Skip to content

BBC Hurricane Complaint–Stage 2

December 5, 2022

By Paul Homewood



You will recall the BBC’s Reality Check, which claimed that “there’s evidence they’re [hurricanes] getting more powerful”, which I raised a complaint over.

I have just received their Stage i response, which is the usual fob off.


bbc 2

I have fired back this:


1) Your response is that hurricane intensity has increased over the past 40 years.

However the IPCC report you quote clearly states: "There is low confidence in long term (multidecadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of tropical cyclones". As the links I have already provided state, there was a dip in Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1960s to 80s, since which hurricane activity and intensity has returned to earlier levels. The dip was associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a natural cycle. (See here:

It is grossly misleading to not report the longer term trends. The NASA report you quote also only mentions "since 1980". Readers are surely entitled to the full picture.

2) Regarding naming of storms, your reply totally fails to address my original complaint that the increase in named storms is due to better observation. Consequently your report is grossly misleading, as it implies hurricanes are becoming more frequent

3) Re Hurricane Ida, the video claims that the heavy rainfall over New York is an example of how climate change is affecting hurricanes. However you fail to offer any evidence that Ida’s rainfall was in any way unusual, or that such events are becoming more common or intense.

The video ends by claiming: "“The current evidence suggests that ….. hurricanes that do develop have the potential to be stronger, wetter and more devastating” There is no evidence to support any of this.

  1. REM permalink
    December 5, 2022 2:52 pm

    Well done Paul. Keep at ’em.

    I’ve just noticed more “news” in the Times. It supports onshore wind (of course) and now it seems, in a survey conducted on their behalf, so does a majority of Tory voters. Even if the turbines are close to their homes! The only people I know who support them are farmers and landowners who stand to benefit from them. Of those, none live next to where they would like to see the windmills erected. Unbelievable.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      December 5, 2022 9:04 pm

      There aren’t many Tory voters left. Thy probably own the land on which wind farms might be built, but live somewhere else.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      December 6, 2022 10:44 am

      Ask a general question in which one if the answers is the “morally correct” one, and everyone picks that.

      Ask them if they want a giant windfarm spoiling their view and making annoying noise whilst killing birds and you will get a different answer. Lies, nothing more.

  2. Paul B. permalink
    December 5, 2022 2:58 pm

    Good response – nail on head!
    I look forward to reading the next “manipulation” from the BBC. Who compiles these responses – is it that climate “expert”, Justin Rowlatt?

  3. December 5, 2022 2:59 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  4. December 5, 2022 3:02 pm

    ECU here you come….

    BBC response to your point 1: quotes ‘It is likely….”; not unequivocal, purely surmise, despite two citations – why is The BBC only able to state “likely” if they cite two references – is these data within the same categoric….or not?;
    BBC response to your point 2 : “We would like to clarify”; ergo, their article was , by their very own admission above, incapable of being unmistaken as published originally therefore misleading ( without mentioning intent or otherwise but then again..);
    BBC Response to your point 3: BBC admit they did not include a key fact which may have led readers to a better understanding that hurricanes do or do not retain force if they scope up enough rain before landfall (depending on a host of other factors not mentioned either). The fact of the rainfall in NY is indisputable, but only due to natural weather variation….

    The concluding statement “..the current evidence suggests” can only refer to evidence that may be capable of more than one interpretation rather than a cast iron certainty, and cherry picks information to the exclusion of other information that would provide a fair balance without being narratively agenda driven and judgemental.

    In my experience and I am certain in yours, a very large non fossil fuelled carriage pulled by a team of naturally organic matter recycling horses can be driven through Stage 1 reply. The killer would be a FoI request to ask for any and all internal documents which instruct these Fact checking morons how to answer complaints especially AGW/CC subject matter where The BBC have already gone on record that “the science is settled” and no balance is required in content ( or complaint response either?) i.e 2009 (?) internal event attended by the current DG..

  5. Harry Passfield permalink
    December 5, 2022 3:35 pm

    I’m still struggling with one their contentions: that the change in climate is causing more storms and hurricanes. There is a chicken and egg thing going on here, no?

    • December 6, 2022 11:09 am

      ‘Climate change’ is just their code for ‘CO2 increase’.

    • Climate Heretic permalink
      December 11, 2022 2:01 am

      ‘Climate Change’ is what they use instead of ‘Global Warming’. Climate Change is what they used to move / change the goal posts. Why did they move the goal posts? Global Warming was not occurring!

      Climate Heretic

      • Stuart Hamish permalink
        December 11, 2022 7:20 am

        You do not understand the moving the goalposts fallacy…

        global warming . . climate change …climate disruption [ as if to assume the climate is unchangingly equilibrious ] heating .. Its called ” loading the language ” or ‘ Newspeak ” …..

  6. December 5, 2022 3:39 pm

    don’t like BBC reporting? Try CNN: after reading this – – I checked weather for the Saint-Firmin region. Found a snow warning and an avalanche warning. An avalanche warning for a region that hasn’t had snow in 15 years!

  7. Gamecock permalink
    December 5, 2022 3:45 pm

    ‘the video claims that the heavy rainfall over New York is an example of how climate change is affecting hurricanes’

    I would demand:

    1. Define ‘climate change,’

    2. Using that definition, explain how it caused heavy rainfall over New York. Attribution demands explanation!

    BBC uses ‘climate change’ as a SPIRIT, creating mischief. ‘Climate change’ is no more concrete than a poot.

  8. ancientpopeye permalink
    December 5, 2022 4:31 pm

    Nice one Paul but as you obviously know the BBC will never admit to lying to their tax-paying public.

  9. Chris Phillips permalink
    December 5, 2022 4:34 pm

    As ever the BBC’s response is “we’re right, you’re wrong, so go away. Their arrogance is despicable.

  10. Broadlands permalink
    December 5, 2022 4:49 pm

    The NASA report you quote also only mentions “since 1980″…

    That’s when the NASA satellite coverage began. It does not negate earlier evidence.

    • daveR permalink
      December 5, 2022 5:57 pm

      Broadlands, earlier NOAA satellite data might pre-date NASA. This is from Tony Heller’s site:

      ‘The 1990 IPCC report showed some of the inconvenient data, which NOAA is now hiding. However, it did not show the 12% increase prior to 1972.

      satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent routinely since the early 1970s. The American Navy Joint Ice Center has produced weekly charts which have been digitised by NOAA. ‘

      … more at

  11. Mal permalink
    December 5, 2022 4:57 pm

    They’re amateurs Paul. But great response mate!

  12. December 5, 2022 7:26 pm

    Paul, you have the patience of a saint. Bravo

  13. W Flood permalink
    December 5, 2022 11:06 pm

    The BBC are not employed to be weather/climate experts. They make programmes.

  14. Stuart Hamish permalink
    December 6, 2022 2:37 am

    ” we disagree ……….. there are many trusted scientific organizations that have come to this same conclusion ” ……..

    The BBC is resorting to Appeal to Authority ” and valuing opinion [ “we disagree” is not a valid rebuttal . It is an admission of institutional
    groupthink . ] in lieu of any discussion of the relevant scientific data .. Ryan Maue’s global ACE and hurricane frequency index’s which show hurricanes are at their lowest ebb globally since 1987 are , unsurprisingly not included in the fobbing links and have not been refuted by the BBC which is telling . The statement ” hurricanes that do develop have the potential to be ” is a sneaky sleight of hand deflection from empirical evidence to speculation . Furthermore the BBC’s citation of Hurricane Ida is indeed misleading as it is only one storm and New York only one geographical pinpoint – not a historical time series of hurricanes making landfall over wider areas .The BBC’s climate propaganda and blatant deceptions signify a failure at the highest levels of the United Kingdom’s nominally conservative government as they control the purse strings and have the power to enforce the BBC’s charter . The condescending tone of the letter in response to Pauls complaint indicates the BBC is more concerned with sophistry than honestly answering to , and rectifying , errors and deceptions .Anyone who has watched the Tommy Robinson documentary Panodrama will understand the BBC routinely and egregiously flouts the UK public broadcasters charter obligations

  15. Stuart Hamish permalink
    December 6, 2022 3:44 am

    Paul the NASA report provided in the BBC response to your complaint is focussed on climate modelling of future hurricane intensities and the North Atlantic basin under the section ” What do the observations show ?” … Heightened hurricane activity in the Atlantic is not evidence of a proliferation of increased hurricane ACE on a global scale and certainly not a rebuttal of your complaint …The NASA link is deceptive obscurantism and cherry picking on the BBC ‘s behalf …Why did you not pull the BBC up on this ?

  16. dodgy geezer permalink
    December 6, 2022 8:40 am

    The likely result of not accepting the BBC’s first set of lies is that you will be labelled as a troublemaker and banned from future discussion.

    If you then continue to complain it will be considered harassment and a matter for the courts.

  17. Rah permalink
    December 6, 2022 10:38 am

    The increase in named storms is also because the NHC has been naming storms they would not have named 10 – 20 years ago.

    Joe Bastardi mentioned this a couple times this last season and made his case by showing a significant decline in the intensity of TS over that period according to ACE numbers.

  18. December 6, 2022 12:03 pm

    As regards New York City, I have seen mention of a theory that tall buildings cause weather systems to stall and therefore dump more of their rain in one place. This first appeared in relation to Houston. But I presume this is an area that won’t receive funding as it is contrary to the global warming religion which is a shame as it would be valuable to know if this is true. There has been a big increase in tall buildings in London for example and I can recall approaching Frankfurt and being surprised by all the tall buildings that were not there on my last visit during Carter’s reign as US President.

  19. December 7, 2022 12:07 am

    NASA has people that do science
    However the NASA website is a PR operation
    .. So it is a red flag when people quote it.

    December 7, 2022 9:22 am

    Hi Paul. Check out Matt Ridley in this mornings Telegraph.John Bowers

    Sent from Mail for Windows

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: