BBC Say It’s OK To Lie
By Paul Homewood
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/09/22/bbc-happisburgh-complaint/
Predictably, the BBC have rejected my complaint about the accuracy of the above claim, that “punishing weather conditions linked to climate change have eroded so much of the village’s soft rock”.
In the response from the BBC Executive Complaints Unit, ECU, they were unable to offer any evidence to back up the claim. Nor were they able to provide evidence that the rate of erosion has increased in recent years.
There is no mention in the article of the fact that the coastline at Happisburgh and elsewhere in Norfolk has been eroding at the same rate for thousands of years. This omission was clearly designed to persuade readers that climate change is the main factor behind the erosion.
But according to the ECU, readers would not have been misled, because the article states:
Happisburgh, home to about 1,100 people, is so susceptible to erosion because the cliffs are made from boulder clay which slumps when wet. The narrow beaches give less protection against the powerful waves, which increase in energy as they travel across the North Sea.
Authorities tried erecting wooden and concrete defences, but they fell into disrepair as the cost of maintaining them rose.
The ECU say that this explains “why coastal erosion has been an ongoing issue in Happisburgh for centuries”. It actually says nothing of the sort
The rest of the ECU reply was an irrelevant discussion of climate change, including this gem:
Whether rising sea levels have exacerbated erosion is not relevant to the complaint; the report does not say that, it only mentions climate change.
An honest report would have stated that this sort of erosion has been a problem for thousands of years, and that now rising sea levels may start making it worse.
Yet again, we see just how corrupt the BBC’s complaints process is.
We need a fully independent complaints unit now.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Where does ‘Sir James Bevan’ get his information from? Not the IPCC I think. Is he lying as well? Wouldn’t be surprised.
The BBC has absolutely ZERO evidence to support it’s irresponsible statement. Yet it doubles down on its ignorance. Classic response from people whose only guiding light is the glow of their own self-centered agenda! Elementary science informs us that if changing atmospheric CO2 is a strong force for temperature (“climate” to the science-challenged BBC) change, then the two must be highly correlated (statistically). Yet, they aren’t correlated at all over any meaningful consistent timeframe in the best records available. No correlation means no causation is possible. It’s really that elementary. While many other reasonable science-based arguments can be made against the current “climate change” narrative, the most elementary and readily proven evidence tosses out all theories that try to claim our climate is being altered by a trivial contribution of fossil fuel emissions to the trivial portion of our atmosphere that is carbon dioxide.
Every theory must survive scrutiny by The Scientific Method. Climate change “theory” (claiming CO2 is a strong climate change force) is shown to be invalid by virtue of nature’s clear evidence that climate and atmospheric CO2 content are uncorrelated and, therefore, changing atmospheric CO2 cannot be responsible for changing climate.
The September spike in global temperatures provides a clear example of the silliness of claims that CO2 is the driving force. No spectacular increase in atmospheric CO2 during September, yet a spectacular one-month of very warm weather. There is no rational argument to be made that temperature changes are in any meaningful way impacted by changes in atmospheric CO2.
Those who believe the climate change narrative are challenged to explain how causation can exist between two variables (atmospheric CO2 and temperature) that are uncorrelated.
Bob, I take the position that, if CO2 is the villain of the piece, and, as it seems not to be erratic in it’s change, that it could not always be the villain when circumstances (storms, floods, hotspots) occur in random and out of synch with the very slow rise of CO2. In their need to blame everything on MMCC they forget the natural cycle of WEATHER and other (tidal) cycles. The BBC are preeminent deniers of truth.
Yes, Harry, you point out some of the clear rational reasoning that is missing at BBC and the rest of the WOKE monster.
The entire climate change narrative is built on a very small history of CO2 & temperature… mostly since the second half of the 20th century. Essentially, those determined to blame mankind have to put on their blinders to any other evidence nature provides. Geologic. Ice core. Early recorded evidence. All shut out and ignored while the false foundation of man-made climate change (aka, anthropogenic global warming) is erected.
Such a poor foundation guarantees the MMCC/AGW narrative will collapse.
Most of the extremes happen when the purported cause doesn’t exist. We get extreme storms caused by climate change yet the storms firm in areas with completely normal temperatures. Same with floods. The extremes are claimed based on a global average, and using UAH satellite data, that didn’t increase for 2-3 years. So if temperatures are not increasing, how are extremes?
Slightly off topic, I have sent a complaint to the BBC about their Radio 4/World Service reporting of the ‘record’ September temperatures, claiming without evidence that they were due to human originated emissions, though to be fair they did cite el Nino as a contributor. I have pointed out the warming over the last three months, which is indeed appreciable, could not conceivably be due to human originated CO2 which would have risen by around one part in a 100 million in the same period.
I don’t hold my breath awaiting a credible response.
Correct, Bob.
A graph of atmospheric CO2 vs GMT, from 1979, falsifies MMGW. No correlation.
It’s really that simple.
And the record from 1979 is the best evidence the proponents of the grand hoax of AGW have to offer!
A view of 1940 to 2014:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5ceno9oyjka30wy3ogiuz/Fig-4-6-1940-Y2Y-components-pp.gif?rlkey=fahmi51h3h0z02ibsjisraeb0&dl=0
Note the correlation coefficients, all less than 0.2… no correlation, no causation possible.
The chart is from my book, “Looking Out the Window / Are Humans Really Responsible for Climate Change? / The Trial of Carbon Dioxide in the Court of Public Opinion” available through amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. Be a juror in the trial of CO2, IPCC is head prosecutor, the book provides the defense, readers are the jury.
Bob, as we learn from the following link, for the IPCC it is NOT about the science (if it ever was!). Instead it is about wealth redistribution, often from poorer peolple to very much richer people:-
Regards, John.
The Met office is no different they are fully signed up to ‘Man Made’ Climate change and since they are funded by my taxes I am apalled at their ignorance of factual evidence, wait, could they possibly be handling the truth carelessly?
Both the IPCC – formed by the UNFCC to prove human climate change – and the Met Office are global warming activist groups and not scientific organisations.
Ofcom, packed with ex-Beeboids, is worse than useless.
https://ofcomlive.my.salesforce-sites.com/formentry/SitesFormBBCIntroductory?complaintType=SitesFormBBCStandardsComplaints
Does anyone know to whom complaints *about* Ofcom should be sent?
GBNews? Pravda?
Exceptional circumstances which might lead Ofcom to accept a complaint which has not previously completed the BBC’s complaints process may include (but are not limited to) where there are potential concerns about material that:
is likely to incite crime;
may cause financial or physical harm, or harm to minors;
involves under 18s in a programme or series;
raises problematic issues of a systemic nature within the broadcasting industry that may affect the BBC; or
has resulted in a ‘whistleblower’ complaint that it may not be appropriate for the BBC to resolve first.
The final decision as to whether any exceptional circumstances apply rests with Ofcom.
Get your shoehorn out. Of course, they won’t ever tackle “the problematic issues of a systemic nature within the broadcasting industry”.
Well done, Paul!! I admire your persistence against such dissembling. It is a classic ploy of the Left to answer a question you don’t ask by pretending you made a point that they can attack. I hope against hope that there are many, many of these dissemblers who will, in time, come to realise the error of their ways – and repent. Hah!!! (Probably be too late then – but how I want these b’stds to suffer!)
Perhaps because I mentioned it, but Harrabin’s acceptance speech for his honorary doctorate from Cranfield has now been memory holed. The one where he said that 73% of the truth is alright.
Which is the way that propaganda lies build credibility. I guess he experimented with the optimal truth content.
‘But punishing weather conditions linked to climate change’
K. Let us have the links.
“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.” — UN
I think I’ve got it. The ‘punishing weather conditions’ are caused by long-term shifts in weather patterns.
What have we here, laddie? Weather change is caused by weather change?
Because I have a strange mind which sees connections in unremarkable random conjunctions… and having used the acronym of MMCC, I was taken back to watching old Rank (man with the gong) films as a child and trying to work out what year they were made from the Roman numerals……and figuring out that MMCC is 2200 – a mere 167 years’ hence. Nearly seven generations hence. I so hope they are not then still recovering from the balls-up the likes of the WEF and the IPCC have made of things for them. But, most of all, I hope the names of a few of the contributors to the scare will be remembered and reviled as I do so revile them today.
Government approved coastal abandonment triggered by failed IPCC climate models which state that sea level rise is beyond control when in fact sea level rise is not accelerating. The government’s cost benefit analysis changed 20 years ago to an 8 fold increase due to the IPCC predictions which have shown to be wrong. This cost benefit analysis requires returning to its original level then Happisburgh can be saved.
Any links Jon?
The abandonment of the uk coast is stated in the Climate Change Committee’s own documentation.
I’ll forward a link to their documentation a moment.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/3d7d89b8-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/3d7d89b8-en
This shows the cost benefit ratio for Happisborough not meeting the government required 8 to 1 line in the sand drawn up 20 years ago.
Basically Happisburgh has been abandoned because its not worth spending money protecting.
You should mention this to Marianna Spring, the BBC disinformation officer. But there again she is a born liar too, so no change there. (She lied to get the job.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianna_Spring
I cannot find the website link for her office. I found it previously, so perhaps the BBC have taken her off-line…?
Ralph
” … so perhaps the BBC have taken her off-line…?”
She’s reappeared on X/Twitter.
But really doesn’t like reminding her credibility is kaput.
This is not intended as an ad-hom comment about Marianna Spring and I also have no explanation for my own, highly subjective, feelings. However, when I see photos of her and people of her ilk (even if I know nothing about them) I feel a very bad vibe. I think it’s probably the “shutters” I can see behind their eyes, a sort of “you are not allowed in” look. Doesn’t matter if they are smiling/laughing, scowling, whatever, there is always something about the eyes I not only distrust but particularly dislike. Probably just me, but that particular “look” is independent of gender, race, age, size or any other parameter.
Very disturbing.
It’s not just you. The look is common in those people who believe, wrongly, that they are superior to us proles
I know I said this before, but Nicola Bayless should never have been allowed to purchase her property without being clearly informed by the local authority that it would fall into the sea within her lifetime. And the real estate company should never have been allowed to sell the property without providing the same information. However, I suspect that the owner of the company that sold it to her is on the Norfolk Council.
It says her parents lived there, so presumably she inherited it.
Should not these frightening headlines and nonsense predictions be banned by Law?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/parts-sussex-could-swallowed-sea-040000153.html
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/areas-south-essex-could-underwater-110000620.html
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/12/0.6513/51.55/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2030&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&refresh=true&return_level=return_level_1&rl_model=gtsr&slr_model=kopp_2014
Probably O/T but on a similar vein: On BBC SCOTLAND this now, a Docu filmed over 5 years in USA “FLINT” – the untold story .. about water supply / shortage and the abuse of power, etc… ‘ Documentary filmed over five years exploring the untold story of the man-made disaster that continues to haunt America. Narrated by Alec Baldwin.’ butnot available on I-Player this now.
Oh! oh! and Pb in the water too …..
Hmm, Fluoride etc in OUR water ?
What rising sea levels???????
Probably should also have complained the Nicola is described as a nurse and then as a fitness instructor!
To make the claim, the BBC must gave had data showing (i) erosion increasing in rate and (ii) sea level there rising in correlation. If it doesn’t, it cannot make the claim. Simply saying “but climate change will do bad things” doesn’t prove that this bad thing was done by climate change. This is post-truth reporting, where journalists think they can make up causes to suit their own prejudices.
If it is OK for them to lie then it must fine not to pay them.