Skip to content

Factchecking BBC’s “Reality Check”

November 18, 2021

By Paul Homewood


The BBC has published a supposed reality check on what “climate deniers” say.

Unsurprisingly it is full of strawmen, omissions, half truths and disinformation:





As they admit themselves, the sun does have an impact on the climate, and may be one of the reasons for recent global warming.

However they conveniently bypass the real argument of sceptical scientists, of whom there are many.

Nobody has yet put together a cogent explanation for what caused the Little Ice Age, and until we do we cannot fully explain subsequent warming. It is widely accepted that at least some of the warming since the 19th is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, and this is a crucial factor in projecting future temperature rise.

We also know that climate models have consistently run far too hot. The real debate therefore is climate sensitivity, and whether temperature rise will be so small as to be inconsequential, as many scientists argue.





It is a fact that cold kills many more times as many as heat does. Meanwhile as countries become more prosperous its inhabitants can be shielded from the worst effects of heat, with for instance mechanisation, air conditioning and so on.

On the other hand, the abandonment of fossil fuels could have a disastrous effect on the health of people in colder weather.

The claims about extreme rainfall are simply absurd and not backed up by any hard data. And as we know crop yields have been rocketing in recent years, and not falling.

Finally, economists tend to agree that the world will actually be better off with a small amount of further warming, maybe as much as 1C.





If renewable energy really is cheaper, and actually works, it will automatically gradually take over, just as societies have improved in all sorts of ways in the past.

But, of course, there is no evidence that they can replace fossil fuels, or that they are cheaper when all of the indirect costs are added in.

Climate sceptics are fully entitled to highlight the immense risk that are being taken with our energy security, and therefore our economies as a whole, in the name of climate change. The BBC fail to address this at all.

Instead they can only quote some junk studies that say the global economy could shrink by 18%. Even this is untrue, because they merely say it will be 18% smaller than it would have been otherwise. In reality nobody has a clue what the global economy will look like in 30 years time.

But given there is no evidence at all, merely GIGO computer models, that weather will become more extreme, there whole argument is bogus anyway.





This is the classic “Watch the Pea” con!

The facts of the Texas blackout are indisputable. Wind power went over the edge of the cliff, when large parts were shutdown by the winter storm. It was ONLY the availability of back up gas power that avoided a catastrophic blackout. More wind and solar farms would not be able to help, because you cannot switch them on and off.

But even then, because of the closure of a lot of dispatchable gas and coal power capacity in recent years to make room for renewables, grid capacity in Texas was still tight. The stress that this caused the grid led to the rolling blackouts which followed.

ISD Global, by the way, are a far left think tank. Why the BBC even think they can offer objective advice about renewable energy is a mystery.

The argument about Venezuela is simply absurd, and thrown in as a red herring.

Why not ask the sceptics?

We know that climate sceptics are no longer allowed on the BBC, but if they want to know what sceptics think, why did not the BBC actually ask some of them to contribute and have a proper debate with them, instead of fabricating the BBC version of denialism?

  1. November 18, 2021 7:37 pm

    The BBC is beyond redemption – it is nothing more than a propaganda machine. It is now unwatchable,

    • bobn permalink
      November 18, 2021 10:37 pm

      Yep. So I stopped paying the licence fee 3 years ago. Since then ive received a threatening ‘we’re going to visit’ letter roughly every month. Got another silly letter yesterday. Still no visit which is disappointing as Im reading to swear and curse and abuse any arsewipe that dares set foot on my land. Alas ive not been granted that pleasure. they’ll send endless letters but never visit. If they did i’d just let loose with invective and watch them run away.
      Quit now. stop paying these commie parasites. nothing will happen if you do nothing. Its the only way we can send a message -dont pay the bbc fascists.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        November 19, 2021 3:01 pm

        I didn’t realise I have clocked up over a decade. It was the Two Tossers Incident that did it. Non-comedians Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand insulting the great Andrew Sachs. Some people make the mistake of contacting or communicating with the Crapita licence gestapo. Or are dumb enough to be visibly watching TV when they do actually call.

      • Andrew Wilkins permalink
        November 19, 2021 3:42 pm

        Some people mistakenly believe they have to let the crapita fascists into their house. If they ever tried to step through my front door I’d call the rozzers.

  2. GeoffB permalink
    November 18, 2021 7:56 pm

    A proper debate on the BBC, that would be a first!

