Do The BBC Deliberately Lie?
By Paul Homewood
Someone questioned whether the BBC deliberately lie about climate change.
It’s a moot point, but in my experience I tend to believe that they are simply not interested in facts and data.
They have their preconditioned beliefs and their reporters have been indoctrinated within the BBC bubble.
The Sudan story exemplifies this. They find a story, in this case “heatwaves close schools in Sudan”, get a couple of comments about how exceptional the weather is (which they never make any attempt to corroborate), and jump to the conclusion that it must be hotter in summer.
As the whole story fits into their “global warming view of the world”, it never occurs to them that it might be wrong.
It was the same a year or so ago, when they broadcast a video, claiming that “there is evidence that hurricanes are getting more powerful”.
Not only is there no such evidence, even NOAA repeatedly tell us that hurricanes are not getting stronger on multi-decadal or centennial scales.
But in BBC World, it is “obvious” that they must be, so why worry about actual data?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I think it’s more prosaic than that Paul. I would say they generally have a leftish tilt (so do I) but they suffer from financial restrictions and aren’t the bottomless money pit that many like to project. I’ve got Andrew Marr on the radio as I post this. He left the BBC for the dosh. He is known as a soft interviewer which is why he got some of the bigger names on his various programmes. I only mention him because I know that despite the big bucks from LBC the journalists or commentators he entices onto his show are paid abysmally or not at all. This is worth bearing in mind with the Sudan story.
Journalists are POORLY paid and always pitching stories to get payment and/or recognition. They need to be seen and will push stories that they think will get into print or other media. Most climate claims aren’t stress tested as you have proven many times. I think the responsibility for the claims in Sudan are the responsibility of Matt Taylor. The other two are just reporting a story that they will get credit for and they don’t profess to be experts. I think the problem is lack of electric power. The UK isn’t the only country that cannot afford to maintain or update its grid. There is NO BBC conspiracy. It is as political as the NHS and Local Councils. Often run by an ideology that cannot keep up with the changing landscape.
“There is NO BBC conspiracy.” ?
I take it the term “BBC 28-Gate” passed you by.
Simply not accurate, as those leaving the BBC have described and as those still there tell people. The younger generation as at other media – are completely Woke, completely left-wing and utterly intolerant of any other view. They know the truth about everything – weirdly it always fits with their preexisting opinions - and they are confident that those wo disagree are just evil.
Ron, your comment interested me so I investigated further. Firstly, the article regarding South Sudan included an obviously false claim that March temperatures were exceptionally hot and that it gets hotter in summer. The evidence Paul presented clearly refuted both points.
However you claimed, indirectly, that they do not “lie” and there is no conspiracy. You defended the authors on grounds of not professing to be experts and also “poorly paid” as if these points somehow justify gross inaccuracy.
Looking at the real facts indicates completely the opposite. The authors are – Nichola Mandil who is actually from South Sudan and attended university there – are we to believe he does not know how hot and precisely when it gets hot in his homeland? Wedaeli Chibelush is a BBC Africa correspondent also from the area so it is similarly unlikely she would not know the reality. Matt Taylor is a professional meteorologist, probably supplied the reference and would have to be grossly incompetent to have got this accidentally wrong.
The reality comes across as blatantly lying beyond any reasonable doubt. The only purpose to lie would be a policy of disinformation i.e. a conspiracy.
I also discovered you have extremely close familial ties with a young award winning journalist formerly at the BBC….is this connection perhaps overly influencing your views?
At what salary do you acquire a soul?
Paul, you are kind and generous to a fault.
Re-read the saga of “28 Gate” again and try to imagine that the BBC doesn’t lie absolutely deliberately, laughing up their sleeves.
I was going to make the same comment about 28Gate. Since the BBC accepted man-made climate change and decided not to allow any scientific dissent from the “scientific consensus”, they have to lie to keep the propaganda going.
I wonder how they’ll report under a Labour government ..
Not to mention that the BBC spent over £200,000 of other people’s money to try to keep 28-gate attendees hidden.
They no doubt claim they are all ‘innocent’ lies. To lie with intent is one thing but to lie through ignorance is another.
These liars describe their lies as “noble lies” or “lying for the common good”.
Mendacity runs through the BBC like BLACKPOOL runs through a stick of Lancashire seaside rock candy.
Do the BBC lie? Probably.
But, as has been mentioned before, what they certainly do not do is give balanced reporting. At the BBC-28 seminar, they decided to NEVER give the other side of the scientific story.
BBC-28
https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/
Ralph.
And they decided that so that they could push the non-scientific “solutions for climate change without regard for different opinions. They constantly use “scientists” to claim we must do things that are political and economic choices.
Emphatically yes they do! Other than promoting garbage as somehow representative of science, they also commit the cardinal sin of lying by omission
I see they employ this weasel practice as a standard style of reporting right across the board never telling the whole story.
I begin to see the way the BBC report as an art form because they cleverly construct articles fitting all their misleading ideas into the title and first couple of paragraphs hiding critical information (if they ever bother to share) in the last couple of paragraphs. This is cynical, clearly following psychological advice on how the great unwashed get their information which is mostly from headlines and the next subset from headlines and the first couple of paragraphs. I see they think they are being clever. Also when in a corner they will invariably claim that they are just publishing comments/or work done by others. You will never see a disclaimer, however. Strangely, the articles they promote only comes from the scientifically challenged side of the climate discussion. Also you never ever see them invoke their fact checkers on the loony tunes they promote.
^^
Are the BBC being dishonest as an organisation?
Are there individuals employed by the BBC who are being dishonest?
There are other similar questions like does the sun rise in the east ? Is the Pope a Catholic? Do politicians practice knee jerks? The correct answer in each case is YES.
I suggest based on multiple examples that it is a culture condoned right from the very top. In fact it is a protected culture. It is said a fish rots from the head and that suggests that key appointees during the last 20 years infected with the mind virus recruited people in their own likeness and hey presto you have the BBC for whom the lowest form of life is a white christian heterosexual male from England lower than anyone and everyone else. Add that to their inability to report anything without clear left wing bias I suggest sadly to repeat the leftie mantra, this is one institution which does need defunding and deprived of the oxygen we are forced to pay them. Do that and they will go back to worthless jobs teaching worthless subjects in increasingly irrelevant institutions laughably called universities.
^^
Fraud by false representation:
The defendant:
A representation is defined as “false” if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Actual knowledge that the representation might be untrue is required not awareness of a risk that it might be untrue.
All the above from the “Crown Prosecution Service” :
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006
pardonme: As usual I concur with your comment. Lies of omission are lies just the same. They occur constantly in the BBC and all the other MSM. To get a picture even approaching the truth these days one has to rely on multiple sources of information then make one’s own judgement.
I read as wide a set of opinions as I can even though it is a struggle.
“Know your enemy”.
Cheers!
There are stories that appear as BBC simply being stenographers; people send them things to publish, and they publish them. No actual omission by BBC occurs. They just post it. Without reading.
Lying . . . AND taking no responsibility . . . AND having no integrity.
They do that of course but if to consider RowRATs nonsense about Cocoa production in only ONE country in West Africa. It would have taken him 2 minutes on WorldData.com to find the quoted issue clearly was very recent and local, an outlier, trashing the claim of Klymutt Sheyngshe. The fact he did not do basic journalism is unacceptable. The fact he is doing this to further a cause using the BBC with the complicity of his superiors is shocking only in the lack of questions the state of the BBC gets in Parliament.
Yes, pmfb, there are many ways to be dishonest. BBC is guilty of lying AND so much more.
Perhaps gullible BBC employees have been deluded by its incessant propaganda?
When officers in my local council include the words Carbon Literacy Trained in their signature moniker as a badge of their virtue, you know they’ve been indoctrinated. Councillors (of all parties) are just as bad; it’s a virtue signalling race to the bottom.
i was listening to some yesterday. We’ve had no snow this year so let’s save some money and get rid of the snow ploughs. Er, the plough is only a part of the gritter vehicles and they have been out numerous times when temperatures have dropped. Then some genius suggested snow ploughs could be fitted to the front of the dust carts, like they do in the USA, conveniently forgetting that we need to grit the roads more often. How do you do that with a dust cart?
When officers in my local council include the words Carbon Literacy Trained in their signature moniker as a badge of their virtue,
I initially read that as wearing a badge marked “Carbon Literacy Trained” . Bizarrely, it does appear that such badges are available to wear.
The Sudan story you highlighted seems to have disappeared from the BBC website unless you have a link.
They have a story about famine in Sudan due to civil war
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-68606201
It’s my belief that people like Rowlatt, McGrath, Heap and former employees like Shukman now working freelance for people like the Grantham Institute are aware of criticism and deficiencies in the theory and data. I say this based on the fact that more recent articles do address some of the issues in order to dismiss them.
Economical with the actualitè is being kind to them.
Yes I have still have the link, and have already filed a complaint!
And it is on Wayback
https://web.archive.org/web/20240318142427/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-68596499
+1
The BBC would likely be claiming that the Sudan war is due to climate change. Today we have it being blames for the increase in Easter egg prices.
Just about to send in my complaint about that one. 80% of crop down to 3 varieties one of which dominates and the 3rd is a hybrid of the other 2. What do you expect to happen to a virtual monoculture of a non-native species?
Ok, so what you have described are not only followers of a religion but evangelical promoters of that religion. Religious fanatics do not need facts, in fact they are impervious to facts with facts and the purveyors of those facts becoming their sworn enemy.
Everything “becomes a “sign” that their god is near no matter how ridiculous or absurd or baseless the claim may be. Ghanan cocoa beans are a good example. The RowlRAT runs with the idea that this has been caused by Klymutt Sheyngshe without considering ANY other possible causes which are very likely to be real…human and political (human) as the most likely candidates. He is so disingenuous as not to put his promotion of this claim into context, namely by starting from world food production data which shows year on year production records for cocoa beans world wide and yet focuses in on a very brief effect at one location. ( I am not even sure the effect he claims affects all Ghana because he does not bother and I think that is deliberate, to provide that information). That is unforgivable and makes everything which comes after complete garbage. We are told that there are global changes to climate caused by warming of the planet YET it was only in Ghana that this strangely affected cocoa bean production.
As I said anything, no matter how ridiculous and absurd, becomes a sign to the believers of the presence of their god. That for me is fine and their own business. However, what is absolutely not fine is when such people use their positions within a public broadcaster to promote their religion. In this case I have a very real problem because this is a deliberate attempt to use the mechanisms of the state and yes I include the BBC in that, as a tool for political ends, which are the wilful manipulation of the population to follow one set of ideologically driven beliefs.
I would just like to end by pointing out that the ideology underpinning this and the other mind virus garbage infecting Western civilization today murdered more than 100 million people during the 20th century, not in wars, but their own people, for the heinous crime of not agreeing with the ideology.
Absolutely. “Caused by climate change” rhymes with “act of God.”
Someone questioned whether the BBC deliberately lie about climate change.
About? Climate change itself is a lie.
Does the BBC lie ?
Of course it does.
Daily.
As the great H L Mencken (almost) said,
Those who watch the BBC endorse the theory that people know what they want & therefore deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken
Given that the BBC’s disinformation correspondent Marianna Spring lied on her CV to get the job – and still has it, I think it’s a racing cert that the BBC is institutionally mendacious.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bbc-disinformation-correspondent-accused-of-lying-on-her-cv/
It was an earlier lie to get a job in Moscow in 2018 but that hasn’t stopped the flow since, no doubt including the BS she served up to land her current gig.
I genuinely believe a special place in hell should be reserved for that evil spawn of Satan known as Marianna Spring. She is a completely unprincipled example of all that is vile and disgusting about modern society and yet claims to be a paragon of virtue. “Why do you hate Me”? ‘cos you’re an effing lying bitch!
Indeed, somewhat similar to the Graun’s endless whingeing about why people hate them (spoiler; they’re all far right white supremacists) when they beg for money (the money from the ‘tax efficient’ Autotrader sale via Caymans must have run out and there are school fees for the next generation to find).
Gates will be there to prop up the Guardian again. He is a cancer on the world and some kind commentator has pointed out that the latest Lancet drivel on falling birth rates and why we need all the immigrant scum leads back to a Gates funded mob.
Does the BBC deliberately lie about climate change?
The current modus operandi of the once highly respected BBC is so willing to unquestioningly accept and propagate the latest faddish cult that the simplest answer to the question is;
Does a bear crap in the woods?
How does Ofcom get away with accusing GB News of breaching impartiality rules whist allowing the BBC to unilaterally decide to not only promote CAGW but refuse to allow any alternative view to be broadcast on its programmes even where CAGW is discussed?
This communist style curbing of free speech and ideas is anti-science and makes the BBC a national disgrace.
Indeed, here’s hoping Mark Steyn has success on 11th June in King’s Bench Division with his Judicial Review of Ofcom.
Does the BBC deliberately lie? …..Your honour I present…..Justin Rowlatt, Matt McGrath, Richard Harrabin, Marianna Spring, Esme Stallard, Georgina Rannard, Marco Silva,…..need I say more?
Don’t forget the arabic section that gleefully punts out every lie Hamas feeds them.
Do the BBC lie, well yes…..and no. They have their “truth” to use modern parlance, we have facts, or our “truth”, in the Biased Broadcasting Corporations eyes we are all infants seeking the nourishment of knowledge from Mother Beeb, and as with all mothers, creating bogeymen to develop fear is part of knowledge, so the Biased mother lies to protect; or it could be just that they know they are talking bollocks and just don’t care as long as they are being paid big bucks.
I think “truth” is a word that has become bleached.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/very-actually-and-other-examples-of-semantic-bleaching
In fact it is well on its way to being skunked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunked_term
Reviewing the original article on the alleged extreme weather in South Sudan, I now realise that the “expert” opinion author was Matt Taylor. Did this guy really get it wrong?
https://twitter.com/metmatttaylor?lang=en
A professional meteorologist does not know seasons in Sudan and accidentally got the link data wrong? ……obviously lying, deliberate misinformation.
When you are saving the planet*, it is okay to use all means necessary. I.e., they lie, they know they lie, they sanctimoniously lie because they believe they are doing the right thing. It is not a sin to lie if you do it for the right reason.
Historically, it is also okay to murder millions of people if you have the right reason. Miliband comes to mind.
*Or fighting the right-wing, Trump, racists, transphobes, etc.
Um, is the bear deliberately Catholic? Do popes… nevermind.
<blockquote>On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination.
That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.
–Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
</blockquote>
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf
The lies have been embedded since the inception of the IPCC. It is deliberately orchestrated to create confusion. Every day we hear words and phrases about the weather, climate, and climate change on the BBC and other media outlets used incorrectly or inappropriately. All of it is part of the deliberate plot to use science for the political agenda and blame humans for what are natural climate conditions.
The agenda is laid out in Gro Harlem Brundtlands UN report Our Common Future that preceded the launch of the IPCC.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
THIS Stephen Schneider?
<blockquote>It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!</blockquote>
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Those results were based on a climate model developed by none other than James Hansen, incidentally.
It seems quite likely that the nuclear bomb tests of the 1950s and 1960s did exactly that and led to the global cooling that was believed to be the beginning of a new ice age. A small war using a few bombs would probably achieve this aim: getting closer?
To not be interested in facts is to lie.
The BBC has suffered from institutional corruption for decades i.e. the defence of the BBC is more important than truth and clarity.
A short and accurate statement which can easily be backed up by evidense of the number of complaints about bias compared with the small number of those accepted by our self-regulating BBC.
mall number of those accepted by our self-regulating BBC.
Would be interesting to know if that evidence is readily available
You could start with: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/05/bbc-coimplaints-bias-25-upheld-out-of-17m-report/
How many don’t bother to complain in the knowledge they will be fobbed of by the BBC’s deliberate drawn out complaints procedure. The best complaint is to stop paying them.
Thanks pfgenergy, that’s a damning article! A website with a “live count” of the comparison data would be useful in taking the battle to the BBC.
Not while BBC are self regulating sadly!
Paul and Ray, BBC’s Midlands Today programme has recently taken huge glugs of the CC Kool-Aid. Their weather ‘girl’, Shefali Oza, is always banging on about the hottest/coldest/wettest day since recirds began. But the big claim that gets me is her claim about record temps without ever explaining where the reading came from or whether – in light of your sterling work on weather-station compliance – whether the station was in compliance with the MET’s own (cough) standards.
Totally of the scale today (THURS), with a whole 10 minutes about flooding caused by climate change. Just the tip of the iceberg says some ‘expert’ it is going to get much worse. She then goes on about all the ways to protect your property.
I watched that rather emotional woman – who obviously had never heard of Enso or Tonga Langa. And I speak as one who gas a river running through his garden which is threatening to flood…probaly because the riverbed is now 2-3 feet higher (at least) than it was 40 years ago. I wonder if that could be the reason…..
28-gate has already been mentioned. When you look at the list of the BBC attendees it included many of the top brass, such as George Entwhistle who went on the run the show for a while.
I have little doubt that the meeting exemplified the BBC’s modus operandi: the high-ups determine the corporate line and everyone sticks to it with scant regard for other views, contrary evidence, etc.
The BBC now report that climate change has caused the price of Easter Eggs to rise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68619912
Climate change is a key reason your chocolate Easter egg could cost more this year, according to researchers.
Defund “researchers.”
The attribution nutters say the heatwave was ten times more likely because of climate change but still completely fail to show it was caused by climate change. If its ten times more likely, it was possible without climate change. So it’s impossible to know if this was natural or caused by climate change. They then claim ot will happen every two years, so in a few years we can resist their prediction. I’d bet £1 there won’t have been another similar heatwave and this was the El Nino.
Correct. ‘More likely’ is not a force.
‘Researchers’ who failed to understand that publicly available FAOSTAT data destroys their claim.
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare
My feeling is that the BBC is now full of people who grew up in the commercial sector and are fixated on viewing and readership (clicks) figures. No longer a Public Service organisation, now a pseudo-commercial one.
“Journalists are POORLY paid…”
We can judge for ourselves:
https://uk.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=1b9eae6875dfc393&from=career-explorer-jobs-card
£38,000 to 42,000 + benefits, for a PART TIME job at BBC local radio.
The BBC has gone so far down the plughole it no longer knows what the truth is.
Do The BBC Deliberately Lie?
‘Lie’ is such a middle-class word.
The BBC have been captured by Critical Social Theory as detailed by Andrew Doyle in his book, ‘The New Puritans’, (he sets out the much wider agenda than the BBC but it is in that context). I didn’t know how to define it when I first noticed but it was the time of the Syrian refugee crisis and a reporter was following a group of refugees across Europe. All she did was want to know ‘what it was like’ and with her pathetic winy voice saying ‘that must have been awful for you’ it was a million miles from journalism. Following Grenfell the reporters were asking ‘what was it like?’ On a recent anniversary of Grenfell we had another reporter asking the same question. Try now watching BBC News at 6. Apart from trite little non-stories aimed at children you will notice that they no longer use any facts or figures and next to no analysis, they focus on ‘the lived experience’ – so countless interviews with people ’suffering’ from the ‘cost of living crisis’. Never once do they ask how much they get in benefits or what they are earning. They don’t need to because under the doctrine of Critical Social Theory it is only their opinion that counts and that opinion cannot be second guessed. Where do you think the ‘if I say it is racism it is racism’ came from – yep you guessed it Critical Social Theory. I am going to look up the BBC Charter and see what it actually says about journalistic standards as just allowing a person to give their opinion unchallenged doesn’t seem to be journalism to me.
I believe it all revolves around money. Are they in the pay of huge grants to the BBC or to individuals in the BBC who are committed to keeping up the lies in order to continue receiving the grants from wealthy organisations such as the Club of Rome, The Bill Gates Trust or other wealthy organisations and individuals who for some reason wish their recipients to promote at all costs the global warming/Net Zero/ Green falsehoods. I cannot believe there can be other reasons for so many programmes and individuals in the BBC and the majority of the MSM for not accepting the logical thinking of those of society, who are not in receipt of grants for promoting the fraud, and who express their sensible, logical and factual comments on such excellent sites as this one.
No, it’s now mostly younger people who joined the BBC to further their agenda, not to report. They are Woke, Green and anti-Tory, and very, very ignorant.
“They want to make a difference.” – Rush Limbaugh
The late, great Rush frequently pointed out that journalism school kids, when asked, “Why journalism,” invariably answered they wanted to make a difference. Absolute reverse of reporting what they see and hear. Distributing objective information is not what they want to do; it’s not why they become journalists.
So they shouldn’t be called/call themselves ‘journalists’.
Or realize that “journalist” is a pejorative.
Journos should accurately report the facts, with possible temporary exceptions when at war.
It is a fact that there is no proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change, perhaps the BBC should report this fact at the end of each news item regarding climate change and weather change.
Deliberately saying something they know isn’t true or accurate is a provable lie, which can have serious implications for a regulated media outfit like the BBC. To that end they’re extremely careful how they present their articles.
However *omitting* material facts isn’t an offence, and that’s the BBC’s stock in trade. Lying by omission allows professional communicators every sleight of hand margin they could ever wish for, including not being legally liable. They’ve been doing it for years.
However omitting material facts isn’t an offence,
There is an offence under the 2006 Fraud Act that involves omitting material facts.
The defendant:
Points 2 and 3 above might be a bit of a stretch, probably depends on the definition of “legal duty” , e.g. is that “legal” as in “legal duty as required under criminal law” ? Also depends on being able to prove “dishonest intent” .
@Mickey R
I suspect those are fraud / criminal matters rather than journalistic ones.
In media-land they’d call it subjective editorial licence or an opinion piece, and that’d be that. They know how to play the game alright.
I suspect those are fraud / criminal matters rather than journalistic ones.
Although I’ve not looked in detail, I can’t see anything which excludes the medjia from “anti-fraud” legislation. The BBC’s “editorial guidelines” require that the BBC is impartial, fair etc, but – obviously – this is not legislation.
There is a legal definition of “dishonesty”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/update-cps-case-redefines-legal-test-dishonesty-criminal-law
“The test for dishonesty to be applied by a jury, is now straightforward; firstly, they will consider, as part of their fact-finding duty, the defendant’s knowledge or belief as to what going on i.e. what made the defendant act as they did. They will then apply the standards of ordinary reasonable people to judge that behaviour.”
The BBC’s repeated failure to state that there is no proof of dangerous AGW is dishonest IMHO, but the dishonesty probably needs to be linked directly to an individual(s), preferably an individual(s) that has clearly made a financial gain from the drive to net-zero.
Similar could apply to members of the CCC.
In the book, Inferno, Dante tells us the Eight Ring of Hell is set aside for Fraudsters. These includes Barrators, who sell their public office.
Indeed CR and the worrying thing is (as my accountant used to tell me and Paul can probably verify) that errors of omission and vastly much more difficult to identify than errors of commission. The best way to lie is often to omit the truth.
Sorry if this is off piste but can you remind me of the following;-
What is the latest mean CO2 measurement?
What is the COPS target?
Is the CO2 level measured on the volcanic islands of Hawaii as I heard a couple of days ago. Isn’t that like measuring temperatures at Heathrow?
Forgive this diversion but I need the data for a presentation and I must be right and where better could I enquire?
Answering your question yes: yes the BBC lies, but more because it lives in a left of centre opinion bubble listening to chatter from none scientists: mostly of the “send three and four pence, we are going to a dance” type.
“What is the latest mean CO2 measurement?”
Have a play with this little toy, play with the date and location.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/orthographic=-34.03,34.97,462/loc=93.695,-87.065
It is interesting to note that the surface concentration of CO2 varies by over 10% between the highest and lowest locations.
Not bad for a “well-mixed gas”.
CO2 levels are measured at many places apart from Mauna Loa, and in various ways. For example, by satellite instruments which analyse reflected sunlight for a particular spectral pattern. The many different records generally agree with each other as regards the big picture.
As for the location of Mauna Loa observatory: It is above ten thousand feet and most of the time the winds blow steadily; and so it is usually sampling air brought to it and not ‘local’ air. There IS contamination from the crater, but it comes in spikes which are obvious and ignored (we are told).
Yes Dave, but I am looking for numbers.
As for spikes, I don’t believe “they” ignore them but relish them.
‘Climate change’ is an ideology and is not based in reason and evidence. You may as well ask do Christian’s lie about Jesus being God?
When it is a matter of Faith, no proof is required. If there were proof, there would be no need for Faith. It is holding the Faith in the absence of evidence that is virtuous; losing the Faith is apostasy and any who challenge your beliefs are evil.
Jonathan Swift remarked that you cannot reason a man out of something which he hasn’t reasoned himself into.
Likening climate change to religion is pertinent, as there are so many parallels.
Likening climate change to religion is pertinent, as there are so many parallels.
It’s encouraging to see more references to the belief in AGW being described as a religion.
Perhaps we need to spread the latest work by Martin Durkin freely available on the headline strip over on Tallbloke’s site. The climate movie is available there.
100% essential viewing please spread it around.
Grifters gotta grift, it is what they do best.
l do not think that they are just assuming climate change must be true. If they were, they would at least listen to claims that it is disproved.
What they have is a religion. A bit like Catholicism, or supporting a football club. Under those circumstances they will not listen to any adverse comment, and will attack anyone who mentions it. They will happily lie in support of their chosen cult, and see this as justified propaganda. In their view they are in the middle of a war.
‘Climate change’ is the Universal Cause. The issue to unite the world against freedom. The commies have gotten traction with it for decades. It is completely bogus, but they will keep pushing it as long as people respond. Challenging climate change is act FOR freedom, AGAINST communism.
yes … simple…
you think the BBC has it’s head in the clouds try the ABC of Australia check out this link https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-22/fact-check-dick-smith-renewables-entire-country/103617364?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=abc_newsmail_am-pm_sfmc&utm_term=&utm_id=2326329&sfmc_id=219408694
Paul,
You are far too generous towards the BBC and here is why.
No articles appear which refute the paradigm even to be dissed by their paid monkeys of their Fact checking cabal. If what you say was true then we would see articles written by normal scientists like Dr Peter Ridd, Susan Crockford et al. That we see zero speaks volumes.
Also, never do they wheel out their fact checkers ….the Rowlatt Cocoa bean klymutt porn being a perfect example. 2 minutes looking at UN data is all he and they needed to find problems with the content of this garbage he regurgitated.
Simply the BBC are run by and staffed by activists across the board who use the forced public subscription broadcaster as a vehicle to promote various extreme left wing (marxist) doctrinal policies.
Infect then turn the instruments of the state against it’s self. Now where have I heard that before?
“….paid monkeys of their fact checking cabal.” Well stated; I concur.