Skip to content

UNEP Prove BBC’s GHG Graph Is Fake

November 17, 2021
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

You will recall that the BBC published this patently fake graph this week, purportedly showing that new pledges at COP26 would save 10.5 GtCO2 by 2030, cutting emissions a fifth:

 Chart

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59277788

Previously they have always used the well respected Climate Action Tracker graph, which gives a much smaller saving of  3.3 to 4.7 GtCO2,  meaning that emissions remain flat.

 

 https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT_2021-11_Briefing_2030EmissionsGaps-Changes2.original.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/11/15/bbcs-fake-ghgs-graph/

 

 

So I decided to go straight to the horse’s mouth – the UN Environment Program, UNEP.

They have carefully analysed all of the new pledges at COP26, and even accounted for savings from announced pledges which have not been formally submitted.

They calculate a reduction in GHGs of just oved 4 Gt. In other words pretty much the same as the Climate Action Tracker:

image

https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021

The UNEP are quite clear what this means:

 image

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/updated-climate-commitments-ahead-cop26-summit-fall-far-short-net

 

It is scandalous that the BBC chose to bury the accurate, if inconvenient, graph, and replace it with a fake one from a bunch of lobbyists, chaired by Adair Turner,  whose stated intent is:

 

image

https://www.energy-transitions.org/

22 Comments
  1. November 17, 2021 5:45 pm

    Yet they and others go on and on. doing this. I just hope we have half a dozen years of indisputable cooling, then perhaps the coin will drop with the majority of the public

    • T Walker permalink
      November 17, 2021 6:23 pm

      David – I wish I had your optimism.

      This piece on Yesterdays update on The Daily Sceptic struck a chord –

      https://dailysceptic.org/fanatical-followers-of-the-covid-regime-a-jim-jones-style-cult/

      Mark Twain said “It is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled.”

      The above article points to research in Psychology showing much the same problem – once you are on the Kool-Aid you are a lost cause. No amount of truth will sway your view.

      A few years back I sometimes gave presentations on climate and where we were. I would start by saying I was about to show them official empirical data and would leave them to make their own minds up what that meant. The real world was often so far removed from where some people thought it was that I frequently had somebody shouting at me within 10 minutes.

      Interesingly I didn’t know where the Kool-Aid expression came from until this article – scary stuff.

  2. Cheshire Red permalink
    November 17, 2021 5:57 pm

    Formal complaint? It’s one of the few ways to keep the rogue BBC straight.

    • T Walker permalink
      November 17, 2021 6:10 pm

      When anything is that bent straightening it often leads to breakage – which might be the best way.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 17, 2021 6:52 pm

      BBC = Bringing Back Crickets

  3. Broadlands permalink
    November 17, 2021 5:57 pm

    Please note on that chart that minus 4000 million tons is only REDUCED emissions. Carbon kept in the ground? No CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere. They haven’t even gotten to that part. And net-zero requires negative emissions.

    What a bunch of clowns protesting and spending other people’s money for nothing.

  4. David Wojick permalink
    November 17, 2021 6:12 pm

    How can an Oct 26 report include the COP26 announcements made in November?

    • T Walker permalink
      November 17, 2021 7:19 pm

      I am sure these things are put in well ahead of time. We already know the contents of AR6 not even released yet.

      All the drama left for the big jamboree.

  5. Broadlands permalink
    November 17, 2021 6:13 pm

    Note that the chart shows emission reductions and not atmospheric reductions. Emission reductions take no CO2 from the atmosphere. They simply keep carbon in the ground for later use if the climate cools. That’s a good idea. But, emission reductions are already creating transportation fuel shortages and higher prices. Not a good idea.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      November 17, 2021 6:47 pm

      There seems to be an increasing question about whether reducing anthropogenic emissions would achieve anything much at all. We have the mystery that the lower level of emissions last year did not result in any slowing of the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2, although the reduction was well within the bounds of expecting quite noticeable measured change. We have the further mystery that new work showing that anthropogenic emissions due to land use change were actually 35% lower rather than 35% higher than in 2000 by 2020, fundamentally altering the general picture for anthropogenic emissions over the past decade in particular to being flat. So it seems that another whole chunk of increases in atmospheric content that were previously attributed to human actions were in fact attributable to some other mechanism.

      If reducing emissions actually has no effect on the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase then the whole thing becomes pointless, and we need to concentrate instead on being able to mitigate changes in climate such as they are as they occur, because they are unavoidable. There is of course a separate argument to be had about the risks of resource exhaustion and the need to diversify and develop new energy sources as a way forward. But that is a different focus entirely.

  6. Penda100 permalink
    November 17, 2021 6:34 pm

    Surely a fake graph is exactly what you would expect from a propaganda machine?

    • jazznick permalink
      November 17, 2021 7:17 pm

      Well, yes, but I’m fascinated to know where the propaganda stops and actual criminality begins ?

      Where complainants, like Cheshire Red, cannot just be fobbed off by appeals to so-called, semi-blind, ‘authority’ and where those authorities need to ‘show their working’, by law, and openly debate or fail as frauds.

      Where those, like Paul, pointing out blatant lies are not silenced because they are not from the approved ‘tribe’ (so don’t count or need to be engaged with).

      Statements are made, reports are produced and sexed-up versions are provided for the lazy media, then the authors run away and hide behind their mates in pal-review while the media lob propaganda grenades from the trenches, as ordered.

      Small wonder that ‘Lady Blah-Blah’ and the PM and her husband feel so empowered !

  7. Gamecock permalink
    November 17, 2021 6:51 pm

    ‘The Emissions Gap Report 2021 shows that new national climate pledges combined with other mitigation measures put the world on track for a global temperature rise of 2.7°C by the end of the century.’

    False precision fallacy. They have no clue what global mean temperature will do in the next 80 years, any more than what the weather is going to be like in two weeks. GMT could go down. It could go up. This use of a decimal point is fraud; it implies they know to that precision. They know nothing.

    Man’s CO2 emissions are less than 4% of natural emissions. Should Man reduce emissions by 10%, which is most certainly NOT going to happen, CO2 emissions would drop to 99.6% of current emissions. That’s it. Hardly even measurable. Yet it’s going to raise global temperature 2.7°C ?!?

    I think next report should say 2.6984°C. Why not? If you are going to make up a number, make up a precise one. People will think you really know what you are doing.

    • jazznick permalink
      November 17, 2021 7:48 pm

      Absolutely Gamecock !

      If the result has decimal points in it and has come out of a computer as big and expensive as the one we made you pay for, it MUST be correct. No question.

      It all comes down to those ‘models’ that, if you recall, were ‘called-out’ by the Climategate ‘Harry-Read-Me’ files from the poor computer modeller guy trying to make them work with the piles of crap, made-up and corrupted data being fed into them. Those models.

      This garbage, suitably edited and endorsed by the UN, continues to ooze out and is being deployed as a method of regulating and controlling everyone on the planet, which was always the ultimate aim.

      The Climate is just a means to an endgame.

    • Broadlands permalink
      November 17, 2021 7:55 pm

      Gamecock.. I agree. But how does anyone know what natural emissions are? Last year our total global emissions were about 40 billion tons. 4% would be about 1.6 billion. Is that right? To make it sound like a whole lot, call it 40,000 million tons. Maybe that might get their attention? But iff we lowered those 40 billion by 10% it would leave 36,000 million to get rid of. Not a chance on that, no matter how much money they extract from us.

      • Gamecock permalink
        November 17, 2021 10:00 pm

        “But how does anyone know what natural emissions are?”

        That is certainly a good question. My assumption is that they have some guess as to how much CO2 is released annually. All sources. They have some guess as to how much CO2 is released by humans. You know, like 36.4 billion barrels of oil, et cetera and so on. So ‘natural emissions’ are the hypothetical emissions minus the calculated human emissions.

        With a decimal point or two added in.

        I think fair to say it’s all gross speculation.

  8. Coeur de Lion permalink
    November 17, 2021 8:19 pm

    We are looking at oh point five degrees on top of what has already happened, eh? But error bars in 1850? Half a degree? More? How many Southern Hemisphere met stations in 1850? One?

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      November 21, 2021 7:47 pm

      This was the IPCC excuse for writing out the LIA, MWP etc. It allows them to start history in 1970, during the C20th cold snap and make things look worse than they are. There are only a handful of stations operating before 1900 even. Lamb’s reconstructions of the past look to be the best guide, especially as the models have no credibility whatsoever.

  9. jazznick permalink
    November 17, 2021 9:29 pm

    I’m sure you will all agree that Paul does a great job in pointing out all the errors and omissions thrown at us, seemingly every day, by people who know precisely what they are doing and the deceptions they are hiding and prolonging for their political ends, financial enrichment or job security – or all three.

    It is a great shame that much of Paul’s work is never seen by the vast majority of the public who still believe everything the media, particularly the BBC, tells them to think.

    (Ignore the nasty climate-deniers behind the curtain – children)

    As much as it may give great satisfaction, to those who regularly visit these pages, to have the ‘authorities’ shown up for what they are, we are really only talking to ourselves here, unless there are some MP’s, or potential MP’s, out there with a spine ?

    The Green Blob are already running round the stadium with the trophy claiming triumph as they have been doing for many years, even though the game has not finished, as we know, but no matter how much we scream for VAR to intervene they are well on their way to their next victory parade because THEY decide who wins, as there is no referee to issue red cards or award penalties. (Sorry about the ‘footy’ analogy, but it’s on telly)

    As much as everyone on here may constantly mark-down, correct and laugh at their maths homework; it is just a distraction to keep us occupied and out of the way.

    Most of the populace will ignore the numbers (as it’s a really, really complicated version of 2+2=5) and will absorb “the message” because they have embraced Climatanity as a religion, as they have been instructed; encouraged by their brain-washed children, as seen on annoying TV ads.

    The ‘Blob’s’ specialist subject is Global (marxist) Governance and you don’t need maths for that, just politically controlled compliance and we are well on our way to that, aren’t we Boris ?

  10. Phoenix44 permalink
    November 18, 2021 10:02 am

    How does the BBC justify using a graph from a group with an explicit political aim? Net Zero is not science, it is politics. The BBC continues to simply parrot what Green political groups say without saying kind of question or balance, hiding behind its decision that climate science is settled.

    This is simply a blatant breach yet again of its charter.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: