IPPR Withdraw Fake Extreme Weather Claims
By Paul Homewood
https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/age-of-environmental-breakdown
As we now know, the BBC has now withdrawn claims in their original report last month, based on the above IPPR paper, that since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold.
The BBC has also added this update:
This does raise the intriguing question who blinked first, the BBC or IPPR.
But let’s see just how the IPPR have changed their report:
This is how the Summary compares:
BEFORE
AFTER
And in the detailed section, on P13:
BEFORE
AFTER
Despite the much greater elaboration in the new version, the difference between the two is quite stunning.
The original gave an almost cataclysmic account of how climate change was wrecking the environment. The new effectively states no more than these facts:
1) That summers are a bit hotter, (but unmentioned is that winters, springs and autumns are less cold, probably a good thing on balance)
2) Droughts are less pervasive in North America than they used to be.
Hardly apocalyptic!
There are, and will always be, regional variations in climate. But there is no evidence that the ones we have seen in recent decades have anything to do with global warming at all.
In short, the original paper claimed climate change as one of its main causes of “environmental breakdown”, the others being extinctions and topsoil loss.
That argument has now been destroyed.
Laughably they now describe the whole basis for their absurd extreme weather claims as “a quick survey”.
If they have really based a large chunk of their paper on a “quick survey”, it hardly inspires much confidence in the rest of it!
But maybe we ought to check one of their other main assertions, that 30% of the world’s arable land has become unproductive:
Strange that, because according to the UN’s own figures from FAOSTAT, the area harvested for crops has been at record highs lately:
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
As for “unproductive”, the actual figured speak for themselves:
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the IPPR paper is little more than an incompetent attempt to spin dodgy data in support of a left wing political agenda.
Whatever its motivation, its credibility is clearly holed below the waterline, and the whole thing should now be formally retracted, before it does any more damage to the IPPR’s reputation.
As for those incompetent authors, the IPPR now need to seriously consider whether they can afford to continue to employ them any longer.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Well done Paul and all the others that attacked the BBC and this paper.
As you say it should be retracted.
Seconded
Talking of bad/dishonest BBC/MSM reporting:-
It has now been revealed that the recent Ashdown Forest ‘wild fires’ were incompetent controlled burning – the same thing happened in Feb. 2012.
What’s the betting this was also behind the Saddleworth Moor fire? Lack of controlled burning was blamed for the summer fire, so perhaps someone decided to act?
Most of the other fires reported seem to be Gorse fires – which is typically controlled by burning at this time of year – what’s the betting…………….
As if a few days in the teens and dryish weather but damp ground with lots of dew and mist/fog in February could be a spontaneous trigger?
Could be the green blob activists are setting the fires to highlight their propaganda? Sad that i have become so cynical! They have been caught out in making allegations (anonymous) to the police of racial and political hostility in the past to boost media reporting of their pet causes,.
On Scottish Grouse Moors there is annual controlled burning every spring. After a dry winter experienced gamekeepers take extra precautions. There is also controlled burning of other invasive plants such as Whins. Allof which have the potential to rapidly get out of the control of the one or two people doing the burning.
Paul, I have some experience of systems audits in my time but I am in awe at your application to the task of making these alarmists stand behind their findings (note: spellchecker nearly made that ‘fundings’). Well done!
Around the age of 14 to 16, schools ought to have a class called Skepticism (or skepticism).
A selection of postings by our Paul Homewood could be the core of such an effort.
I can’t think of any part of my education that prepared me for exposure to the sorts of things such as this that the BBC does on a regular basis.
or scepticism
My daughter, now 22, did classes in critical thinking in 6th form college. I read some of the course notes and they were very good.
The only significant reason that arable land is lost to food production (at least in the UK) is that Governments encourage building and expanding our towns and cities on best quality farmland.
You’re doing a great job Paul. Many of are sick of the BBC and it’s disgusting propaganda. You can’t watch any BBC programme for more than five minutes without them mentioning climate change. They are run by hysterical left wing lunatics and need to be held to account. Worst of all we are forced to pay for this propaganda by the UK government if we own a TV.
You have to link your criticism with the British government. They have the power to stop this growing outrage from the BBC, but are not prepared to do so. They are in fact adding to the problem through the voices of people like Mr Gove who are responsible for putting out such outrageous statements on diesel cars and diesel fumes that it has brought the British car industry to its knees. God help us all if Gove ever became Prime Minister. The BBC would have a field day.
There are several official statements that heat waves in Australia have become hotter, longer and more frequent, or words to that effect. Not just one of these. All of them
Because of the length of historic climate records in our 6 main capital cities and because about 80% of our people live in the combined capitals, I studied these 3 assertions.
Overall, the statement is false.
In the majority of cases, I found the heat waves to be showing no trend or a negative trend for each of these 3 factors of hotter, longer and more frequent. A small number of cases did support the official position, depending on the city.
For most of our population and their home environment, the official statement is simply wrong.
I asked our BOM to consider my report and its contrary findings. They declined, saying they could contemplate only peer-reviewed published scientific papers.
One does not stoop to write a scientific paper no more complex than adding up and taking away some officially-approved numbers.
Click to access capitalheatwaves.pdf
Supplementary information is available for those wanting to analyse and update further. Some of it is here –
Click to access graphs_sydmelb_heatwaves.pdf
Geoff.
“… an incompetent attempt to spin dodgy data in support of a left wing political agenda.”
That sums up an awful lot of activity across multiple sectors, the only problem is the word incompetence, which is normally feared, but propagandists would only ever see it as competence and a reason for congratulation.
I just received a response to my own complaint about this to the BBC:
“Thank you for contacting us about “Today”, broadcast by BBC Radio 4 on 12th February.
I understand you believe Martha Kearney read out an inaccurate figure on the programme.
Martha was citing a figure that was in the IPPR’s report at the time. The report was later amended however. Please rest assured there was no intention to mislead listeners.
Your complaint was made available to senior management and “Today” on our Audience Feedback Report. This report is among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and helps to inform our approach to reporting. ”
I don’t think this is good enough because anyone with a modicum of intelligence, and scepticism, should have realised the figure was incorrect. The fact that the BBC thought is was correct, demonstrates their bias.
If I can work up the energy, I will follow up the complaint to that effect.
And of course, I doubt it the IPPR report would have been amended had it not been for a few sceptics pointing out the error.