    • Tim Pateman permalink
      November 18, 2021 8:57 pm

      The BeeB are using their Brexit play book again, where they told us why we voted out and then explained how our inadequacies – old & selfish, poorly educated, xenophobic /racist etc etc were to blame…..
      ……that didn’t work out well for them either!

      • Duker permalink
        November 19, 2021 7:17 am

        Yet none of the catastrophes of Brexit came to pass either , which leads to the predicted catastrophes of climate change

  3. Barrie Emmett permalink
    November 18, 2021 8:01 pm

    Andrew Neil was right, the BBC is just a vehicle for Greenpeace. The editors appear to have been brainwashed by the green movement. The combination of green and woke makes them unwatchable.

  4. Robert Christopher permalink
    November 18, 2021 8:06 pm

    The stance taken by the BBC on Green Issues effectively keeps everyone focused on their agenda, when we should be welcoming innovation, as the ‘technology requirement’ is so new, even if innovation brings incompatibility with the current technology. For example, encouraging charge points, everywhere, means we are being locked in to whatever the Legacy Media have chosen, when we should be finding the best system for the future.

    Here is a technology that looks amazing, so amazing it’s been suppressed, apparently! It may turn out to be impractical, but the BBC, which we are forced to pay even if we want to watch other channels, should be educating the public on new opportunities. It would also show the public that Research and Development rarely have guaranteed outcomes, which is part of the unease I have when politicians glorify the Green Technology, as though it could bring them certain Salvation (aka re-elected):

    I’m not saying that this is the answer to Green Transport, but if it were, all the effort, cost and time already put into current technology would need to be redone. We currently have all the disadvantages of NET Zero being not planned with all the disadvantages of it being planned by ignoramuses.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 18, 2021 8:48 pm

      Hmm…being sceptical (what else is there?) I tend to the saying, if it looks too good to be true…etc’ and, the story of cold fusion. I also wonder at the EROI of the end result.

      • Robert Christopher permalink
        November 18, 2021 10:17 pm

        Harry, I did address that point, and then made a further point.

        I think of electric windows on cars. First they were on very expensive cars. The owners didn’t mind the problems (that much) as they had very good after sales service and it was one up on those who didn’t have any.

        Then they appeared on just expensive cars, then not-very-expensive cars, then cheap cars. And at each stage there were fewer problems per 1000 windows. In fact they are now cheaper to fit because they work by electrical signals, so there’s no chance of anyone pulling off the handle: everything is within spec.

        With these non-Carbon fueled cars, there isn’t even a prototype system. Lord Banford, of JCB fame, has developed a Hydrogen powered engine for his diggers because they consume so much energy and can do two eight hour shifts per day, so having to recharge batteries would mean he wouldn’t sell many!

        But does he know where the Hydrogen will be sourced that is Green? He didn’t say, so he has a partial solution, that will only be a solution if the other parts are also found. NET Zero is like that, but in spades.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        November 19, 2021 2:58 pm

        I think the hydrogen thing has shown Bamford up as an ignorant idiot but he has fooled many as they probably think he is the brains behind JCB.

      • November 21, 2021 1:07 pm

        Remember that JCB started a hydrogen division Ryse
        and that is kept in the son’s name
        So far it’s sucked in lots of subsidies.
        And the promise is that JCB will be one of Ryse’s customer’s as well a bus companies etc.

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      November 19, 2021 1:02 pm

      The overall point you are making is very good. By politically and artificially deciding a future technology course, other innovations are needlessly ruled out. The example you highlight (alternative modes of hydrogen storage) is actually much more common than this video clip makes out. There are a lot of players out there working on it. Here is an example of EU activity
      Hydrogen is just an energy carrier so investigating alternative “containers” makes perfect sense.
      When you consider that Buckminsterfullerene was not synthesised until 1984 and almost came out of the blue it clearly shows the potential for new innovation.
      Quite why we have to concern ourselves with “carbon reduction” is beyond me.

  5. Harry Passfield permalink
    November 18, 2021 8:15 pm

    Three – at least – points:

    Is there a named (BBC) person with relevant qualifications behind this BBC drivel or is it just another editorial?
    Since when has the word, ‘could’, held any scientific significance?
    If the BBC are so sure of their argument why don’t they debate it with sceptics?

  6. Penda100 permalink
    November 18, 2021 8:25 pm

    Apart from annoying us, the BBC and MSM endless stream of propaganda and lies has other consequences. As mentioned in today’s DT, a recent global survey of 10,000 young people by the University of Bath found that 56 per cent think humankind is doomed because of climate change. I guess the BBC will be well pleased with the results of its brainwashing.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      November 18, 2021 8:35 pm

      Well, in the very long run they are correct. Humanity will struggle with the return of glaciation, especially with unreliable power.

