Factchecking BBC’s “Reality Check”

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:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59251912

CLAIM 1:

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.

CLAIM 2:

 

 

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.

CLAIM 3:

 

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.

CLAIM 4:

 

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?