BBC’s Climate Check–Feb 22
By Paul Homewood
The BBC’s monthly dose of climate propaganda is presented by Sarah Keith-Lucas. It is the usual mixture of misinformation, outright lies and misdirection:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/60780761
She begins:
“The latest report from the IPCC has been called the bleakest yet of the impact of global climate change. And some recent events support this assessment!
This is really quite fraudulent, because what follows does not bear any of this out.
The first port of call is Australia, where heavy floods have hit Brisbane and Sydney. She says that Brisbane had two months of rainfall in two days, but this is not unusual. February 27th and 28th recorded 613mm:
This may sound a lot, but maybe Sarah should have put this into perspective, as Queensland has often had much more than this in a single day:
She also claims that Sydney had its wettest start to the year in 150 years. In fact, rainfall across the whole of the summer in NSW has been pretty much average.
If Sarah thinks that heavy rainfall is due to global warming, maybe she would like to explain the 1970s!
There follows an explanation of the effect of La Nina and El Nino, with the former bringing heavy rain to Australia. But then she make the highly debatable claim that these ocean cycles MAY be increasing in frequency and strength because of climate change. (Note the weasel word “MAY”!)
The actual data shows her claim is nonsense:
She then goes on to claim that Perth has just had its hottest summer.
Perth, with its urban heat island may have, but Western Australia as a whole certainly did not:
We then move onto Madagascar, where Sarah falsely claims there have been five tropical cyclones in six weeks.
In reality, there have only been three cyclones, Ana, Batsirai and Emnati. Dumako did hit Madagascar, but it was never above Tropical Storm strength, with winds of 40 mph.
Cliff was also no more a TS, and never got anywhere near Madagascar.
So far this season, which runs from November to May, there have only been five TCs and TSs in the Southern Indian Ocean, well below the average of twelve.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/storm_archive/indian.html
Antarctic sea ice extent has also been low this summer, according to Sarah. But she does not mention it was at near record highs only a few years ago.
Naturally, she wants you to think global warming is melting the South Pole, with images of collapsing glaciers. But the changes we are seeing are plainly simply normal variations.
https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Finally we learn that the UK has had a mild winter, and it is true that mild winters tend to be more common nowadays. However, this hardly supports her opening claims about the “bleakest report yet”. On the contrary, our climate is far less extreme than it used to be.
As usual, the Climate Check lists a few bad weather events, and then claims that they are due to climate change.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Isn’t it about time the BBC is taken to court over the outright lies and distress that they are causing for thousands of people?
The BBC is one of the first to label sceptics of their reports as ‘climate deniers’, yet the data and evidence clearly shows that it is THEY who are the climate deniers, THEY that ignore the myriad of data that shows there is no ‘climate catastrophe’ or ‘existential threat’. It’s time these charlatans were shown up for the frauds they are. They are not following the science, they are manipulating it shamelessly!
Paul – Might it be worth another complaint to the BBC?
Paul, Do you send your reality checks such as this to the presenter? It would possibly have more effect if the individual presenters had cause to reconsider what they have presented. The monolith of the BBC is unlikely to readily accept question of their doctrine but individuals are I think more likely to pause for thought. Not guaranteed but otherwise who knows if individual presenters are ever made aware of comment such as yours.
Very good point Bernard
But their job depends on them giving out these reports.
Apologies for doubting you Paul but I COULD NOT BELIEVE that the BBC are now claiming that ENSO cycles are made more frequent by global warming/AGW. This is utter garbage – a quite astounding claim. Nobody yet knows what exactly sparks off El Ninos and La Ninas but there is some evidence that orbital issues and/or plate tectonics may play significant parts. Either way, the causes of ENSO have got nothing whatsoever to do with the sort of minor surface warming so lovingly reported by the BBC. In fact, the reverse is true. Much of the warming reported over the last century – which is very much a function of how we record and model-process the temperature data rather than global reality – can be attributed to the large El Ninos such as in 1998 and 2015/16 releasing heat from the oceans for us faithfully to record. Take out the El Nino heat fluxes and you aren’t left with a lot aside from UHI.
The BBC should hang its head in shame over this unforgivable scientific illiteracy.
Even IPCC doesnt go that far
from AR6 as detailed by NOAA themselves
‘The instrumental record and paleoclimate proxy evidence (coral, tree rings, sediment cores) all show that throughout the Holocene (the last 11,700 years), ENSO has displayed all sorts of different patterns and amplitudes. There is no clear evidence that any changes since 1950 in ENSO are all that unusual. ‘
The the clincher , the last 11,000 years record
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/enso-and-climate-change-what-does-new-ipcc-report-say
Australia, Sydney, Brisbane, El Nino, Perth, Madagascar, Antarctica and finally back to Blighty.
What a lovely global tour!
Citing carefully selected ‘extreme weather’ is easy if you cherry pick your way around the globe, choosing favourable events to be conveniently rounded-up into a ‘Fact-Check’ report.
This isn’t journalism in any reasonable sense. As Paul says, it’s pure propaganda. My only consolation is I’m no longer paying for this junk.
Yes, what are the chances nowhere on the globe suffers “extreme weather” in any given month? Surely zero. If you look at a very small areas (such as one weather station), the likelihood that it has experienced all possible natural temperatures or rainfall for any given period in the last say 100 years is tiny. That’s only 100 February’s and there must be more than 100 natural variations.
This is just fallacious statistics, pure and simple.
How can they peddle this and not face any consequences?
Deliberate policy: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141526
“Local Climate Experts: The Influence of Local TV Weather Information on Climate Change Perceptions”
“This study adds to the literature which emphasizes the value of education on local climate changes as a way to connect the public with the issue of global climate change, and a small but growing body of research suggesting that TV weathercasters can be an effective source of climate education by virtue of the information they provide. This is especially so given that many members of the public trust TV weathercasters as a source of climate information, and that the effect of the exposure to weather forecasts is moderated by trust in TV weathercasters.
That the impact of this coverage is largest on members of society who are least predisposed to know or accept that climate change is occurring (i.e., political conservatives), is an especially important finding because it suggests that TV weathercasters may have an important role to play in bridging the political gap on the issue of climate change. In effect, this may help to move the issue of global climate change out of the realm of the political and back to the realm of the realistic and scientific.”
I think they got that the wrong way round…
A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Interesting to see the BBC putting NAZI dogma into practice.
So much of what Paul does is squandered or not made best use of. The BBC’s refusal to uphold its ‘balanced view’ obligations under its charter does not help.
By way of doing my bit I have sent a copy of the above from Paul to John O’Connell at the Tax Payers Alliance who are unsympathetic to the BBC’s sense of rectitude and entitlement.
Ross Clark ( see Wikipedia) deserves to be lobbied about the BBC’s attitude. Ross wrote well in the S. Telegraph on the 20th March on the folly of Net Zero. Matt Ridley should also be approached on the same basis. Shall I do this if no one else has not done so?
Which brings me to an old theme of mine: why is there no formal basis to ensure that Paul’s efforts are known to a wider public? I see no reason not to enlarge the Subscriber’s list to include competent journalists and scientists as well as Benny Paiser unless it is illegal and requires the involuntary subscribers’ consent.
The BBc/Met Office climate juggernaut only ever rolls in one direction — misdirection.
The usual beeb climate guff, no surprised and neatly and ably defenestrated Paul. Next, one really wonders, who are they trying to convince? Most people will never get to watch this bilge, the fanatics do not need convincing. Thus one might conclude it that, they, the beeb are merely confirming their own purblind political bias.
This is not modern science. Science has moved on from the hide bound methodologies of the 19th century and the models now in use prove that what the BBC is saying is true. Anybody not stuck in that limited mindset of decades ago would grasp this.
Climate Science has been a true leader in this revolution in scientific thought and is not surprising that some struggle to understand the new ways of thinking.
That was fun. Can I have job now?
Careful Harry, someone will lift that and leave out the last sentence.
I have used it socially, when I needed to be ‘right on’. No one demurred. A Physicist, no less, later congratulated me on my insight into things generally completely lost on my generation.
A great big All Seeing Eye on the screen to illustrate a weather report. How interesting.
When you start to believe your own propaganda all hope is lost.
I see that this morning more electricity is being produced from coal 1.19 GW versus wind 1.16 GW.
Is Saudi Arabia running out of wind?
How long will the batteries last out?
They have been drawing on them for 3 days now, and when the wind picks up they will need recharging.
All these short term comparisons.
Like this article.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/people-in-kenya-are-discovering-they-suddenly-own-lakefront-property/ar-AAVlO7C?ocid=msedgntp#comments&commentId=693a5569-5328-4b2b-8e52-7a8af3d3de45
Blimey, it’s that Climate Crisis again, however a quick “Google” produces https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-1437-2_2
Shows a very different picture & links lake levels to sunspot activity.
O/T again but wind 0800 Wednesday is 3.5% of our electricity. Watch Thur and Fri on gridwatch.templar
CdeL: In all public forums – the media, parliament and so on – the only energy references are to electricity and it seems the the fact that the latter forms only 20% of our energy useage is totally overlooked.
Vernon E. I don’t think it is even as high as 20%. If you look at the DUKES reports it is more like 11-15%. Was last time I looked anyhow.
The graph of winter temperatures shows how fradulent these claims are. That “trend” is entirely dependent on how long you use for your calculation. It’s quite apparent that variability is extremely high and there’s no reason to think the last 10-20 years are unusual. The data are trendless. You can see that by looking at the supposed decline in trend from 1930 to 1960. That period has the warmest winters! But it also has the coldest winters. So no actual trend but an increase in variability.
And this is a wholly arbitrary period anyway!
Just utter junk. Seriously a totally false graph.
We nudge and wink when we see the Russian Government being economic with the truth on some incident or another yet gullibly allow ourselves to be lied to by our own institutions
There is a difference. The Russian govt. indulges in deliberate propaganda, they prefer to win by force and deceit rather than fairly, such a win is a demonstration of power. Climate world however is full of greed and groupthink, of which groupthink is the more dangerous. What Russia does is easy for the man on the Clapham omnibus to identify as falsehood, whereas the heartfelt groupthink of Climate world is far more difficult. Most people are good at identifying when someone knows they are lying, when they don’t even know they are telling lies it is far harder.
The contributors to Australian weather is not only Enso, it is also the Indian Ocean Dipole.
Why is the BBC lying and playing with data any less disgusting and unacceptable than the outpourings of the Kremin today?
This is the scientific conundrum. We can take perfectly good data and make it say anything we like. What is missing in the whole of her missive is the correct usage of data or unsubstantiated claims based on what? It is incumbent upon those making analysis to take ALL data, not just the bits and pieces which appear to support a claim. Doing that is to go totally against the scientific method.
The scientific method is not only about the way data is acquired but how it is presented. It is incumbent on the presenter to show the data which does not support their claim or hypothesis. We can also make claims cherry picking parts of datasets ( which makes the data meaningless). We can also lie outright as she is doing and hope no one picks up on it because as is clear when climate is the subject, there are no penalties whatsoever for lying,
Science has been politicised to the detriment of us all. The Enlightenment is over. Science used to be the pursuit of truth. Now it is a hollowed out shell used as a political weapon.
“Statistics is very hard to get right. Statistical models are even harder” – George Box 1976.
Please can you lodge a formal complaint with the BBC? Thank you.
I think the BBC should allow the odd guest presenter to broadcast their monthly climate check. For sake of balance, I suggest that Cap Allon from Electroverse could do a star turn in March regaling the ignorant masses about the numerous extreme ‘record’ cold events that have ravaged various parts of the planet this winter – the type of ‘unprecedented’ weather that regularly seems to sneak under the Beeb’s radar for some unknown reason.
Further to Perth hottest day on record. No it wasn’t.
“Mean daily maximum temperature – above average: The mean daily maximum temperature for Perth this summer was 31.0°C, which was the highest mean daily maximum temperature for Perth in summer since 1977/78, then 32.0°C which was Perth’s hottest summer on record. The average for summer is 30.1°C. Last summer the mean daily maximum temperature was 29.9°C. Daily values this summer ranged from a cool 20.1°C on 6 December 2007 to a very hot 44.2°C on 26 December 2007 (Boxing Day).” Australia Bureau of Meteorology
Propaganda. Dontcha just love it! Gotta support the “cause”. Truth be damned – “the message” is everything.
The UN has looked into its climate crystal ball, or something, and sees trouble ahead — as ever 🙄
UN Plans Global Warning System to Protect Against Worsening Weather Disasters
AFP 24 MARCH 2022
The United Nations said Wednesday it wanted the whole world covered by weather disaster early warning systems within five years to protect people from the worsening impacts of climate change.
https://www.sciencealert.com/un-plans-global-warning-system-to-protect-against-worsening-weather-disasters