      • November 18, 2021 9:06 pm

        Yes, but even the next Ice Age is far from a species extinction level event, which makes a mockery of anyone who thinks doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to do for us. More likely we will destroy our own civilisation at some stage and the survivors slowly dwindle thereafter. Cheery thought.

    • eastdevonoldie permalink
      November 18, 2021 9:40 pm

      AS with the Ban the Bomb brigade of the 1050s/60s it is the same message “we/re all doomed” aimed at the emotional young with “it’s your future at stake”
      Even the Royal Family have jumped on the bandwagon as they know they need to keep the young on side to keep the ‘firm’ relevant.
      Disappointingly, even GBNews appears to be on board………, this morning they interviewed the IB spokesman who made the claim “millions are going to die” that went unchallenged.

  7. Phoenix44 permalink
    November 18, 2021 8:34 pm

    It’s so poor it’s almost funny. In some places it’s just lies – where are renewables cheaper than gas? In others it’s just a clear misdirection – renewables are unreliable. Texas may or may not be a renewables issue but if it isn’t that doesn’t prove renewables are reliable. In others it’s just bizarre – what’s the connection between coal and transport?

    It seems to have been written by not very clever teenagers.

    • Sobaken permalink
      November 19, 2021 6:29 am

      There are plenty of data sets available online that show how unreliable wind and solar are: for UK, for Germany, for Australia, for many European countries. And they all show the same thing.
      Proponents sometimes like to claim that wind is always blowing somewhere, but even if you take wind generation for every European country and sum it up, it is still fluctuating wildly from near zero to near full in a matter of days. How can someone be so blind and then have the audacity to call someone else a denier of reality.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      November 19, 2021 11:22 am

      Renewables are not cheaper than gas or coal for power generation. Any such claim requires sleight of hand, ignores intermittency of renewables, ignores subsidies and preferential market access and thinks that bidding a low price for something is the same as operating profitably at that low price.

      Wind is about 3x more expensive than gas or coal per MWhr. Just a trivial calculation using total annual subsidies to wind divided by MWhr produced per year reveal’s a figure of £132/MWhr.

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        November 19, 2021 1:12 pm

        Another trivial way to demonstrate the point that fossil fuels must be much cheaper is that in the UK the cost of domestic electricity per kWhr is nearly 5x the cost of domestic gas per kWhr.

        Given the following contributions to UK power generation in 2020 (numbers in GW):

        Total Demand 28446 100%
        Fossil fuels 11336 40%
        Nuclear 5396 19%
        Wind+Solar 7499 26%
        Other 2710 19%
        Interconnectors 2074 7% (mostly French nuclear)

        Then if 40% of the electricity comes fossil fuels but the overall cost of electricity is 5x greater than the cost of this fuel, the other sources of electricity must collectively be much more expensive.

  8. Douglas Dragonfly permalink
    November 18, 2021 8:46 pm

    Why doesn’t the British Broadcasting Corporation stick to just that – Broadcasting ?
    Allow others to supply content.
    Preferably those with expertise in the given subject. If disagreement arises provide a platform for informed, evidence based debate.

    I’ve not listened for a while now but when I did use to hear Radio 4 in the mornings, I was often amused at the number of occasions the phone line to guests would break down.
    This being the NATIONAL broadcasting corporation.
    Best they stick to their area of aspiration, i.e. broadcasting.
    The all too often mush that is served up is all too often state sanctioned propaganda.
    Why pay to be brainwashed ?

    • Duker permalink
      November 19, 2021 7:27 am

      Its worse than you think
      The article was co written by

      Kayleen Devlin

      Senior Journalist, Anti-Disinformation Unit, BBC

      But they are getting upset over unqualified people getting top jobs, yes those with no experience of broadcasting!

