Skip to content

BBC Accused Of Serious Errors And Misleading Statements In David Attenborough’s Climate Show

April 26, 2019

By Paul Homewood

 

The GWPF has now formally submitted its complaint to the BBC about David Attenborough’s Climate Change – The Facts:

image

The BBC programme, presented by Sir David Attenborough, went far beyond its remit to present the facts of climate change, instead broadcasting a highly politicised manifesto in favour of renewable energy and unjustified alarm.
The programme highlighted suggestions that storms, floods, heatwaves and sea level rise are all rapidly getting worse as a result of climate change.

However, the best available data, published in the last few years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA, contradicts the BBC’s alarmist exaggeration of empirical evidence.
In its 5th Assessment Report (2013), the IPCC concluded:

“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 its more recent Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, published in 2018, these findings were reconfirmed. It stated that

“Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy… There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones.”

Regarding floods, the IPCC’s Special Report concluded:

“There is low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods. “

There is also no observational evidence that the rate of sea level rise is getting worse. NASA satellite data shows that since 1993, there has been an annual mean sea level rise of 3.3mm, with no significant level of acceleration in the last three decades.
Suggestions by David Attenborough and Michael Mann that climate change is causing increases in wildfires in the US and globally are also misleading and not supported by any empirical evidence. 
According to a survey published by the Royal Society the global area burned has actually declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence to suggest that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. These are vitally important facts that should have been mentioned if an accurate description of the impact of climate change on wildfires was to be maintained.
In his letter of complaint, Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, has asked the BBC to acknowledge and correct the evident errors and misleading suggestions documented in the complaint and offer remedial measures as soon as possible.

The full complaint is available here (pdf)

53 Comments
  1. quaesoveritas permalink
    April 26, 2019 1:36 pm

    Unfortunately, the BBC will never allow anyone from the GWPF to put forward these views on air.
    Maybe they should adopt a more disruptive approach by say, blocking some roads in London, or glueing themselves to the entrance of Broadcasting House or finding a 16 year old to put forward their policies.

    • April 26, 2019 3:11 pm

      No no no. I look forward with eager anticipation to hearing this on BBC Radio 4 on Feedback.

    • mark permalink
      April 27, 2019 4:14 pm

      yup, propaganda is effective, reason isn’t.

  2. europeanonion permalink
    April 26, 2019 1:36 pm

    Unless the BBC feel inclined to announce their reply to this indictment then this is just an example of a band of nutters with an obsession. The only way that this will have any credence or weight is if other contending news agencies are willing to cover the story, and as most of them are just as hypnotised as any other citizen by what has gone before then it will be us that are the heretics and not the heroic BBC and its genuine concern for mankind (or at least that’s what they would have you believe).

    A recent series on the BBC, devoted to the diaries of some minor BBC celebrities revealed a stereo-typicality of views and political leanings. The BBC at the entry level obviously equates sincerity and wholesomeness with being of the Left. There is no wriggle room here. Any individual thrust into this milieu is destined to to have their prejudices reinforced.

    From here it easy to comprehend that any whiff of the Right is going to suggest a carelessness swerving towards commercialism and capitalism, the very foundations of what the common herd see as exploitative and uncaring, likely to be in the pockets of commercial entities and therefore planet destroyers. Those that can do those that can’t seemingly caress leaves and hope for the better.

    The whole movement against climate normality is anti-capitalist and little to do with environmental stated cause. Unless our perception can grab the attention of influential editors this gruesome necromancy will take hold. But who will? When it is established by those such as the BBC that we are all damned, that they love the planet and we are careless about it, when they are the intelligent ones and we unable to see plain truth, what recourse do you have? Their message is so ingrained now that it is on the verge of pure evil to oppose it, not a convention but a fact.

  3. April 26, 2019 2:16 pm

    Ironically, corrections are one of the few things that should be allowed to go on the BBC website, but in fact that is like getting blood out of a stone, and their website is one of the primary platforms for Harrabin and his Ring Wraiths.

    For those with a strong stomach, or a handy bucket, radio 4 More or Less this afternoon at 4:30pm is covering InsectGate – insects in “unprecedented” decline, including in the hot steamy tropics, previously noted as being bug-city.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      April 26, 2019 2:31 pm

      And that conclusion has been pretty much debunked by many people over the last few months. The most egregious problem with the paper is that it uses temperature data that the providers of that data have said is highly suspect. Thus there is no actual evidence that the climate has changed in the area surveyed. The data on the numbers of insects is also highly suspect, and there are plenty of other potential causes if there has been a decline in insect numbers.

      But the BBC literally does not care. It makes no effort to find possible problems with these claims and no effort to see if other scientists have shown errors.

      I simply despair.

      • MrGrimNasty permalink
        April 26, 2019 3:25 pm

        Insect decline doesn’t mesh very well with the mosquitoes/malaria spreading narrative does it!

    • Roy permalink
      April 26, 2019 6:58 pm

      I find the BBC’s More or Less one of the few programmes that comes up with facts. They covered the ‘Hottest Easter Monday on record’ and reported the facts the hottest 22nd April was 2011 with the second being in 1900. They also mentioned back in 1900 there were only 18 weather stations used to gather temps, whereas now there’s 200 plus – so in the presenters words ‘they were not comparing like with like.’

      As for the insects they did give airtime to a prof from a uni (can’t remember which) that said the research was heavily biased, that is, they did a meta study by searching on ‘insects’ ‘ decline’ – I mean, what were they going to find. Another stated they couldn’t extrapolate the data from their study because it only covered a tiny fraction of Earth.

      I often listen to More or Less and find it’s ‘more or less’ the most balanced programme put our by the Beeb. I wonder how much longer it will survive.

      • quaesoveritas permalink
        April 26, 2019 7:23 pm

        Yes, you could almost call it “sceptical”!
        Unlike tonight’s “News Quiz”, which was totally biased on Brexit, climate change, and Greta Thunberg.
        But hey, its only comedy, so it doesn’t count.
        I think they should change the name to “The Fake News Quiz”, for mixing made up news and the real thing, so listeners can’t tell the difference.

      • April 26, 2019 9:19 pm

        Yes, it was a refreshing change, it allowed the study author to hang himself by saying that he knew the answer anyway so it didn’t matter what evidence was presented. Sadly the True Believers will just nod in agreement.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        April 27, 2019 10:02 am

        The head of comedy was present at the 28Gate global warming meeting if I recall correctly.

  4. charles wardrop permalink
    April 26, 2019 2:17 pm

    If we ever get a Conservative gov., DV, an early policy must be to break up the Corp., with News and current affairs to be a single, separate body with proper supervision, including of staff recruitment, which should meet the BBC Charter’s principles and rules of unbiased reportage.
    Were he still with us, Ian McDonald of Falklands conflict reports, a model of unbiased balance of content and manner, would have been on the Board of that.

  5. Phoenix44 permalink
    April 26, 2019 2:34 pm

    The BBC simply believes whatever the Green movement says it should believe. it makes no effort to inform itself properly, no effort to question any papers or statements and no effort to see what other scientists might say on any claim. It simply repeats what activists say it should.

    This is a definite change from ten years ago, and one that is deeply concerning.

  6. Bertie permalink
    April 26, 2019 2:57 pm

    Do you think that S.Greta would be interested in reading this?

  7. April 26, 2019 2:59 pm

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    This needs plenty of publicity. The one-eyed BBC approach to anything climate-related is not good enough for a body that is supposed to be impartial in such matters, and that’s putting it mildly. Do they know or care what percentage of their licence payers disagree with their biased reports and attitude?

  8. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 26, 2019 3:05 pm

    The Netflix thing was just as bad apparently – but I haven’t seen it. Walruses obviously. But I’ve heard a lot of people were crying over a dying flamingo chick, and whatever the program actually said, they are all utterly convinced they and climate change are to blame.

    These flamingos live in an extreme environment, they require very precise conditions during the nesting period. There are naturally going to be good years and disastrous years (as with penguins).

    As ever, there are genuine ecological concerns with the impacts of man’s activities, but man-made climate change is not an important factor for these flamingos, and the risk is that by believing it is, real issues will not be addressed.

    The salt ankle bracelets that did for the chick are nothing new.

    https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/10/26/message-from-a-50-year-old-flamingo-3/

  9. April 26, 2019 3:09 pm

    So so pleased that a good complaint is now on the agenda thanks to the GWPF. Not sure it will have much impact; but it will be interesting to see how the BBC reacts.
    Sadly few people will get to hear about it.
    Meanwhile the destruction of the integrity of our institutions goes on apace.

  10. Saighdear permalink
    April 26, 2019 3:14 pm

    Och, I wish there was a better name for it than ” show” ……I ge depressed / feel OPRESSED whenever I switch on or have to listen to any topical programme on any TV / Radio these days. 99:1 climate change crops up in any conversation. Such is the level of Saturation ofthe Gullible’s minds. Are there REALLY so mny gullible “intelligent” people?

  11. Brian Vaux permalink
    April 26, 2019 3:15 pm

    Yesterday there was a report about crime. Rather than just take the figures as a snapshot of the current ‘sensational’ figures and trends, he looked back over previous years and lo and behold things were not as bad as it might have been. Well, sitting down in amazement I said to my wife, in the name of all that is wonderful if they can look back for crime, why on earth are they incapable of doing the same broad look back at climate trends? Of course ‘special’ young Swedish girls won’t read your site Paul!

  12. Vernon E permalink
    April 26, 2019 3:22 pm

    What brilliant work Paul and the GWPF have done. Let’s not just accept that the BBC will bury it but OFCOM should receive demands – nothing less – that a public response is made and I, for one, will be pressing my MP and I hope others will do the same. There could also., of course, be a legal challenge led by the GWPF against the BBC’s blatant breaches of its charter and I will be happy to contribute. We have an advantage, let’s not let it slip away.

  13. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 26, 2019 3:44 pm

    Judging by last night’s performance, Andrew Neil has been assimilated by the climate Borg (or a BBC re-education camp). None of his usual ‘digging’ comments or words to introduce doubt into the climate change certainty. He even volunteered that solar and wind are getting much cheaper now!

    • dennisambler permalink
      April 26, 2019 7:07 pm

      That must explain why electricity prices have just gone up again…

  14. Ian permalink
    April 26, 2019 5:10 pm

    In a response from the Beeb, one should expect little more than cosmetic.

    Only one thing will halt the publically sponsored travesty: An administrative labotomy.
    Parliament needs to clean house and introduce measures which will ensure that
    every subject treated by the BBC is treated with balance and impartiality.

    • Bertie permalink
      April 26, 2019 5:14 pm

      I see no evidence of the media in general taking a balanced view.

  15. Joe Public permalink
    April 26, 2019 7:18 pm

    It was merely a typo.

    The show should have been named “Climate: Change the Facts”

  16. Harry Passfield permalink
    April 26, 2019 7:57 pm

    If you listen very carefully you’ll hear a BBC spokesman saying, “Look! Squirrel!”

  17. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 26, 2019 8:21 pm

    BBC news just now – an article questioning if the BBC news was covering climate change sufficiently. You couldn’t make it up. Saturation coverage is not enough?

    I turned off, so forgive me if a miracle happened and they said they do too much!

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      April 26, 2019 8:27 pm

      Some people posting on “Open Mind” actually think the BBC has too many “denialists” working within it..”
      https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/04/19/climate-change-david-attenborough-on-the-bbc/

      • MrGrimNasty permalink
        April 26, 2019 10:06 pm

        It’s like people that claim the BBC is too pro-Brexit or anti-Corbyn. It’s clearly ludicrous. But I’m never sure if they are genuinely blinded by their own prejudice, or it’s just a tactic to counter the valid bias complaints and push towards even more imbalance. Probably both.

  18. April 26, 2019 9:23 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  19. jack broughton permalink
    April 26, 2019 9:26 pm

    The “i” yesterday had 3 full pages of enviro-junk by Myles Allen and Tom Bawden without a single view allowed against their dishonesty. Allen believes in the models of climate without question; while Bawden would publish any techno-junk that claims global warming is to blame. According to them we should all be conserving CO2 to save future generations £trillions, no mention of the Chinese / Indian coal growth etc of course!

    They never publish any counter views: I’ve tried a few times and finally gave up.

    The climate-dogmatists are really ramping-up their jingoisms to increase their fear campaign safe in the knowledge that no counter-view will be published on mainstream media.

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      April 26, 2019 10:19 pm

      It is impossible to believe ALL of the climate models, since they are all different.
      At least 95% of them must be wrong.

      • JimW permalink
        April 27, 2019 8:08 am

        The only model that remotely accords with actual temperatures recorded is never talked about….because its Russian.

      • quaesoveritas permalink
        April 27, 2019 8:11 am

        Which model is that?

  20. Phil Salmon permalink
    April 26, 2019 10:17 pm

    David Attenborough said in 2013 about a famine in Ethiopia, “it’s balmy to send food to starving countries … they have too many people”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sorry-sir-david-attenborough-this-isn-t-the-way-to-tackle-over-population-8824385.html

    • Bertie permalink
      April 28, 2019 7:54 am

      I hope that he said ‘barmy’ rather than ‘balmy’!

  21. Janina Price permalink
    April 27, 2019 3:47 am

    Maybe these scientists & NASA could go out and do the leg work that Sir D.A does & see the effects first hand.
    The storms the droughts in Australia are at there worst in decades. The dust storms the ferocity of the thunderstorms the weather patterns here are caused by the Northern Hemisphere with out a doubt. I’m no scientist but I rely on what my gut tells me & what my eyes & ears tell me..you’d have to be a complete idiot to rely on what the Northern Hemisphere tells you. We see it first hand here in Australia…open your eyes people look what’s going on around you. It’s blatantly obvious we are destroy our planet..

    • A C Osborn permalink
      April 27, 2019 11:21 am

      I suggest you actually read some of your own country’s Climate History.
      You would be surprised that what you are experiencing is absolutely nothing new or unprecedented.
      http://imaginarydiocese.org/bishopjohn/2011/03/06/australia-land-of-drought-flood/

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      April 28, 2019 9:46 am

      Sorry but your “eyes and ears” cannot detect climate change.
      Do you actually think these events are due to “climate change”, rather that normal weather?
      All scientist ever say is something like “while we cannot attribute an individual event to climate change, what we can say is that climate change is likely to make such events more likely”.
      Consequently to demonstrate that events are caused by “climate change”, you have to show a long term trend in reliable data. Remember that even random events are subject to short-term clumping and it is possible to produce apparent trends in totally random events.

  22. quaesoveritas permalink
    April 27, 2019 8:03 am

    I was amazed that several people contacted BBCs “Newswatch” to complain that there had been insufficient coverage of the climate protests and Thunberg on the BBC.
    On said “In the light of the United Nations climate report, that we only have 12 years to change our lifestyles to avoid climate catastrophe”.

    Does such a report exist, if so, I must have missed it.

  23. Stonyground permalink
    April 27, 2019 8:24 am

    As far as I recall, the last IPCC report pulled out all of the alarmist stops to galvanize the world into action. Outside the BBC bubble, the world’s reaction was a huge collective yawn.

    The claim that the BBC’s complete obsession with the Climate change issue isn’t enough is similar to the claims that the BBC’s department of religion and more religion isn’t bombarding us with enough God stuff during religious festivals.

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      April 27, 2019 8:26 am

      Do you know which specific report that was?
      Did it say we have 12 years to avoid “climate catastrophe” or is that someone else’s interpretation?

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      April 27, 2019 8:35 am

      I guess the report to which he was referring could have been this one:
      https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789
      It says in the opening statement by the S.G.
      “The IPCC found that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will
      require rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport,
      and cities, and that global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide need to fall by
      about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching “net zero” around 2050.”
      But a warming of 1.5 degrees is not the same as “climate catastrophe”

  24. Stonyground permalink
    April 27, 2019 9:22 am

    1.5 degrees above some vaguely defined baseline is the level at which we are all going to fry apparently. I think it used to be 2 degrees. Of course the word international doesn’t include China and India so all this mitigation will have literally no effect.

  25. tom0mason permalink
    April 27, 2019 9:42 am

    Reith summarized the BBC’s purpose in three words: inform, educate, entertain.
    These words remains but only as a part of the organization’s mission statement — the sentiment and meaning of those words, since Reith’s death, have been lost on the BBC management and staff to this day.

  26. April 28, 2019 11:29 am

    For me what’s at stake here is the process of how we get to the truth in science and for decision making; if we get it wrong then we are all potentially in a very dangerous situation misinterpreting what’s going on, unable to foresee equally dangerous weather/climate events nothing to do with CO2 and we could take actions that put us in a more dangerous situation.

    I think people are forgetting past mistakes and how easy it can be for science, engineering etc to get it wrong and how absurd or inconceivable it can seem to everyone at the time that it could be wrong and how stupid anyone is who doesn’t believe it. In aviation, engineering etc disastrous mistakes happen that you would think could not possibly happen. There are systems in place to try to learn from those mistakes and prevent them happening again. Does the same apply to climate science? Have we learnt from Piltdown man? In engineering, aviation etc we have procedures, certifications, independent audit. We are relying on climate science to in effect produce a most important product affecting all of us that allows us to understand future weather/climate, if they fail to warn us correctly or give us the wrong warning it could be disastrous, (like following the sea out not knowing it’s a tsunami) therefore I think it most urgently needs to come under similar processes and should have done so a very long time ago.

    The whole theory seems so full of inconsistencies of logic (to explain away inconvenient data and make everything fit) and for me that comes from listening to their side, not the sceptics. Often the cleverer you are the more you can find ways of convincing yourself and everyone else you are right and become blind to the truth. We need proper structure to the process, independent review and a culture that does not punish those who dare question.

    I think we need to make people aware of how easy it can be for science to get it wrong, particularly if we do not allow independent views, don’t have the right procedures, systems, independent audits, certifications in place and therefore why we must have those; to say we don’t have the time, manpower or the need I think misses the point. And to think of the dangerous situation we could be in if we have the science wrong.

  27. John Medlock permalink
    April 28, 2019 12:03 pm

    Unfortunately the GWPF will probably receive the same response that I did when I also complained in a similar vein as flows:-

    “Thank you for contacting us about ‘Climate Change – the Facts’ and your concerns surrounding the accuracy of the programme.

    Climate Change – the Facts represented the work of a wide range of scientists from the UK and US, as well as other countries, demonstrating the scale and scope of scientific endeavour and thinking around this complex subject.

    Their interviews were based on their research, describing what it has revealed and in some instances expressing personal reactions based on their deep insights. The overall content of the programme was also based on peer reviewed scientific research, which was rigorously checked by an independent scientific consultant, a leading academic at University College London. Inevitably in a 60 minute programme there were some subject areas which could not be addressed in greater detail or which we did not feature.

    The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the fundamentals of human induced climate change and this was reflected in the film. As climate change is accepted as happening, the BBC no longer seeks to ‘balance’ the debate by interviewing those who do not agree with this position.

    There are many complexities in communicating climate change to a mainstream audience; the film sought to balance potentially alarming scenarios with scientific analysis on attribution (the extent to which extreme weather events and other phenomena such as sea level rise can be linked to climate change), climate modelling and projections of what may happen in the future (in which inevitably there are many uncertainties) and actions aimed at reducing carbon emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change going forward. While Sir David Attenborough drew on his own experience of reporting on this subject over many years, he also balanced a sense of urgency with optimism that there are ways of addressing the serious issues we undoubtedly face.

    We hope this helps to address your concerns and we thank you for taking the time to contact us.

    Kind Regards

    BBC Complaints Team”

    • April 28, 2019 6:11 pm

      John Medlock,

      You did better than me. I provided a complaint that utilised fully referenced information from impeccable sources in the scientific literature to completely debunk the ridiculous BBC program called ‘Climate Change By Numbers’ .

      The BBC repeatedly failed to reply to my complaint, and the BBC Commission refused to address the matter because they said their duty was to consider appeals against BBC responses to complaints and there was no BBC response for them to consider.

      Richard

      • Bertie permalink
        April 29, 2019 7:04 am

        You should pass this on to Private Eye.

      • April 29, 2019 10:15 am

        Bertie,

        Thanks for your suggestion that I will fulfil. However, my health often (as now) keeps me away from my home and my files so it will not be until later this week.

        Richard

  28. April 29, 2019 7:20 am

    The BBC reply to my complaint was the same. So I guess they do not bother reading the complaint and just send out a reply that they had prepared earlier.
    Dear Mr Sides

    Thank you for contacting us about ‘Climate Change – the Facts’ and your concerns surrounding the accuracy of the programme.

    Climate Change – the Facts represented the work of a wide range of scientists from the UK and US, as well as other countries, demonstrating the scale and scope of scientific endeavour and thinking around this complex subject.

    Their interviews were based on their research, describing what it has revealed and in some instances expressing personal reactions based on their deep insights. The overall content of the programme was also based on peer reviewed scientific research, which was rigorously checked by an independent scientific consultant, a leading academic at University College London. Inevitably in a 60 minute programme there were some subject areas which could not be addressed in greater detail or which we did not feature.

    The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the fundamentals of human induced climate change and this was reflected in the film. As climate change is accepted as happening, the BBC no longer seeks to ‘balance’ the debate by interviewing those who do not agree with this position.

    There are many complexities in communicating climate change to a mainstream audience; the film sought to balance potentially alarming scenarios with scientific analysis on attribution (the extent to which extreme weather events and other phenomena such as sea level rise can be linked to climate change), climate modelling and projections of what may happen in the future (in which inevitably there are many uncertainties) and actions aimed at reducing carbon emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change going forward. While Sir David Attenborough drew on his own experience of reporting on this subject over many years, he also balanced a sense of urgency with optimism that there are ways of addressing the serious issues we undoubtedly face.

    We hope this helps to address your concerns and we thank you for taking the time to contact us.

    Kind Regards

    BBC Complaints Team
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

    I have sent a complaint in reply
    In reply to my complaint that the program did not follow the BBC charter of impartiality regarding controversial subjects. The BBC replied
    “The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the fundamentals of human induced climate change and this was reflected in the film. As climate change is accepted as happening, the BBC no longer seeks to ‘balance’ the debate by interviewing those who do not agree with this position.”
    I see nothing in the BBC Charter that allows for such as position.
    The reply was very general and did not address any of the points that I raised.
    Climate scientists have a vested interest if they wish to receive funding to agree with the New Religion of CLIMATE CHANGE those climate scientist that go against this dogma are treated as heretics,
    The BBC has had to publish many corrections where they have incorrectly reported natural weather or environmental effects as CLIMATE CHANGE
    There is much published data questioning the CLIMATE CHANGE dogma
    This book that I expect the BBC copied the title from

    highlights many facts that disagree with the dogma of CLIMATE CHANGE
    This article critiques many of the points raised in the program.
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/04/19/attenboroughs-climate-change-the-facts/
    I expect the BBC has and will be getting many complaints about this program,
    The BBC will no doubt have to publish corrections to the false statements.
    There is reality and there is perceived reality and conformation bias.
    Science still debates many things that have thought at one time to be agreed by science. Like the constants speed of light and many other.
    If humans think that they can effect the CLIMATE on a global scale this is Vain Glorious.
    But vast resources can be diverted and wasted tilting at windmills.
    CLIMATE CHANGE is the wealth populace virtue signalling. Put it is the poor who have to suffer from increased energy prices.

    • April 29, 2019 10:40 am

      bsides2015,

      You report that you wrote to the BBC saying,
      “I expect the BBC has and will be getting many complaints about this program,
      The BBC will no doubt have to publish corrections to the false statements.”

      Sadly, there is much reason to doubt the BBC will “have to publish corrections to the false statements.” Everybody who has complained at such falsehoods has found the BBC refuses to acknowledge and/or to desist from its long-standing and continuing promotion of the dogmas of the cult of anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) global warming (AGW).

      Meanwhile, in the real world humans alter local climates in many ways (e.g. the temperature of each city is warmer than its surrounding countryside) but there is no evidence of any kind that humans are are having a discernible affect on global temperature and/or natural global temperature changes; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada. (Please note that if there were any such evidence then I would be demonstrated to be wrong by provision of one jot of it.)

      Simply, there is no evidence for or against the existence of AGW: the only evidence we have is that recent climate variations are within the range of climate variations which have happened in the past.

      But I am reporting on what is known by science while the BBC is promoting beliefs of a cult.

      Richard

  29. May 3, 2019 8:52 am

    BBC., Climate Change – The Facts.  Our own take on things.

    https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/74da12_46b5f940384a47c3b24d510ccaa91511.pdf

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: