BBC’s Climate Check – March
By Paul Homewood
The BBC’s latest monthly climate check, the video that takes a few random weather events and pretends they are caused by global warming, or as the presenter Ben Rich says “your update on the changing climate”. (Click on link):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/51879358
He starts by claiming the NH winter was one of extremes, with some places warmer and others colder than average. However he presents no evidence that any of this is unusual, never mind unprecedented.
Unsurprisingly he then goes on to mention the wettest February on record in Britain. But forgets to tell viewers that in England it was only the 24th wettest of any month since 1862. Or that rainfall used to be much more extreme in the past:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-and-regional-series
Rich then goes on to ludicrously claim that some parts were so wet the Met Office had to introduce a new deeper shade or purple for NW England:
Just because the Met Office employs such a PR trick does not mean that these amounts of rainfall had not occurred before:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadukp/data/ranked_monthly/HadNWEP_ranked_mly.txt
Winds were so strong, he states, that wind power set new records. Nothing to do then with the continuing expansion of capacity, enabled by massive subsidies!
Confusingly, Rich then proceeds to tell us that all of this weather, including the coldest winter in Alaska for 21 years, mild weather in Russia and a dry month in California, has been caused by the position of the jet stream, and not climate change after all!
As the chart of California winter rainfall illustrates, there is no such thing as “normal” where the jet stream is concerned, and wild variations from very wet to very dry happen most years:
But that does not stop him from finishing off by warning that a new report links extreme weather with climate change, and that time is running out to reduce emissions.
Sadly he has been totally unable to present any evidence whatsoever for this claim in any of his three monthly propaganda videos to date.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This is one of your most telling refutation of the Climate Change fad.
Instead of your usual approach of laying out the full spurious claim in the greatest detail you refute it by sentence or paragraph therefore exposing the lies up front.
This is more accessible to journalists and readers who are unlikely to read long papers and therfore missing your excellent debunking which unfortunately is lost being way at the end.
Not sure Mark if you fully understand how eco cult devotees operate, especially in this insulated click bait era. They invariably operate on an Us v Them basis. They would regard this well-researched blog as fake news and would, therefore, not analyse the item at all; never mind Paul’s forensic paragraph by paragraph takedown. The ‘disappearing’ of historical weather data by a compliant media is, year by year of the media’s climate hype, worsening.
Don’t you know? Hot, cold, wet, dry – it’s caused by fossil fuel CO2.
The biggest scam in the history of science!
None of the BBC weather presenters would keep their well-paid jobs if they did not push the “climate emergency” propaganda at every opportunity.
Could someone please pass this to all the alarmists in the BBC —
Click to access A_Chronological_Listing_of_Early_Weather_Events.pdf
It’s a list of notable weather events from about 1AD to very recently, many of them are about the UK and Europe. The BBC’s continual lack of knowledge about the weather is becoming a national embarrassment.
It would be good to send Ben Rich a copy of your critique marked ‘Personal For’ so that he can at least see how far his scripted report has drifted from reality?
The statement that they had to introduce a new shade of purple for the maps is beyond laughable! That is just an arbitrary way of showing the data… Anyone looking at the ‘history’ books of rainfall in the UK – particularly the reference series of ‘British Rainfall’, maintained from the 1860s to 1990 or so – will see that months with above 200% of ‘normal’ rainfall received somewhere in the UK happen about a couple of times a year. Even months with 300% and 400% of normal rainfall recorded in at least one location are more common that one might suppose. The BBC no longer has any shred of objectivity on almost anything – it purely pushes an agenda
Ah yes, but these maps go up to 11 . .
“He starts by claiming the NH winter was one of extremes, with some places warmer and others colder than average.”
And what is the definition of average?
“As the chart of California winter rainfall illustrates, there is no such thing as “normal” where the jet stream is concerned, and wild variations from very wet to very dry happen most years:”
This is a true statement with precise wording. Misinformation is created with imprecise language.
Propaganda cares not a fig for the truth.
It is most worrying that the Met office seem to regard climate change as something measured in months, while even the WMO states that climate is measured over periods of over 30 years; in fact this is only half of the major climate cycle (60 – 70 years, so is not representative. A pity HH Lamb is not around to give these buffoons a lesson in climate history.
Even a £ 1.2 b computer cannot make up for stupidity – GIGO rules in the Met office !
When they say ‘on record’ they are restricting themselves to the lifespan of the target audience -those under 45.
the wettest February on record in Britain
But the recent ongoing dry spell with high pressure dominating must mean a terrible drought is lurking in the background, because climate change blah blah 🙄
Is that true, or did you hear it on the BBC ?
Great summary, but with respect a blogpost won’t cut it. (Let’s face it this site is as much a bubble as the Guardian is in the other direction)
It really is well-past time the likes of the BBC faced an *immediate* class action legal case. Don’t offer them a warning or request to amend their claims, just sue.
These people need dragging into court where their deliberate bias and misdirection can be surgically dismantled in an environment where they have NO CHOICE but to appear, to ‘defend’ their actions.
Until these people are pinned down in court they’ll continue with their outright lies.
But CheshireRed, it’s a spelling mistake. They didn’t mean a Climate Check they were looking for a Climate Cheque, i.e. a payoff from the various organisations throwing taxpayers money away.
You can probably name at least 12, starting with the EU.
You won’t get far sueing unless you have set out what the other party has to do to avoid legal action and given them time to put right the problem.
OK, well that’s a legal point so fair enough. Then set out demands and when the BBC laugh in our faces, then sue.
Nonetheless there must be ways of holding these liars to account properly? Doing it their way, ie via BBC complaints, is a waste of time.
Someone needs to take control of the narrative and start setting it, as the Green Blob has been doing for 15 years.
This reminds me that they have been debiting my wife’s accounts for the licence tax twice a year for the past nine years, since she moved house. She only noticed when doing her income tax return. They refused to look at their own records and she sent them her statements to prove it but they haven’t refunded the money yet. Everyone needs to check that this is not going on and that the collection system is not working to prevent double charging. The BBC is the propaganda arm of the civil service.
These BBC presenters really do seem to believe that the average is what it should be and anything different from the average is “extreme”. Either they are ignorant or they are propagandists. They also don’t seem to understand a basic concept of regional temperatures – if it’s pretty hot somewhere it MUST be pretty cold somewhere else.
A quick check on his qualifications. A degree in Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Southampton, then an MA in Broadcast Journalism at University College Falmouth. Studied meteorology at the Met Office College in Exeter.
Ignorant & a propagandist.
If he has studied meteorology I would have thought that the accusation of ignorance is unfounded. Should know better would be more on target.
But, but, but, but………the ITV and most other “News” outlets are as bad!
How have the “believers” managed to get such complete control of the media that allows them to ride roughshod over any criticism or complaint???
A similar effect is occurring with Covid-19.
“A similar effect is occurring with Covid-19.”
I was beginning to think it was only me that had noticed that! The Swedish position (cafes and bars still open etc) is quite interesting.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-cafes-and-bars-still-open-swedens-virus-restrictions-make-it-an-outlier/
I particularly note the comment
“Other European nations “have taken political, unconsidered actions” instead of ones dictated by science, Giesecke asserted.”
Nw where have we heard that one before?
On Sunday’s Countryfile (where incidentally they exhibited the exact opposite of the social distancing that the Govt is emphasising) the weather report made much of the high pressure region off Icleand – the largest for 100 years they said. They mde no mention of the North Atlantic Oscillation, and such a large high pressure region will surely reduce the NAO. will it not?
Associated with a downturn in AMO I believe that this means fewer westerly storms , and probably higher summer tmemperatures. If these conditions persist expect screaming headlines from the BBC and the other media about global warming “going off scale” , when it actually is a combination of natural cycles . The Met Offiice has little information videos about these natuaral cycles for public education, but no one in the BBC seems to be aware of them.
If only the BBC was more honest and professional it could make some stunning programmes about the influence of natural cycles like AMO, NAO , ENSO on the climate , vegetation and effects on human society over the past few centuries for which we have records or reliable proxies. Such a waste of opportunity because of the blinkered political views of the senior people there..
I am afraid I would need one of those jargon-buster thingies to unravel all the mnemonics!
I’ve just been looking at the National Grids new forward forecast document. As usual, this is a huge outpouring of good intentions and tales of success, while the underlying issue is that Balancing costs are now well over £ 1b / year and rising.
The document reminds me of one of those many pointless management courses that I attended about 30 years ago in which only positives were stated and bullshit baffled brains every time.
“Winds were so strong, he states, that wind power set new records.”
If they are too strong they affect output:
“Who, what, why: What happens to wind turbines in a storm?” October 2013
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-24706238
“During dangerously high wind, the blades on turbines are supposed to be “feathered” – twisted so they no longer catch the wind and rotate. Tim Kirby, managing director of Ecogen, admitted there might be some problems for smaller turbines but not for typical commercial farms. “Big ones tend to stand anything,” he says. “We very rarely see high-wind ‘stops’. Most of them have a variety of automatic shutdown speeds.”
One type of shutdown trigger would be wind over a certain average speed measured over 10 minutes. Another type of shutdown is triggered by gusts, although these would be more than 100mph, much higher than the current storm.
Another independent renewables firm, Ecotricity, said it was operating at roughly two thirds of capacity. [they never operate at two thirds of nameplate capacity]. Of its 55 turbines, many in East Anglia, only six were offline and none due to excessive wind. The firm says its turbines only shut down with continuous wind speeds of between 62mph and 76mph, depending on make and model.
And the current winds (2013) have not produced a record-breaking amount of electricity. Wind provision was quite high on Sunday but is normal today, says Jennifer Webber, director of external affairs of Renewable UK, the renewable energy trade association.”
This BBC piece above was about the storm of 28th October 2013:
Click to access autumn-storm-october-2013—met-office.pdf
The storm was due to a fast-moving, vigorous Atlantic depression, bringing both very strong winds and heavy rain. Winds gusted widely at 50-60 knots (58-69 mph) and reached 60-70 knots (69-81 mph) across south-east England. The highest recorded gust speed was 86 knots (99 mph) at Needles Old Battery (Isle of Wight).Most of the damage was associated with falling trees – still in full leaf at this time of year – and this storm is judged to be within the top ten most severe storms to affect southern England in the autumn in the last 40 years.”
“caused by the position of the jet stream” The jet stream is apparently now under the control of the UN:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/25/global-efforts-on-ozone-help-reverse-southern-jet-stream-damage?
“The new paper, published in the journal Nature, shows that the Montreal protocol has paused the southward movement of the jet stream since the turn of the century and may even be starting to reverse it as the ozone hole begins to close.”
Mind the gap! Don’t know why that happened…