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        November 19, 2021 9:25 am

        ‘Senior Journalist , Anti Disinformation Unit , BBC’ . Unbelievable

        These passages are deceptive disinformation and the psychological projection is risible :

        ” Various posts circulating online claim global warming will make parts of the earth more habitable and that cold kills more people than heat does ” “These arguments often cherry pick favorable facts while ignoring any that contradict them ”

        The ‘various posts circulating online ” are not based on mere opinion but rather authentic research and the facts are not ‘cherry picked ” The BBC author also moves the goalposts to speculative voodoo science : ” warming could also lead to extreme rainfall affecting living conditions and the ability to grow crops ”

        The Gasparrini et al study published in The Lancet medical journal evaluated ” over 74 million …deaths between 1985 and 2012 in 13 countries with a wide range of climates, from cold to subtropical ……Around 7.71% of all deaths were caused by non optimal temperatures …..Cold was responsible for the majority of these deaths [ 7.29%..] while just 0.42% of all deaths were attributable to heat ” Science Daily , Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather ” May 20 ,2015

        Of the proportion of fatalities [ 42,414 ] in another study examining six Australian capital cities , 61.4% were attributable to cold while heat was blamed for for only 10.6% of deaths.

        Cheng et al [ 2019 ] ‘ Impacts of heat cold and temperature variability on mortality in Australia , 2000 – 2009 , Science of the Total Environment , Vol.651 Part 2 , 15 Feb. 2019 pp 2558 – 2565

  9. Ian PRSY permalink
    November 18, 2021 8:48 pm

    Talking of fact/reality checking, I watched Zoom webinar this evening, promoted by my local council and all about their plans to decarbonise the borough. Nothing I haven’t heard before, apart from one hopeful comment from one of the presenters, who suggested that if your house is less than ten years old, you should be able to expect the developer to make it climate-ready. Any current planning application that isn’t committing to full blown eco standards is committing the purchaser to future expense and shouldn’t be allowed. Tell that to local developers who make a point of offering gas because anything else is unaffordable.

  10. Gamecock permalink
    November 18, 2021 9:09 pm

    ‘As world leaders met at the COP26 summit to debate how to tackle climate change, misleading claims and falsehoods about the climate spiralled on social media.’

    They reveal that they don’t even know what ‘climate’ means. Climate is NOT SINGULAR!

  11. November 18, 2021 9:26 pm

    Fact Check some of the BBC output. The reality denial is amazing.

    Planet Now blames Covid pandemic on climate change, environmental degradation or something. Even David Attenborough voice over joined in on that one.

    BBC News blamed Toddbrook dam collapse on climate change, not appalling maintenance.

    Floods get blamed on climate change when the real cause is lack of government regulation.

    East Coast erosion of cliffs made of glacial deposits gets blamed on climate change.

    Asian Tsunami got blamed on climate change (oh yes they did!)

  12. MrGrimNasty permalink
    November 18, 2021 10:32 pm

    BBC News is already plugging Egypt COP next year!

  13. Geoffrey Williams permalink
    November 19, 2021 1:46 am

    The arrogance of the ABC is without limit. An ‘educated’ group of left wing socialists who believe they can tell the rest of us how and what to think. Let’s get rid of them . .

  14. Stuart Hamish permalink
    November 19, 2021 6:27 am

    ” Studies suggest the sun may well go through a weaker phase sometime this century …..this would lead at most , to a temporary 0.1 – 0.2 C cooling of the planet ” ………..”human activity …has already warmed the planet by about 1.2C over the past 200 years and will continue to rise ”

    Here is a reality check for the BBC : human activity is not entirely responsible for the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age and to suggest so is dishonest journalism and utterly ridiculous . Nor is there any surety temperatures ” will continue to rise ” into the future . Natural forcing, particularly resurgent solar activity and diminishing vulcanism accounted for most of the warming at least until the mass industrialization of the 1940’s and 50’s . The 1974 NCAR northern hemisphere temperature graph shows a 0.4 C cooling from the late 1940’s to 1970. The 1999 NASA US temperature series showed a similar cooling trend after the 1940’s …The IPCC itself acknowledged natural variability in Box 9.2 of the IPCC WGI Report discussion of the pause : ” In summary ,the observed recent warming hiatus ……is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing ….from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle ” The extent of anthropogenic influence on the climate is still a matter of ongoing debate

    To answer Paul’s statement , there is a cogent and elegant explanation for what caused the Little Ice Age .. The Wolf Solar Minimum commenced around 1280 lasting about 60 years to 1350 . The reduction in solar radiance coincided with at least 5- 6 powerful volcanic eruptions on the upper VEI scale between 1257 – 1290 and an escalation in the cosmic dust index at the same time [ circa 1300 ] probably attributable to cometary disintegration in the inner solar system .. This was close to the years of the Great Famine in Europe when it rained almost incessantly from May to August . Volcanic aerosols , cometary dust particles [acting as condensation nuclei ] and the cosmic ray influx from a dearth of solar wind during the Wolf minima , probably combined to seed cloud formation , lower temperatures , thenceforth expanding glaciers and sea ice ..We can see this process in the colder north Atlantic sea surface temperature proxies , eyewitness historical records [ for example the years 1315 – 1322 ] and the reduced tree ring growth from 1320 – 1350 seen in tree chronologies in the northern and southern hemispheres Past the Sporer Minimum ,the cosmic dust indices climbed to a peak in the 17th and 18th centuries corresponding to the deepest solar minimum of the LIA – the Maunder Minimum – then abruptly declined around 1800 – 1810 AD contiguous with the slow expiry of the Dalton Minimum around 1830 . The Industrial Revolution beginning at the same time as the three convergent cooling vectors dissipated is nothing but a selection bias as the carbon dioxide emissions were too small to have any real amplifying effect on the natural ‘rebound ‘ warming .until the 20th century ..The IPCC has conceded clouds are the greatest source of uncertainty in climate models and it shows

    • Stuart Hamish permalink
      November 19, 2021 7:47 am

      Typo error : the Wolf Solar Minimum lasted 70 years

  15. cookers52 permalink
    November 19, 2021 7:27 am

    Forget this BBC junk journalism, it is irrelevant.

    Government and Parliament believe in the Climate Emergency, and no sceptical opinion is allowed to surface, that is the reality check.

    In my lifetime electricity supply and energy supplies have disappeared from time to time due to all sorts of reasons, so we maybe should not focus too much on reliability. Cost however is something to consider and get upset about.

    We have always relied on other governments for our energy supply, so we have to be aware of the risks of any changes we make to the ways we do things. Unfortunately the debate isn’t happening.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      November 19, 2021 9:09 am

      If the price cap goes up 40% or more next year as predicted, with all the knock inflation, a debate, or the mother of all gov. blame shifting/disinformation campaigns is coming.

  16. November 19, 2021 8:08 am

    Please sign this petition and promote it as the only tool available to let the government know we do not agree with their £3 trillion Net Zero policy.

  17. Eoin Mc permalink
    November 19, 2021 10:39 am

    Hi Paul. Thanks again for your indefatigueability on this rolling propaganda. I continue to believe that the terms ‘climate denier’ and ‘climate sceptic’ should be amended by those in the sceptic community to ‘climate science denier’ and ‘climate science denier’ so as those in the alarmist industry cannot mangle what it is that most of us believe.

    • November 21, 2021 1:14 pm

      you meant
      @Eoin to ‘climate science denier’ and ‘climate science skeptic’

      but even that is rubbish, cos we can’t accept that their DOGMA represents true “Climate Science”
      We are skeptics of Alarmism/GreenDream/GreenDogma etc.

  18. ThinkingScientist permalink
    November 19, 2021 11:16 am

    Just a quick dozen of my Technical Reasons to be Sceptical:

    1. Glacial retreat and sea level rise commence around 1830-1850 but IPCC temps are flat until 1910 and forcings negligible until 1910. Why? (Note: Sea level lags by about 18 years)
    2. Sea level rise and glacial retreat exhibit linear trends 1840 – 2000 plus a quasi-periodic signal with period approximately 60 years. Why is this not reproduced in climate models?
    3. There are two notable 35 yr periods of warming in the temp recrod: 1910-1945 & 1975-2010. IPCC GHG forcing’s for the period 1975-2010 are > 3x larger than for the period 1910-1945. Temperature, sea level rise and glacial retreat data only exhibit a ratio of 1.4x or less. Why is there an over 2x discrepancy in rates between climate models and observations?
    4. Why are the residuals (climate model temp – observed temp) structured and periodic (approximately 60 yr cycle) if climate models have no missing natural processes?
    5. The “hotspot” of tropospheric tropical warming is the distinctive signature of GHG warming in climate models. Why is the average rate of warming in this region of climate models 2.5x larger than observed in satellite data?
    6. Why is the average rate of total global warming from the ensemble of climate models > 2x faster than the average rate of warming of the satellite observations?
    7. The range of ECS for CMIP6 climate models is 1.8 – 5.6 degC per doubling with a central estimate about 3.0. Empirical estimates are in the range 1.0 – 2.3 with a central estimate about 1.6. Why is there a factor > 2x difference in these estimates?
    7. If CO2 controls temperature why does CO2 lag temperature in the Vostok ice core data?
    8. If CO2 controls temperature why is the half height width of Temperature rises in the Vostok ice core data less than the equivalent calculation for CO2?
    9. Why are there no decadel to multi-decadel causes of natural warming in climate models?
    10. Climate models release 1.4 W per 1.0 degC temperature increase to space. Satellite observations show the earth releases 2.4 W per 1.0 degC. Explain the difference.
    11. CMIP6 climate models have 4x the variance of observations despite the fact observations include rapid El Nino events and models cannot reproduce this. Explain. (Clue: see (10) above).
    12. If climate models are “just physics” why do we need 40 of them when only 1 is required? If its “just physics” why don’t all 40 climate models give the same answer from the same inputs?

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      November 19, 2021 11:57 am

      Nice summary of the “science” that is being abused. I had not realised that the models predicted such a high ECS: further proof of their naivety!

    • HoxtonBoy permalink
      November 19, 2021 12:08 pm

      The crucial bit of science seems to me to be the absorption characteristics of CO2. No one disputes that increased CO2 levels will lead to some extra warming – the question is: how much? If the increase was proportional to the CO2 levels then obviously you would get a runaway GH effect – in the absence of any correcting factors. This doesn’t appear to have happened in the past or we would have burnt to a crisp millions of years ago. I have seen articles which suggest that the absorption curves rolls off exponentially and that most of th warming has already occurred. It seems to me that urgent research into this matter would be good before spending trillions on a problem that may not exist.

      • November 19, 2021 2:43 pm

        You will not go far thinking logically and reasonably like that! So you conclude as the 7000ppm CO2 in the atmos did not cook the Earth then the piddling amount we put back into the Carbon Cycle from whence it was stolen is no more than fiddling small change? Good for you!

        Yes I have heard both Will Happer and Freeman Dyson say the same about the effect of CO2 already having reached its peak whatever that fiddling small number may be and there is the crux and how science is being wilfully abused because the important thing is not if something “can” absorb IR in the atmosphere but how much in total the effect is. The whole absurd anti meat argument is a can vs how much argument.

        We know that water vapour absolutely swamps any effect of CO2 in the infra red end of the electromagnetic spectrum and is many many times more prevalent in the atmosphere….funny the “activist scientists” never mention that but performing credible science is not a way to get a good salary for life in the climate subsidy farming industry of today.

  19. William Birch permalink
    November 19, 2021 11:28 am

    Those who say they want hydrogen engines appear to have forgotten that the storage tanks operate at between 5,000 to 10,000 pounds per square inch [in old money] The atmospheric pressure is 15 pound per square inch. [i.e 350 to 700 x atmospheric pressure]. If your car is in an accident, those kind of pressures being suddenly catastrophically released would blow the car apart and the unfortunate people inside with it

  20. ThinkingScientist permalink
    November 19, 2021 11:48 am

    From the full article:

    ““Blackouts are an artefact of poor electricity generation and distribution management,” says John Gluyas, executive director of the Durham Energy Institute.

    He says the claim that renewable energy causes blackouts is “nonsensical…. Venezuela has oodles of oil and frequent blackouts“. ”

    I was astonished to see John Gluyas quoted as stating that. He was once a colleague and a senior Geoscientist in a series of oil companies, subsequently a client when he was Exploration Manager of Acorn Oil and Gas.

    John – what the hell happened to you?

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      November 19, 2021 11:51 am

      I also note the BBC spelt his name wrong. He’s actually Jon Gluyas.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      November 19, 2021 12:51 pm

      Well looking at his job he may just be being the mouth piece of his paymasters, but also the way the BBC has chopped up the quote, it could well be that they have changed the context and intention. Statement (1) cannot be disputed. The hacked statement (2) could have originally been in support of using oil/gas i.e. it is nonsensical/stupid to have oodles but NOT use it, instead restrict yourself to renewables and watch the grid collapse!

    • Nordisch geo-climber permalink
      November 19, 2021 1:42 pm

      Hands in till:
      Gluyas is:
      Ørsted/Ikon Chair in Geoenergy Carbon Capture & Storage
      Nice earner.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      November 19, 2021 3:14 pm

      The Hornsea wind farm trip was the first event in the August 2019 blackout, with further trips of embedded generation contributing substantially to the maximum loss and automated load shedding.

    • Russ Wood permalink
      November 20, 2021 11:33 am

      South African blackouts occur mostly because generator breakage, also due to inadequately educated and trained personnel, hired because of political policies. Apparently the supplier Eskom is now adding deliberate sabotage, linked with fraud about backup diesel oil supplies!

    • November 21, 2021 1:37 pm

      Jon Gluyas own department Twitter tweeted the BBC article
      so I guess he approves of it :

      His name Jon is still spelt wrong on all three edit versions of the BBC article.

  21. jonnyjonny permalink
    November 19, 2021 2:32 pm

    When is the BBC going to fact check XR and Insulate Bwittaaan and Greta and Gore and Borises stupid wife…..and Barry Obama…..and Gween Peeth…..AND WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO FACT THEMSELVES……fact check Harraharrabinnin and the rest of their Leftie humanities graduates witing about thyenth? WHEN? It is just constant everyday propagands and lies, half truths and deceptions. Their marxist trainers in the Kremlin must be so proud of them!

  22. Ben Vorlich permalink
    November 19, 2021 6:58 pm

    Not quite lon topic but until I read this article I had no idea that wind generation was flexible and curtailment was due to inflexible coal amongst other things like lack of storage

    “Busting the right-wing myth of “Wind Oversupply””

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      November 20, 2021 1:26 am

      What a load of BS. If it was profitable to build more transmission capacity or more storage to help reduce wind curtailment it would happen. If you are going to look at the cost of wind, then you should include the cost of these otherwise unnecessary assets as being part of it. There is no discussion of the real flexible provider – gas – that is used to balance the grid – nor of the costs imposed by the much more intermittent regime forced upon gas generators by higher levels of wind penetration that also results in underinvestment in dispatchable capacity – see Texas last Feb, and also a cost of wind. Nor is there any mention of the need to maintain sufficient grid inertia, which is why wind gets curtailed and thermal power plants do not when wind levels get high.

      Amateur nonsense. I had a go at busting some of their myths.

  23. David Wojick permalink
    November 19, 2021 7:48 pm

    Me making serious fun of AGW:

    The fallacy really is this simple. Ignore nature.

    • David Wojick permalink
      November 19, 2021 7:52 pm

      The CFACT article is accompanied by this fabulously funny picture of a typical alarmist scientist (sort of):

  24. Ben Vorlich permalink
    November 19, 2021 9:55 pm

    “World’s largest offshore wind farm ‘unprofitable’ for Equinor, say government-funded researchers | Upstream Online”

  25. Douglas Dragonfly permalink
    November 20, 2021 8:42 am

    The BBC, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, Guardian and many many more media outlets all receive substantial funding from one single source.
    Small wonder the contents are so similar, it is difficult to see difference. Ultimately what ever the message, it is the same.
    The source of this wealth ?
    Bill Gates.
    Read on to see the long list of other news, educational publications and opinion pieces from around the world :-

  26. Jack Broughton permalink
    November 20, 2021 11:28 am

    The difficulty that I have found when talking to well educated people about climate change is that they have been so well conditioned and brainwashed by the “97% of scientists believe” and “Why would the BBC, ITV and Newspapers lie” and “What makes you think you know better than the experts”. When I try to explain the 97% lie, eyes tend to glaze-over, maybe I’m not very good at it! Has anyone got a quick, pithy response to these simple questions, which at first glance sound so reasonable?

    My best effort presently is to say that if Armageddon was so close, the USA and Russia would not have been debating future policies for about 30 years, but enforcing CO2 reduction.

    • HoxtonBoy permalink
      November 20, 2021 9:26 pm

      Yes it is the ‘appeal to authority’ which really hasn’t got a lot to do with science. I too find that long-term intelligent friends go into a screaming rant when questioned about climate change issues. It really has become a religion for them.

      • dave permalink
        November 21, 2021 3:29 pm

        “…intelligent friends…”

        The FEELINGS that have been deliberately planted, in the last half-century, into the victims of our compulsory, dogmatic, socialist, group-think, schooling system, have set in train for them an overwhelming, largely unconscious, need to find an excuse, any excuse, to reject rationality and sink into warm belief.

        It would hardly be possible to overstate the feeling of relief that floods through them, when they can finally shout out a rejection of their inherited civilization and economic system, and even a rejection, with self-loathing, of the sex and skin-tone they happened to be born with.

        Can anyone imagine that a little thing such as ‘intelligence’ is going to stop this joyful rush to join up for the holy wars? This Juggernaut?

    • November 21, 2021 5:16 pm

      You could try asking what exactly it is that 97% of scientists agree with, the inevitable mumbling may make some people think on.

  27. November 20, 2021 11:23 pm

    Where’s their debunking of the Petition Project scientists?

  28. dennisambler permalink
    November 21, 2021 12:00 pm

    “We also know that climate models have consistently run far too hot.”

    Hansen was saying the same thing in 1981,

    “The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3 .5°C for doubling of the C02 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm . The major difficulty in accepting the theory has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic C02 increase. In fact, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere decreased by about 0.5°C between 1940 and 1970, a time of rapid C02 build up. In addition, recent claims that climate models over-estimate the impact of radiative perturbations by an order of magnitude, have raised the issue of whether the greenhouse effect is well understood. ”

    He then went on to invent global warming in 1988…

  29. November 21, 2021 2:13 pm

    BBC want you to help them by grassing in “deniers”
    cos there is a radio Sow that goes with the piece
    The writer tweeted
    “Look out for our radio programme and podcast coming next week
    how the new climate change denial narratives are playing out.
    And send anything you’re seeing or stories you have to tell to

    • November 21, 2021 3:35 pm

      That radio show might be this
      5. ‘We fight climate denial on Wikipedia’

      It begins

      by now THERE SHOULD BE NO DOUBT in your mind !
      Global warming is REAL
      It is man made
      and it THREATENS every SINGLE ASPECT of our lives
      yet if you go on Wikipedia, you’ll still find people Hell bent on denying the science
      … They are doing their best to warp the truth by rewriting it

      that’s #Orwellian
      and “Confession through projection” is standard libmob behaviour

  30. November 21, 2021 2:41 pm

    Tracking the official BBC PR push of 8 tweets to the WORLD
    Tiny impact 245 maximum likes
    Most tweets ratioed by skeptics upto maximum of 150
    You can’t cumulate likes or replies to different tweets, cos they tend to be the same people Liking etc.

    #1 12:08am from @BBCScienceNews 23 Likes, 3 replies against
    Publishing at midnight is a PR trick
    to get something to impact the morning news

    #2 6:29amBBCNews Ratioed 150: 94

    #3 8:35am writer Well liked 125, but 8 strong replies against

    #4 9:20am @BBCWorld 245 Likes vs 61 replies

    #5 9:22am writer BIG THREAD
    22 Likes , 10 replies, mostly against her

    #6 9:22am Yes she did two promo tweets at the same time
    It’s the tweet I mentioned in previous comment
    3 replies 2 Likes

    #7 12pm lunchtime @Harra
    13 Likes , 4 replies against

    #8 10pm @BBCNews SECOND promo tweet
    Ratioed 52:35

  31. November 21, 2021 2:43 pm

    Please see also this long rebuttal by JIT

  32. November 21, 2021 3:02 pm

    Who helped form the narrative of the BBC article ?
    But the last paragraph is
    “But according to the LSE’s Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment”

    That is a bit careless to leave off the name The *Grantham* Research Institute
    , after the *Green hedgefund billionaire* Mr Grantham has paid all that money to fund it.

  33. November 21, 2021 3:10 pm

    Significant edits

    version #0

    We’ve looked at some of the most viral claims of the past year,
    and what they can tell us about climate change denial now.

    version #1

    *Scientists say*
    climate change denial is now more likely to focus on the causes and effects of warming,
    or how to tackle it, than to outright deny it exists.
    The ‘d-words’ v the planet
    We’ve looked at some of the most viral claims of the past year, and what the evidence really says.

    version #1
    “The claim: The sun will cool, halting global warming”
    version #2 around 5pm on 17th
    “The claim: A ‘Grand Solar Minimum’ will halt global warming”

  34. Martin Brumby permalink
    November 21, 2021 4:51 pm

    I’m sure that by now the BBC has concocted and published a ‘BBC Realitycheck’ on Jimmy Savile. Most likely by the very same fearless and expert investigators.

    Pointing out, no doubt, what a Saintly and Compassionate guy “Fix-It Jim” actually was and how proud the BBC of the aiding and abetting they all did in assisting Jim to have lots and lots of fun with kiddies.

    Bolstered, of course, by interviews by then little girls confirming that they really had been “Gagging for it”.

    Strangely, I can’t see a reference to such a “Realitycheck”. It must have been prepared. Perhaps I’m Googling in the wrong place?

  35. Stickleback permalink
    November 21, 2021 7:58 pm

    It now appears that TV licence payers are funding a “Climate Change Disinformation Specialist” to accuse foreign-language Wikipedia pages (including China, Swahili and Belarus of promoting conspiracy theories and making misleading claims about climate change. Somehow this seems a liitle beyond their remit…

  36. Stickleback permalink
    November 21, 2021 8:00 pm

    Sorry – forgot the link:


  1. Was COP26 Peak Snake Oil?-et varua-The daiky sceptic – Titre du site

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: