that while US emissions have been steadily falling because of shale gas, China’s and India’s have rocketed upwards:

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CP5l2XVVAAAUVWL.gif

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/12/china-meets-their-co2-emissions-target/

 

They also fail to point out that China has only promised to “peak” emissions by 2030, a non-legally binding promise that does not even state at what level.

 

  • Urban areas are particularly under threat

Otherwise know as the Urban Heat Island Effect!

 

  • Arctic Sea ice has been reducing for decades, with melting accelerating since the early 2000s

This is a totally fake claim. Since 2007, Arctic sea ice has been extremely stable.

[Interestingly, they dug this claim up from a Parliamentary Select Committee report, itself taken in evidence from a certain Professor Bacon, who really should be dragged back to account for his misleading evidence]

osisaf_nh_iceextent_monthly-09_en

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php 

 

What is presented as a factual article is little more than a highly partisan piece of indoctrination, complete with photo of cute polar bear “drowning”.

It ends with advice about what we can all do to save the planet, including buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter; eat more locally sourced seasonal food – and throw less of it away; drive electric cars but walk or cycle short distances; take trains and buses instead of planes; use videoconferencing instead of business travel; use a washing line instead of a tumble dryer; insulate homes; demand low carbon in every consumer product.

It is not up to the BBC to tell us how to live our lives.

Advertisements
50 Comments
  1. saparonia permalink
    December 2, 2018 2:15 pm

    There is something that everyone should know. Prof. Valentina V. Zharkova has made her prediction, based on a stable solar oscillation, freely available. the link is here:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_Prediction_of_Solar_Activity_from_Solar_Background_Magnetic_Field_Variations_in_Cycles_21-23
    There is a free PDF download on this link. We are out of time and the drop in Solar Activity is unprecedented in our experience. It will take us by surprise beginning in about 2 years time. We must educate and prepare ourselves because obviously nobody else will do it for us, BBC is a joke.

  2. quaesoveritas permalink
    December 2, 2018 2:16 pm

    In an interview on BBC Breakfast this morning, Professor Miles Allen said:

    “For less than the taxes you pay when you fill your car with petrol, the companies selling you that petrol, could get rid of the carbon dioxide contained in that petrol and you could drive your car to your heart’s content without affecting the planet, but the companies are not being asked to do so.”

    Is any of that true?

    Apart from anything else, the “the tax you pay” ranges from 60 to 80%, so does that mean that the price of petrol by that much to pay for that process?

    In any case, would such a process possible?

    • saparonia permalink
      December 2, 2018 2:21 pm

      Within a few years it will not matter. please do look up Professor Valentina V. Zharkova

    • mwhite permalink
      December 2, 2018 2:35 pm

      I’ll say it.

      There is no carbon dioxide in petrol.

      • JCalvertN permalink
        December 2, 2018 2:44 pm

        Haven’t you heard of “Sparkling Mineral Oil”?
        I buy it every time. Though I have to confess that it does tend to make my car ‘burp’ occasionally – most likely when the traffic is quiet. I hate that!

      • quaesoveritas permalink
        December 2, 2018 2:53 pm

        I know that, but apparently Professor Allen thinks there is, and the interviewer didn’t contradict him.

    • tim leeney permalink
      December 2, 2018 6:17 pm

      What on earth is he professor of?

    • December 3, 2018 12:36 am

      Myles Allen the activist climate modeler eh?

      – a poster boy for why trust in academics is (has) tanking (tanked)

      Has he ever had … like… a job?

  3. December 2, 2018 2:23 pm

    The hype is so over-inflated now that more amd more people will reject it as ludicrous.

  4. JCalvertN permalink
    December 2, 2018 2:37 pm

    I saw this on the BBC this morning. It’s frustrating that we the public can’t respond or comment on or contradict this blatant propaganda. The BBC can just print it without fear of contradiction.

    • December 2, 2018 3:50 pm

      As always, there is a link at the bottom of the BBC article to let us know why we can trust the BBC. Goebbels would be proud of his protege.

      “Is that true or did you hear it on the BBC?”

  5. Broadlands permalink
    December 2, 2018 3:07 pm

    “If this trend continues, temperatures may rise by 3-5C by 2100.”

