Skip to content

BBC Climate Check – May

May 10, 2020
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

 

 image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/52503882 

 

For the second month running, the BBC’s Climate Check has failed to find any bad weather to blame on global warming.

The best they could find was some heavy rain which fell in East Africa in February, leading to the locust swarm. Sadly for the BBC, they were unable to provide any evidence that this had anything at all with climate change. Or that such events had not happened regularly in the past.

 

This month, therefore, they focussed the video on reduced air pollution as a result of lockdowns. Nothing to do with climate or weather, but a good excuse for a bit of propaganda nevertheless!

 

The presenter, Ben Rich, reckons that emissions of CO2 could drop by 5%, which of course would mean that about 32 billion tonnes of the stuff would be sent up into the atmosphere.

He tells us scientists say the world would need to cut emissions by 7.5% every year for the next decade, to stay on track for 1.5C.

In other words, the world would need to get annual emissions down to 8 billion tonnes by 2030! Fat chance of that.

 

He then goes on to look at air quality, with some interesting graphics on nitrogen dioxide at about 1.10 mins. Whilst there is clearly a dip in levels of NO2 over China and Italy, there seems little evidence over northern Europe, unless my eyes are getting dodgy.

But back to the locusts. In flat out BBC disinformation mode, Rich warns of biblical famines, as a result of climate change, conflict and economic struggles. This is a reference to East Africa and the locust swarms.

There is simply no evidence that climate change has had any effect whatsoever, and neither does Rich offer any. He just says it, so “it must be true”.

This is typical of the BBC’s disregard for factual reporting, as far as climate change is concerned.

Just in case viewers have forgotten the reason for this monthly series, Rich ends by reminding us that climate change is still a global concern, and that governments will have to think carefully as they look beyond the lockdowns and consider any trade offs between economic recovery and the possible costs to the environment.

When was it a BBC weatherman’s job to attempt to influence government policy?

34 Comments
  1. May 10, 2020 5:51 pm

    We had snow this morning and it’s still v. cold. This is supposed to be May – should I blame the virus?

    • May 10, 2020 6:14 pm

      Yes, Brenda, hail in lowland Perthshire tonight: climate chaos for May perhaps, but not exactly explained by global warming!
      Would someone please tell Boris who is said to be set on decarbonisation, even in bankrupt Blighty.
      Does he know no local or global benefit could possibly be achieved?
      Perhaps his family have shares involved?

    • Tonyb permalink
      May 10, 2020 7:00 pm

      It looks a little threatening here on the south coast and it’s a little breezy. Does that count as extreme co2 related events?

  2. David permalink
    May 10, 2020 5:52 pm

    They are just one more vulture along with the teachers, the NHS and the unions looking for weakness in our stressed government.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      May 10, 2020 5:59 pm

      IMO, the NHS is now the NiHS – the Not invented Here Service. Sort of sums up their attitude to IT development.

      • Dave Ward permalink
        May 10, 2020 6:22 pm

        I call it the NCS – “National Covid Service”. About the only thing they are treating at the moment. And I’m not the only one: Pathologist Dr John Lee says exactly the same in this podcast

  3. May 10, 2020 6:26 pm

    Climate snake oil salesmen are tripping over each in other trying to use Covid to sell Climate.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/29/numnut-un-bureaucrat/

  4. Thomas Carr permalink
    May 10, 2020 6:33 pm

    Here we go again: speculation built on conjecture. The BBC have degenerated beyond embarrassment and are starting to abandon reality. Usual key words in their nonsense are could, might, may, should etc etc

  5. Jonathan Scott permalink
    May 10, 2020 6:48 pm

    When was it a BBC weatherman’s job to attempt to influence government policy?

    They are completely out of control and need to be censured and shut down as a purveyor of left wing propaganda!

  6. Jonathan Scott permalink
    May 10, 2020 6:49 pm

    The fundamental problem here Paul is WHERE does that 1.5 degrees come from? Certainly not physics? Certainly not based on geological history! It is a number pulled out of the air that they then have had to play a lot of games around because since the end of the Little Ice Age that welcome warming has already occurred! Where is the geological evidence to say that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has anything to do with global temperature in the great scheme of things? When the Angiosperms evolved in the Mid-Late Jurassic there was around 2500-2800ppm CO2 in the atmosphere on its way down from around 7000ppm in the Cambrian, The average temperature was around 10 degrees warmer than today. …. life was good…life was having a party! Where is the physics and statistically significant empirical data to support the Gweenouse Effect, the magnitude of its effect and the part played by CO2? WHERE IS IT? Oh sorry right, they do not need hard data, they have “models”. To deduce that CO2 cannot be the issue, all that is needed is to compare the spectra of CO2 and Water Vapour at the Infra Red end of the electromagnetic spectrum even if IF the greenhouse effect exists. The signature of Water Vapour totally swamps that of CO2. F Dyson and W Happer consider the Greenhouse effect is in total no more than maybe 5% of the total temperature flux and therefore at the immeasurable end of nothing) to know that IF there is any effect then the 400 times more prevalent Water vapour is the dominant contributing gas not kindly life giving CO2! That is physics…what special scientific data do the purveyors of ascientific gobbledegook, The BBC, The Guardian, the profiteer Al Gore and the strange troubled diminutive teen from Sweden have access to which allows them to ignore physics? The other point which I continue to make in all their claims of climatageddon, is where is the geological precedent? It has been warmer before there has been more CO2 before. Where is the climatogeddon? Ice Ages still came and went. In REAL science people do not just make claims for others to believe. Empirical data tells the story not people! As there still is no empirical data supporting the claim that AGM is responsible for the current warming which began 350 years ago then the assertion or claim is just that, a claim. So then what about the climate circus and their around 1 Billion US a day habit? IF there is no proven cause, then there can be no proven effect. Watch however where the money goes…. absolutely nowhere near the claimed problem…. oh it goes into massive research projects… paying salaries to measure and look at things, to hiring worthless Climate Champions for local government AND producing scientifically baseless text books to indoctrinate the next generation because the most important thing for them is to keep the money flowing…oh and increase the power base for the most dangerous among them.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      May 10, 2020 8:47 pm

      It started off at 2C, where the harm of the warming would supposedly exceed the benefit.
      It quickly became evident that no action was required, as more and more of the sensible science was pointing to a lower and lower climate sensitivity to CO2.
      It’s the action (dictatorial global governance) that is the real aim and must be incentivised, so they quickly fudged it down to 1.5C – which is probably still at the upper end of where we will be if we just carry on regardless.

      • Jonathan Scott permalink
        May 10, 2020 9:33 pm

        Quite right, I should have started my rant there! I know I am preaching to the converted BUT. IF the talk science play politics IPCC really wants to know if man is responsible for the latest of four warming events in recent history, is it not reasonable to start by understanding fully the cause(s) of the earlier three and then looking at the most recent one. to see if the causes of the earlier events no longer apply? Now, that does not mean that the culprit is man or CO2 but it at least narrows the field by applying the scientific method to the problem. To only take a partial look at a single warming event and indeed looking forward using wrong models when you have data across four events suggests a deliberate and wilful intention to deceive.

      • Iain Reid permalink
        May 11, 2020 6:55 am

        Mr GrimNasty,
        I seem to recall it was actually three degrees in the start of all this nonsense?

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      May 10, 2020 10:47 pm

      The 2° was plucked out of thin air by Schellnhuber to keep the pollies happy because they like simple numbers to pass on to the sheeple (think ‘5-a-day’, ‘21 units a week’, etc). He actually admitted this in an interview — “there is no particular relevance in the 2° figure” (if I’ve got the quote right.)

      It transpired that there was very little chance of reaching that 2° figure on any projection that made any sort of sense even to the eco-luddites and the climastrologists so it was either come up with a new one or pack up and go home. The latter would have meant serious downsizing of too many bank balances for the second crowd and probably mental breakdown for the former as their self-importance took a severe pasting (I mean — what would Thompson and di Caprio actually DO with themselves, not to mention Gore or McKibben!) so that option was a non-starter. Hence …

  7. May 10, 2020 7:27 pm

    I’m sure I recall that there have been plagues of locusts since biblical times. I must have received a poor education, because climate change was never mentioned as causing all those plagues of locusts. I recall seeing films of plagues of locusts when tellies were in black and white.

  8. Lez permalink
    May 10, 2020 7:33 pm

    From Wiki:
    Rich studied for a degree in Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Southampton, and then completed an MA in Broadcast Journalism at University College Falmouth.
    All the qualifications necessary to be a BBC climatologist.

  9. CheshireRed permalink
    May 10, 2020 8:09 pm

    Big Climate is *terrified* of C-19 forcing changes to government climate policy. They know once they initially lose momentum they’ll stand a decent chance of losing it permanently. Hence, hysteria.

  10. David Virgo permalink
    May 10, 2020 8:32 pm

    As reported earlier, the locust swarm is a direct result of withdrawal of licence (in the USA) for the best insecticide (lindane) needed to control them. Locust swarms never occurred frequently and it isn’t surprising that it took 10 years or more for the numbers of hoppers to increase to swarm levels.

  11. jack broughton permalink
    May 10, 2020 8:35 pm

    The real plague is the plethora of Climate priests. There must be suitable collective noun for such dangerous groups of barely-numerate people?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      May 10, 2020 9:28 pm

      I know priests are Fathers, but, after a very good Shiraz, I would go with motherfrackers.

    • A man of no rank permalink
      May 11, 2020 5:41 pm

      Jack, how about “The Great and the Good”
      Here are some of them:
      Extinction Rebellion Greta Thunberg Leonardo DiCaprio John Travolta Prince Charles Al Gore Matt Damon Woody Harrelson Julia Roberts Gwyneth Paltrow Mark Ruffalo Cameron Diaz Boris Johnson David Beckham Arnold Schwarzenegger Cheryl Cole Chris Martin Ken Livingstone Duncan Bannatyne Philip Schofield Robbie Williams Fearne Cotton Holly Willoughby Colin Firth Graham Norton Sienna Miller Paloma Faith Gary Neville Jane Fonda President Obama Cate Blanchett Shailene Woodley Emma Thompson Don Cheadle Jessica Alaba Robert Redford Ian Somerhalder Pharrell Williams Brad Pitt Giselle Bundchem Emma Watson Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Natalie Portman Will Smith Martin Sheen Radiohead Sir David and the BBC 465 UK MPs passing the Climate Change Act 2008

  12. MrGrimNasty permalink
    May 10, 2020 8:35 pm

    TWICE on BBC CountryFile the lady, whilst fretting that carrots were 30% down last year because of the heatwave, she asserted/insinuated that this UK summer was predicted to be worse for drought/hotter than last year – anyone find a credible forecast for that?

    • CheshireRed permalink
      May 10, 2020 9:09 pm

      Yup, she introduced ‘climate’ into the programme 2 or 3 times, for no obvious reason and with no back-up data. Just assertions. Textbook example of subtly maintaining ‘climate change’ in the mix.

      When weather is benign = low-key comments, but say nothing about no detrimental weather.
      When an unusual or outlier weather occurs = HYSTERIA.
      It’s the way they tell em.

      • Jonathan Scott permalink
        May 10, 2020 9:37 pm

        My 92 year old mother used to love watching that program. Now she cannot stomach the needless and incessant climate propaganda with all their…”coulds” and “mights” and maybes”

    • Lez permalink
      May 11, 2020 8:35 pm

      I gave upon Country File ages ago. I didn’t mind Henson, but the others (especially Heap) were totally lacking in all respects. After Sunday’s broadcast, my other half has now also given up, remarking that it has morphed into something akin to Blue Peter and a vanity project for one of the key presenters.

  13. Tonyb permalink
    May 10, 2020 9:10 pm

    Mr grim

    I will tell you my summer forecast on September 1st

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      May 10, 2020 9:27 pm

      You’re as much use as a climate model.

  14. MrGrimNasty permalink
    May 10, 2020 9:18 pm

    “He then goes on to look at air quality, with some interesting graphics on nitrogen dioxide at about 1.10 mins. Whilst there is clearly a dip in levels of NO2 over China and Italy, there seems little evidence over northern Europe, unless my eyes are getting dodgy.”

    The Europe graphic only runs to the middle of March – none of the variation can be due to the CV lockdown, with the exception of Italy – which is not that dramatic. What it shows is how low NO2 is over most of Europe and how much it varies regardless – notice the blob that comes/goes off the coast near the Rhur, and also how the UK is probably getting polluted by Europe!

    The China graphic is interesting – remember the ‘bowl’ topography and weather (inversions) create horrendous levels of trapped pollution building up esp. in Winter, which can clear very rapidly if the wind/weather changes. Possibly the clearance starts slightly before the lockdown effect? Anyway, regardless, China is massively polluting compared to us, no argument there.

  15. 2hmp permalink
    May 11, 2020 9:40 am

    When will someone get Boris in a corner and tell him the facts about the science of temperature and CO2. Michael Gove has apparently refused to listen. Heads in sand comes to mind.

  16. G B STUART permalink
    May 11, 2020 9:45 am

    How about a Conspiracy of Climate lunatics / priests / ecofascists or whatever they are this week ?

  17. Charlie Flindt permalink
    May 11, 2020 9:57 am

    Slightly off topic, and based on one of PH’s earlier posts…https://www.fwi.co.uk/farm-life/flindt-on-friday/flindt-on-friday-soil-doom-mongers-v-hard-harvest-facts

  18. Rowland P permalink
    May 11, 2020 12:38 pm

    One had to have a laugh this morning when an apparently devastating fire on a moorland/peatbog area in N Ireland was considered a terrible environmental disaster because it had destroyed a MAJOR carbon sink area! Wow, what utterly false propaganda as this area would represent but a pin prick on the total surface of the Earth!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: