Rowlatt Facing Two Complaints Over Panorama
By Paul Homewood
You will recall the Panorama edition last November, “Wild Weather- Our World Under Threat”. Presented by Justin Rowlatt, it attempted to show that the world’s weather was getting worse because of global warming:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00117h1/panorama-wild-weather-our-world-under-threat
The programme highlighted four weather disasters, yet failed to offer even the slightest evidence that they were either unusual or becoming worse.
One of the four concerned a drought in Madagascar, which Rowlatt described as “the world’s first climate change-induced famine.”
Shortly after the programme was aired, a scientific study proved that his claim was nonsense, and that equally severe droughts had occurred there in the past.
I filed a complaint about this, only to be fobbed off with the response that they had been told this by the World Meteorological Organisation,WMO. I have now escalated my complaint to the Executive Complaints Unit, ECU, pointing out that since this was a major segment of the programme, the failure to check the actual data, which is readily available, was extremely shoddy journalism. Regardless of their excuses, a full correction needed to be broadcast.
The Panorama edition also included this opening statement by Rowlatt:
“The world is getting warmer and our weather is getting ever more unpredictable and dangerous. The death toll is rising around the world”
This is another lie. According to the same WMO:
Deaths decreased almost threefold from 1970 to 2019. Death tolls fell from over 50 000 deaths in the 1970s to less than 20 000 in the 2010s. The 1970s and 1980s reported an average of 170 related deaths per day. In the 1990s, that average fell by one third to 90 related deaths per day, then continued to fall in the 2010s to 40 related deaths per day.
Another reader complained about this, and received this astonishing reply:
In other words, the BBC justify their claim because the cumulative number of deaths is rising!
Needless to say, he too has escalated to the ECU.
It is clear that Rowlatt is facing big problems here. He has already been rebuked by BBC News bosses about his lies regarding offshore wind costs last year. He is now facing two complaints over this flagship Panorama edition.
Regardless of the ECU decision, it is crystal clear that Rowlatt is far too emotionally attached to climate issues on a personal level to be able to report accurately and objectively.
He should be removed from the climate brief.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Religious converts are the hardest to reverse.
All strength to your arm, Paul.
I hope that much will be made of Rowlatt’s known commitment to certain attitudes and his total unsuitability to report dispassionately on this topic. Not that we expect the BBC to surrender its determined bias on the subject.
The BBC and Rowlatt are deranged when it come to weather……the fail to use real data and always get into emotional and baseless claims and focus on generating fear. They are a total disgrace
A bit like the Government and Covid really. We live in a Post-Modern world. When facts do surface they are to be buried quickly and those that speak the truth are to be smeared and denigrated.
The trouble is we are now subject to propaganda on all topics all the time. It may have been like this for years – but it is now part of the “left” bias permeating every part of the western world – even from the so called “right”. The long march through the institutions; the everybody should go to university to be indoctrinated (not educated); the lack of balanced journalism on most topics.
I might be an old man, but I find politicians (all stripe) that are younger than my children difficult to take seriously. And that’s most of them.
The present Mrs Walker (as Terry Wogan would say) tells me to stop worrying – I will be dead soon enough.
Rowlatt is obviously deranged – it is a good job most of us who come here are made of sterner stuff.
some splendid behavioral insights there T Walker
He will not be removed from his BBC climate emergency confirmation role as that is what his job is.
Our elected MP’S have voted for a climate emergency and net zero policy, it’s not important that there is no evidence this is politics.
It is a pity the government demolished all the power stations, but it really doesn’t matter.
Lies on the BBC? Whatever next? I suppose ‘impartiality’ depends on where your politics lie.
No, on where your earnings lie.
I recently hosted the first birthday party for my grandson which was attended by a large number of young parents with their toddlers. The subject of TV came up when I switched on to stream a video online. Of the 11 households at that party, mine was the only one paying the license fee. All the rest saw no point and simply did not watch live television though they all variously had Netflix et alia. As one mother aptly put it “why pay to watch a load of made up BS” So it does make me wonder quite who the BBC believe they are actually fooling because it certainly is not young working people.
Ray,
The UK licence states that all live television requires a licence even international foreign sourced programmes broadcast online. A Classic example of mission creep.
I think that is not quite correct. Since 2003 (thank you St.Tone, may God damn your eyes) a licence is required to watch anything that is being shown as live TV anywhere in the world. However it must be exactly what is being broadcast live to require the licence, so a sports event being broadcast by the BBC with their logo requires a licence, but same feed with the Amazon logo instead will not require a licence, because that is not being broadcast live anywhere.
Philip, Harry is correct. You only require a TV Licence in the UK for live broadcasts by the BBC and its terrestrial competitors plus BBC (TV) iPlayer. Catch up TV on ITV, C4 & C5 require no TV Licence, nor the outside UK streaming services.
Harry & Up2snuff
I am not so sure. This is from the licensing website:
What is not clear to me is if this applies to watching live foreign TV. But then I suspect this obfuscation on their part is deliberate.
Next they will demand a licence for your party livestream.
My belief trumps your data.
Conviction politics is at best summed up by “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.
You are a generous man Philip – I struggle to see where the “good intentions” are most of the time.
Does the BBC carry out “Reality Check” on programmes to be broadcast?
Who cares? If you ever look at a BBC ‘Reality Check’ they generally contain more falsehoods than truth.
They did a “reality check” on a statement made by John Redwood MP in a radio interview when he rightly pointed out that Germany’s CO2 emissions were double those of the UK. The “check” actually started by confirming he was correct but then continued with an essay justifying these higher German emissions for no apparent reason. I personally complained about this waste of time exercise and got a ridiculous answer relating to me allegedly expressing concern that John Redwood was being misrepresented. I pointed out what i was obviously complaining about and they accepted and apologised for their misunderstanding of my point…and then said it was up to me to now escalate the complaint as they had answered me once (completely wrongly) and that was all they had to do!
You were informed by the BBC that the World Meteorological Organization was the source of the claim the 2021 Madagascar drought was the ‘worlds first climate change induced famine ” ?
That’s strange . The UN’s Stephen O’Brien declared in March 2017 that climate change was behind ” the worst famine since 1945 ” ……And again in 2018 the UN fanned the famine hysteria attributing global hunger to climate change ….So was the watershed year 2017 , 2018 or 2021 ? The BBC could easily have checked Rowlatt’s grandiose pronouncement with a 5 minute internet search .It is another lie
” ….the BBC justify their claim because the cumulative number of deaths is rising ”
That depends on the meaning of ‘cumulative ” Paul
[i] ” Incorporating all data up to the present ……That is formed by accumulation of successive additions
[ii] ” increasing or increased in quantity ,degree ,or force by successive additions ”
Whichever time period is considered – 1970 to 2019 or the EM DAT climate related deaths timescale 1920 – 2020 – the number of cumulative fatalities has decreased [ a 95% decline in the case of the EM DAT figures ] according to the standard definitions of
“cumulative “.
Rowlatt lied and the BBC is stooping to semantic sophistry in the handling of complaints.
Well done Paul for persevering.
Perversely and somewhat amusingly, they use pictures of the devastating power of sudden & massive flooding to attempt to convince some of climate change. They do this while simultaneously denying the power of water that is the testimony of the erosive strength in creation and the formation of canyons, etc., as evidenced by layers of sedimentary rock deposited by the Global Flood of geology. It’s the same lies with different hats.
A sad state of affairs when the science is so ‘settled’ that the national broadcaster has to willfully deceive and lie to the public. Pure propaganda.
I wish — as a founder member of Pedants Anonymous — that organisations such as the WMO would at least try to understand the implication (and hopefully the meaning) of what they say/write.
It is not possible for “deaths to decrease threefold” and though they might know what they are trying to convey the phrase is so meaningless as to leave it open to virtually any meaning that takes your fancy. Death is an absolute event; it cannot decrease!
“The number of deaths has reduced by two thirds” is better but still so vague that it is still ambiguous — though it’s possible that is the intention!
“The annual death rate due to [insert relevant condition here] has fallen by x% since year y (or is only z% of what it was in year y)” is about the only way I can think of offhand that provides an indisputable statement of fact.
You can argue it may be wrong but at least you are then disputing a straightforward claim, not meaningless waffle.
BBC: “The death toll is rising.”
Complainant: “No it isn’t.”
BBC: “We meant the cumulative death toll.”
This goes beyond stupidity and into the realms of ass-covering having been caught out. I would be ashamed to proffer such an excuse.
My “recent” experience with the complaints department is here: https://cliscep.com/2022/03/02/a-short-letter-to-the-complaints-department/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16161907
See my post above, Jit. It’s exactly my point. To say “the cumulative death toll is rising” is the same as saying “tomorrow follows today”! Unless and until someone invents a time machine there will always be more people dead today than there were last week. It’s meaningless.
HOW MANY have died in that week compared to the previous week might tell us something. The total number of deaths since Cain killed Abel tells us nothing.
same bullshit manipulation of and lies about statistics that the BBC have applied to covid over the last two years
Nothing more than a lie. There is simply no way that’s what they meant. They lie, there again to cover it.
Hands up who knew that the BBC employed, and Telly-Taxpayers funded, a “Climate disinformation reporter”?
Not just a checker, but a ‘reporter’!
A Ms Merlyn Thomas:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60905348
Truly amazing. What astonishes me is the lack of any relevant qualification. How does a Language degree qualify you to determine whether a matter of science is fact or ficton?
Why would it not? She’s checking “facts”, not conducting research. What’s ridiculous is scientists claiming they are the Truth.
The uncontrolled brain washing is everywhere: Birmingham City University have just launched an “Educational game” called Climania to add to the welter of techno-babble being presented to kids nowadays. Manic it certainly is!
The launch of this drivel was as below:-
A group of young people have joined forces with researchers at Birmingham City University to create an innovative new boardgame to help raise awareness of key issues surrounding climate change.
Over a two-month period they collaborated with researchers and other partners to create a free resource for families and communities to learn about the impact of the built environment on climate change – known as CLIMANIA.
Players take turns to answer questions about climate and built environment issues, building up their climate change knowledge to win retrofit components and race against time to reach the centre of the board, reinforcing the message of rising global temperatures. The game stimulates creativity, discussions and collaboration.
So having your gas bills and your house insulated is brain washing?
Go play the game and see if you end up brain washed ❤ I am sure you will enjoy it! xxx
So when the zombies rise from their graves does the cumulative death toll go down?
Those charged with a function will inevitably want to show themselves in a good light. These people are just doing their jobs. The thing at fault is the process controlling them. Media items need to have dramatic tensions. Ministers need to show results. The BBC complaints procedure is deeply faulted (perhaps if one of their people were to criticised it might hurt their feelings). They brush aside complaints on their terms not on real world views. Kwarteng is caught up in preferment and the stupidity of his job title and fundamentally goes rogue to qualify both; his master, broad brush, not great on detail, is the fly in the ointment. His great mistake is he qualifies his post by trying to find issues he understands (a bit) and seeking fame on the back of those he believes are as the focus groups have reported. He sees weather complainants on the street and they become the consensus, having failed to qualify his stance at the ballot. The whole thing is a sham
The trouble is, the BBC has gone way beyond “the science” as defined by ttecIPCC and the dwindling band of honest climate scientists. This sort of stuff isn’t remotely science, it is political propoganda churned out by extreme activists. Far too many people are unaware of this and take the unhinged claims about extinctions seriously.
Justin Rowlatt was on the Today programme this morning 31st March at 8.50am, praising Heat Pumps. He said that for every 1kw into the house this is converted by the Heat Pump system into 3-4kw in the house?? Rowlatt also said that it means we do not have to rely on Gas any more….. This item starts at 2h 50m 30secs into the BBCiPlayer iteme here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0015vh4
Where does JR think the electricity comes from? At the moment we’re getting over 40% of it from burning gas! Comfortably more than wind, solar and biomass added together.
it’s a bit windy and sunny here in the UK Midlands, but chilly at 4°C. When JR’s heat pump comes on the only thing that can ramp up to feed it is a gas fired power station, since everything else is going full tilt. So you can argue it’s 100% gas powered.
Since gas fired power stations are 50% efficient at best and another several % vanish in transmission losses, then his 1kW into the house came from burning maybe 2.5kW of gas. And good luck with getting a Coefficient of Performance of 3 to 4 when the outside temperature drops below freezing. Even today it could well be less than 2.5.
So, at vast expense and complexity, burn 2.5kW of gas in a power station to achieve 2.5kW of heat in the house. Or burn the gas in the house in the first place.
Remember that Rowlatt’s sister is an XR eco terrorist,
@PH Thanks for your efforts. What a shoddy response from the BBC – disgraceful!
More of the BBC pushing an agenda as opposed to reporting facts.
Appalling.