    “One degree may not sound like much, but, according to the IPCC, if countries fail to act, the world will face catastrophic change – sea levels will rise, ocean temperatures and acidity will increase and our ability to grow crops, such as rice, maize and wheat, would be in danger.”

    Sounds terribly bad… So what should seven billion of us do about it? And if we try, how long will it take? Hello…anyone home?

    • Jon Scott permalink
      December 2, 2018 4:00 pm

      But what about the fact that is was WARMER before the little ice age and only good things happened? Ever wondered why the climate industry likes to start from an ABNORMALLY cold point? Smoke and mirrors and I am with Einstein regarding the infinite stupidity of people, Western People because the rest do not give a monkey’s chuff!

      • Lezz permalink
        December 2, 2018 7:46 pm

        Jon,
        I’ve taken the liberty of re-posting an earlier assessment you made of our chums at the BBC, for those who may have missed it.
        It resonated with me. Hope you don’t mind.

        >>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 doctrinal 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!

  6. Geoffb permalink
    December 2, 2018 3:08 pm

    I have used this quote before, not sure if on this site. Note…I do not support any of the views of the Nazis or the extreme right.

    Open Letter to Ernst Graf zu Reventlow in the Völkische Freiheit, 1925, as quoted in Goebbels: A Biography, Peter Longerich, Random House, 2015, p. 55
    To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realised as being true, that is called propaganda. In the beginning there is the understanding, this understanding uses propaganda as a tool to find those men, that shall turn understanding into politics. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things from what I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths. Those are found in other circumstances, I find them when thinking at my desk, but not in the meeting hall.

  7. JimW permalink
    December 2, 2018 3:40 pm

    Paul, you are wrong! It IS the job of the BBC to tell us how to live our lives, just like the Guardian , NYT, Wapo, CNN, MSNBC etc etc.
    The ramp up of such propaganda is nothing to do with ‘temperatures’ ( actually of course they are rarely mentioned, its ‘anomalies’ ), its because of Trump. The threat to the new world order has to be stopped.

  8. WillD permalink
    December 2, 2018 3:41 pm

    We have an extremely worrying situation regarding the BBC. What will their next political stance be? ‘We’ the public, have no influence on the BBC output. Unfortunately most our politicians are too lazy or too complacent to to check the data for themselves. The ‘green agenda’ is seen as a vote winner, often supported by hypocritical middle income families taking their long haul flights around the world.
    There is no ‘low carbon’ alternative apart from nuclear for the UK that will run 24/7. Just how much CO2 wind farms save on our 1% global contribution must be minuscule. Environmental harm that they cause is considerable; unless it is reported on by the BBC. Gas power generation must be the answer in the short term, 20 – 30 years unless there is a genuine advance in nuclear generation. I have no idea how the BBC can be made to report the CO2 situation remotely evenhandedly. Like ‘green energy’, cut their funding then perhaps they will then listen.

    • John Palmer permalink
      December 2, 2018 7:01 pm

      Oh, yes!!
      Sadly it’s only going to happen in my dreams……

  9. Chris Lynch permalink
    December 2, 2018 3:44 pm

    So the ice free Arctic in summer has now been pushed back to the 2050s! Far out enough so those who made the prediction will be retired or dead and won’t have to explain why that pesky ice is still there. They may as well have predicted it will happen in 5 years time like they normally do as the vast majority of people nowadays have the attention span of a goldfish.

  10. December 2, 2018 3:47 pm

    If we had a Government that represented the people, the BBC would have been shut down years ago. Unfortunately all major political parties are afraid of the BBC because of its influence over the public.

    • keith permalink
      December 2, 2018 4:18 pm

      I still wonder how many people believe their crap and are converted. Yes, the converted will pay homage to what the BBC say, but from many comments I’ve read in the media, most people do not believe the rubbish being pumped out as the climate change crowd have cried wolf far to often and their prophecies have not come true.

  11. December 2, 2018 3:51 pm

    “use videoconferencing instead of business travel…”

    heh, like COP24?

    • Spetzer86 permalink
      December 2, 2018 5:31 pm

      It’s okay if your heart is in the right place and you’re just doing the travelling “for the children” and “to save the planet”.

  12. December 2, 2018 3:57 pm

    Matt McGrath is piling on the BBC propaganda with more exaggerations, omissions and factual errors:

    “Climate change: Urgency the main theme as COP24 opens”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46398057

  13. Sheri permalink
    December 2, 2018 5:31 pm

    “The IPCC says we need to: buy less meat, milk, cheese and butter; eat more locally sourced seasonal food – and throw less of it away;”

    This means your cat and dog have to go or learn too eat vegan. Your cat may not fair well under that rule. Funny, it’s rarely mentioned.

    • Athelstan permalink
      December 3, 2018 2:00 am

      how much vegan food does a Serengeti Lioness get through/week?

  14. Tony Budd permalink
    December 2, 2018 5:39 pm

    So representatives from nearly 200 countries are gathering in Poland for talks on climate change – hopefully they always take trains and buses instead of planes, and use videoconferencing instead of business travel, just as the BBC recommends.

  15. J Martin permalink
    December 2, 2018 6:22 pm

    Maximum temperature rise is 3°C, but only if you instantaneously extracted all the world’s known fossil fuels and instantaneously turned it into co2 in the atmosphere.

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/bryce-johnson-limits-of-carbon-dioxide-in-causing-global-warming/

    Since it will take several hundred years for mankind to burn all the available fossil fuels there is no way we will get anywhere near their alarmist make believe numbers.

  16. Nordisch geo-climber permalink
    December 2, 2018 8:03 pm

    The BBC is an embarrassing national disgrace. The sooner we are able to stop subsidising the output the better.

  17. Andrew Dickens permalink
    December 2, 2018 8:47 pm

    About 15 years ago, Jeremy Paxman said, “The BBC have given up any pretence of impartiality on the subject of climate change”. Still true.

  18. Graeme No.3 permalink
    December 2, 2018 8:54 pm

    I notice from the chart of national emissions that over 58% of emissions come from countries that are not doing anything about emissions. Does that mean that the temperature will rise by 2.5℃ regardless of the rest of the world completely eliminating CO2 emissions?
    Only if the temperature depends only on the level of CO2 which it never has in the past.

  19. JasG permalink
    December 2, 2018 10:35 pm

    The BBC are just reflecting the overwhelming bias of academia. That is where the root of the problem is. Temperature goes down; a new ice age is coming due to fossil fuel. Temperature goes up; thermageddon is coming due to fossil fuel. In between; acid rain due to fossil fuel. Clearly academics just hate fossil fuel companies for some reason. Is it because cheaper energy allows the plebs to get above their station in life?

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      December 3, 2018 8:13 am

      The trouble is, the BBC neither has the inclination or the ability to question in an unbiased manner anything the academics say.
      In fact they often add to what they say by using irrelevant images (such as forest fires and storm damage) in support.

    • John Palmer permalink
      December 3, 2018 10:28 am

      Plebs!!! Do you mean us … the ones who pay for everything??

  20. December 3, 2018 12:49 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    BRUTAL and comprehensive rebuttal by Paul Homewood to the latest climate agitprop out of the taxpayer funded BBC, released in time to further pollute the minds of their readers as they focus on the UN COP24 climate junket in Katowice, Poland.

  21. Athelstan permalink
    December 3, 2018 1:57 am

    stop watching it, don’t pay the licence fee.

    al beeb appeals to the lowest denominator, trash programmes and airhead presenters, I just do not give them the time of day, their news output is now total hogwash and aimed at their target audience, lasses and soyboys mainly.

  22. December 3, 2018 4:00 am

    Wish I could get this information to the BBC although I am sure they don’t really care for the details – especially the ugly ones

    The climate science methodology that shows emissions drive warming also shows that UFOs drive warming
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/03/tcruparody/

    The climate science methodology that shows atmosCO2 drives warming also shows that atmosCO2 drives homicides
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/11/26/ecsparody/

  23. RAH permalink
    December 3, 2018 6:07 am

    The best way to combat “global warming” would be to eliminate the BBC and all like them and their sources on climate change. The hot air they continually pump out is a danger to the climate and all the earths inhabitants and the papers their sources produce are a waste of good trees.

    • Henning Nielsen permalink
      December 3, 2018 9:37 am

      The climate crises is man-made, and can therefore easily be un-made. (No pun on the UN intended) In fact, in most peoples’ minds that is already the case. Only the fear profiteers keep this worn-out circus on the road. Now performing in coal-burning Poland.

    • John Palmer permalink
      December 3, 2018 10:26 am

      It’s also a danger to our blood pressure!

  24. Henning Nielsen permalink
    December 3, 2018 9:32 am

    What a tragic picture of a polar bear. Can’t you see what it’s saying?: “Cut your emissions NOW and save me from drowning in this rising ocean. I can’t swim!”

  25. A C Osborn permalink
    December 3, 2018 12:11 pm

    Please note that all the things we shouldn’t do are the things that promoters of CAGW do in abundance, it is the most classic case of “Do as We Say and Not as We Do.”
    Hypocrites all.
    They had a clip of that old fossil Sir David Attenborough on this morning saying that the people of the world get “Climate Change”, he said “The world’s people have spoken”.
    Someone should show him the UN’s own Poll where climate and even environment are the last things on peoples minds.

  26. Stephen Pill permalink
    December 4, 2018 6:57 pm

    I have heard about echo chambers in which self-reinforcing prejudice is repeated. And having followed a link here I am now wondering if I have stumbled into one.

    I lack the time or energy to look into each of the scores of assertions made in this article. The one I did explore was:

    “This is a totally fake claim. Since 2007, Arctic sea ice has been extremely stable.”
    This was a comment upon a BBC article which said: “Arctic Sea ice has been reducing for decades, with melting accelerating since the early 2000s”

    I would say there were two claims, not one, and that your comment conflating the smaller with the larger tends to cloud rather than to clarify the matter. And if you are criticising the BBC for lack of clarity you should not be muddying the water even more.

    Arctic sea ice has been reducing for decades is the context, and a decline of around 10% per decade really is quite significant, and also swift, on a geological timescale. You don’t appear to directly contest this and the Danish article you use to belabour the BBC says it quite clearly: “…it has not changed the general picture of ice extent decline.” Using different data NASA/NOAA reaches a near-identical conclusion http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    I want to ask whether you intended with your criticism of the second claim, to throw mud over and direct attention away from, the first. Because that is the effect of the words you chose – and this is validated by some of the facile remarks already made by others commenting before me.

    “Since 2007, Arctic sea ice has been extremely stable” you said. When force-fitting a line to a series of data points on a downward trend, it always helps to ‘prove’ the that trend is reversing If you pick a trough from which to start. You can also ‘prove’ the opposite – that the trend is accelerating – if instead you start from a peak. How would you describe the trend since 1996?

    What I am (gently) pointing out is that you can scarcely accuse the BBC of bias if you exhibit an equal and opposite bias. I think that if you look at the Danish and American data, you’d be very hard pressed to justify your counterclaim that there has recently been ‘extreme stability’ or to justify the cherrypicking of start points from which to begin the examination.

    Does this then warrant your choice of words “This is…totally fake”? and what does this mean for the trust anyone can place in all the other inflammatory remarks I haven’t examined? You can see why I worry that you may have studied at the Donald Trump school of scientific method. Perhaps you might agree to re-examine the matter with me when another five years’ data is in. Using all the available sea ice data.

    • December 4, 2018 8:17 pm

      All you have to do is look at the Arctic sea ice data:

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

      And the conclusions are obvious. You do not need to “cherry pick” any starting point

      As for the BBC, if you look at the graph. it is patently obvious that melting has not accelerated since the early 2000s – thne opposite is true.

      BTW What I always try to do is show the graphs, which the BBC avoid if it is inconvenient. You are free to draw your own conclusions from the graph in this post, as everybody else is. I wonder why the BBC did not do the same?

      Finally using 1979 as the start point of these graphs, as DMI and NSIDC do is cherry picking in the extreme, as the Arctic was going through an extremely cold period then. Worse still is the use of linear trends from 1979, which may tell us that ice extent fell between then and the early 2000s, but nothing about what has happened since.

  27. Stephen Pill permalink
    December 5, 2018 2:38 pm

    {SNIP}

    Sorry, but I am not prepared to enter a long winded debate on this issue. The facts are quite clear.

    You have made your views clear, which I am always happy for people to do. I note though that you have not found any errors.

    You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. But my job is to present the facts, and I do not have the time to spend debating whose opinions are “correct”

    Paul

  28. quaesoveritas permalink
    December 5, 2018 8:44 pm

    Most climate change blogs are “echo chambers” on one side or the other.
    This one merely redresses the balance a little in favour of the sceptics.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: