UPDATE2: “404 Page not found” now at the BBC for this video on Monday Feb16th. It seems they’ve pulled it. Too much “negative feedback” I suppose. Readers be on the alert for any retractions.
UPDATE: BBC Can’t even get their reporting correct. The reporter in this video report that accompanies the web article says that “The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” and that now we are in “scenarios unexplored by the models”. No kidding, it’s that bad. For those of you that don’t know, some alarmists claim that “negative climate feedback is as real as the Easter Bunny, which is what makes this BBC factual error so hilarious.
Readers please let the BBC know that they have no idea what they are talking about. Just click here. – Anthony
Click above to watch the BBC video
Guest post by Steven Goddard
On Wednesday, normally stalwart UK global warming promoter – The Guardian, ran this remarkable headline, which was also covered here on WUWT:
‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts’
The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.
Undaunted and defiant, their comrades in global warming arms at the BBC, chose this as the lead story for Sunday morning:
‘Global warming ‘underestimated’
The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.
….
“We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously in climate policy,” he said. Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem. “
BBC employs the old standby icon - a polar bear
Prof Field said rising temperatures could thaw Arctic permafrost
One fatal flaw with the BBC story is that Chris Field is not a climate scientist, as they claimed. He is actually a Professor of Biology in an Ecology Department. So how does the BBC choose their headlines? In matters of global warming, apparently the apocalyptic words of one American ecologist overrule those of the UK’s own government climate scientists at The Met Office. Chris Field clearly does not have any credentials to be making the climate claims the BBC reported. This looks more and more like a Shakespearean comedy every day.For them all together; which maintained so politica state of evil that they will not admit any goodpart to intermingle with them.William Shakespeare – from ‘Much Ado About Nothing’
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
223 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Crafter
February 14, 2009 9:15 pm
Good grief, what will they come up with next?
And what evidence does he base this claim on I have to wonder? Seems the BBC and our ABC here in Australia are trying to outdo each other.
jorgekafkazar
February 14, 2009 9:17 pm
“Lord, what fools these mortals be!” –Puck, in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Nights Dream,
Act 3, scene 2, 110–115
Dave Johnson
February 14, 2009 9:17 pm
Must be after some funding for the new financial year, after all it can’t be easy in these “credit crunch” times.
Frederick Michael
February 14, 2009 9:31 pm
Notice the second “LATEST SCIENCE” headline just to the right of the bear — “This year coolest since 2000”.
The comedy must be intentional, right?
“Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. ”
The Climatic responses to said increases are not relevant, the entire premise is based on CO2 concentration and the rate of increase and the projected effects. Using a simple linear extrapolation he makes these claims, and have we not heard enough of the lack of validity that has as a basis for predictive science?
I believe it was addressed by the MET Office regarding proclamations of future catastrophe. Ah yes here it is…
“Dr Peter Stott, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said a common misrepresentation was to take a few years data and extrapolate to what would happen if it continues”
John b
February 14, 2009 10:04 pm
It’s too easy to write someone off because they don’t hold a degree in Climatology, an area that wasn’t even taught in colleges 10 years ago. According to the biography you linked, he was a lead author for the 4th assessment report of the IPCC and was co-chair of working group 2. On top of that, he works on computer modeling for carbon sources and carbon sinks. It’s this activity that makes him an “expert.”
Having said that though, he claims that the IPCC underestimated the rate of change based on visible data between 2000 and 2007 which then was plugged into his model. So, he is diverging from the conclusions of the IPCC based on his computer model. The question then becomes, how good is his model? With anything guessing at a complex system over long periods of time, my guess is not good.
As a quick example of difficulty of prediction over a period, look at the upcoming March Madness. There are 65 college teams all vying for the National Championship (64 games played). Chances of picking the winner is slim, while the chances of predicting a perfect bracket is astronomical. Yet, experts with computer models, former players, coaches and long time fans filled out over three million brackets on ESPN last year. Of that three million plus, only 2 people picked the final 16 teams correctly. So why is there surprise when people hear that one of the two people was Johnny Gilbert, 13 year old kid who has no cable TV? http://hogfootball.blogspot.com/2008/03/some-sweet-16-motivation.html (video link may not work, but it includes some text from the interview)
There is a lot more information available with Past Stats, the Census, School and Conference history, TV/Internet/Newspaper information, that someone should be able to put together a long term model to effectively tell us who will the next 20 NCAA championships and show the route that they will take to achieve those championships. But funny things happen when the teams actually play the game. Climate is much more complex than March Madness, but unlike March Madness there are many more possible outcomes in Climate and many more opportunities to get it wrong. You could have 3 million “Models” and find only one or two actually get it right.
D Caldwell
February 14, 2009 10:14 pm
In the MSM it’s not really about science anymore. It’s mostly about advocacy now.
It will take an enormous tsunami of scientific reversal to change things – or perhaps another LIA.
They’re more machine than man now – twisted and evil.
Ron de Haan
February 14, 2009 10:14 pm
Similar stories in the Australian Press and several other newspapers in Europe.
It shows that this is a well coordinated PR campaign.
Follow the connections and the money and you end up at a single office sending out the press releases.
Prepare for much more BS for the next months because many Governments are in the final phase of introducing climate legislation.
The more opposition the AGW/Climate doctrine becomes, the more crooked and bias articles will be published.
Christopher Monckton will have his hands full debunking all this nonsense.
so we learned:
the bbc is misleading the public.
the bbc is denying the met office hadley centre’s competence.
Leon Brozyna
February 14, 2009 10:21 pm
I thought that what was meant by “lead story” was that this was the lead “science” story. But no, it really is the Lead Story on BBC’s home page.
An interesting package deal, mixing environment in with science. So what we have here is a report about an advocacy speech by an ecologist to the AAAS gathering in Chicago. It is also interesting to note that the position of the AAAS is one that the governing body of the AAAS laid out without input or debate from its membership. Guess it was politically expedient to follow the line laid out by the politicians running the IPCC.
And the beat goes on …
Steven Goddard
February 14, 2009 11:04 pm
John b,
The role of biologists at the IPCC is to predict the biological impact of the various climate scenarios, not to predict the climate scenarios themselves. That is supposed to be the job of the climate scientists.
If you go to the garden store, they may have experts who can tell you what types of plants grow well in your neighbourhood . That does not qualify them to tell you what the climate will be like in your garden in 100 years.
Richard111
February 14, 2009 11:05 pm
Wonderful how the sun is always shining in Arctic photographs.
Diogenes
February 14, 2009 11:18 pm
From the related BBC TV news report:-
“The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..”
You can’t expect the BBC to identify an expert when they so clearly know so little about the subject, compared to them everyone is an expert.
Your will be done: this must my comfort be,
Sun that warms you here shall shine on me;
And those his golden beams to you here lent
Shall point on me and gild my banishment.
Richard II, Act I, W.S.
Phillip Bratby
February 14, 2009 11:23 pm
This is also a lead story on the BBC on both the radio and television. I have sent off my usual complaint to the BBC about bias, but it won’t do any good.
Kmye
February 14, 2009 11:30 pm
A completely unrelated comment:
In the ugly world of venture capital, there’s a classic method scammers and bullshit artists use to keep ignorant start-ups on the line, for whatever purpose they may have.
After promising an initial placement of whatever amount, say two million dollars here, once the start-up begins to ask where the hell is the money after a period of time, the scammers will come back, playing to greed and/or desperate hope, and say “we’ve been talking to our funding sources, and they’re so excited about your prospects, they want to invest 10 million dollars now, but it will take a little more time to put everything together.” This ratcheting up of supposed future funding in the face of growing evidence that it will never come through can continue through several rounds, as long as the victim is willing to believe it and let the increased stakes counter the plain reality in front of their eyes. At the point the start-up finally realizes they’re being taken advantage of, they’ve often shelled out tens of thousands of dollars in various expenses, or in the worst cases, irrevocably given part of their company or its assets to the con artists, or otherwise irreversibly damaged their company.
I feel like in certain cases, the general form of this con could be done with fear rather than greed…
Kohl Piersen
February 14, 2009 11:36 pm
Steven Goddard (23:04:14) said –
“The role of biologists at the IPCC is to predict the biological impact of the various climate scenarios, not to predict the climate scenarios themselves. That is supposed to be the job of the climate scientists.”
I think that most (say 85%) of the stuff I read/hear/see here in Australia in relation to alarming consequences are from scientists and others who simply take the AGW thing as a given, and procede from there.
Some of them are just wackos. Many are seriously putting forward what they think. But the climate change part of it is assumed. E.g. Nicholas Stern in England, Ross Garnaut in Australia. And particularly the Governments who espouse the cause. All are convinced before they start that the AGW thing is real, unprecedented, immediate and dangerous.
Unfortunately, they go beyond even what the IPCC says in relation to expected temperature increases, sea level increases etc.
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.”
Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
Kohl Piersen
February 14, 2009 11:40 pm
Re Diogenes (23:18:31) :
“From the related BBC TV news report:-
“The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” ”
Are you fair dinkum? Was this really said? Really?
Bloody hell…!!!!
Phillip Bratby
February 14, 2009 11:41 pm
Re my above post, here is the complaint I have sent to the BBC.
I am complaining about the BBC’s coverage of global warming (aka climate change).
The Guardian this week ran the following story:
“‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts’
Experts at Britain’s top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming. The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist.”
Despite this story, the BBC ran the following headline as a major news item:
“Global warming ‘underestimated'”
In the news item Professor Field, an American biologist is quoted as follows:
“The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.”
So the BBC journalist who wrote this article is biased in favour of apocalyptic warnings from a biologist and has ignored the Met Office warnings about journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming .
It appears that he BBC prefers an American biologist compared to the “climate Scientists” of the Met Office when it comes to reporting on the future climate.
I have never seen such blatant bias in all my life.
The reporter and those responsible for making this a lead item in the BBC news should be removed from office immediately.
Steven Goddard
February 15, 2009 12:02 am
Field’s claims raise some serious questions.
1. Does the IPCC agree with him that last year’s report is incorrect?
2. He claims “fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. Does that mean that he is claiming that the Mauna Loa CO2 data is incorrect?
3. What new data does he have that supersedes the 2007 conclusions of the IPCC? Two years of lower temperatures and little or no change in sea level? No change in ocean temperatures? Record snow in the Northern hemisphere and record sea ice in the Antarctic? The end of the rapid melt in Greenland?
The claims that climate has changed for the worse since 2007 are unsupportable. I always wondered what it was like to be a scientist in the time of Galileo. Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.
Good grief, what will they come up with next?
And what evidence does he base this claim on I have to wonder? Seems the BBC and our ABC here in Australia are trying to outdo each other.
“Lord, what fools these mortals be!” –Puck, in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Nights Dream,
Act 3, scene 2, 110–115
Must be after some funding for the new financial year, after all it can’t be easy in these “credit crunch” times.
Notice the second “LATEST SCIENCE” headline just to the right of the bear — “This year coolest since 2000”.
The comedy must be intentional, right?
My take on this story here.
Simon
Australian Climate Madness
Latest From Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401757.html
Climate change is happening much faster than expected due to increased CO2, maybe they have not read the Hadley article yet.
Terry,
Here is a much more thoughtful story from today’s Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021302514.html
“Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. ”
The Climatic responses to said increases are not relevant, the entire premise is based on CO2 concentration and the rate of increase and the projected effects. Using a simple linear extrapolation he makes these claims, and have we not heard enough of the lack of validity that has as a basis for predictive science?
I believe it was addressed by the MET Office regarding proclamations of future catastrophe. Ah yes here it is…
“Dr Peter Stott, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said a common misrepresentation was to take a few years data and extrapolate to what would happen if it continues”
It’s too easy to write someone off because they don’t hold a degree in Climatology, an area that wasn’t even taught in colleges 10 years ago. According to the biography you linked, he was a lead author for the 4th assessment report of the IPCC and was co-chair of working group 2. On top of that, he works on computer modeling for carbon sources and carbon sinks. It’s this activity that makes him an “expert.”
Having said that though, he claims that the IPCC underestimated the rate of change based on visible data between 2000 and 2007 which then was plugged into his model. So, he is diverging from the conclusions of the IPCC based on his computer model. The question then becomes, how good is his model? With anything guessing at a complex system over long periods of time, my guess is not good.
As a quick example of difficulty of prediction over a period, look at the upcoming March Madness. There are 65 college teams all vying for the National Championship (64 games played). Chances of picking the winner is slim, while the chances of predicting a perfect bracket is astronomical. Yet, experts with computer models, former players, coaches and long time fans filled out over three million brackets on ESPN last year. Of that three million plus, only 2 people picked the final 16 teams correctly. So why is there surprise when people hear that one of the two people was Johnny Gilbert, 13 year old kid who has no cable TV?
http://hogfootball.blogspot.com/2008/03/some-sweet-16-motivation.html (video link may not work, but it includes some text from the interview)
There is a lot more information available with Past Stats, the Census, School and Conference history, TV/Internet/Newspaper information, that someone should be able to put together a long term model to effectively tell us who will the next 20 NCAA championships and show the route that they will take to achieve those championships. But funny things happen when the teams actually play the game. Climate is much more complex than March Madness, but unlike March Madness there are many more possible outcomes in Climate and many more opportunities to get it wrong. You could have 3 million “Models” and find only one or two actually get it right.
In the MSM it’s not really about science anymore. It’s mostly about advocacy now.
It will take an enormous tsunami of scientific reversal to change things – or perhaps another LIA.
They’re more machine than man now – twisted and evil.
Similar stories in the Australian Press and several other newspapers in Europe.
It shows that this is a well coordinated PR campaign.
Follow the connections and the money and you end up at a single office sending out the press releases.
Prepare for much more BS for the next months because many Governments are in the final phase of introducing climate legislation.
The more opposition the AGW/Climate doctrine becomes, the more crooked and bias articles will be published.
Christopher Monckton will have his hands full debunking all this nonsense.
Steven, you say that Chris Field is not a climate scientist.
The 2nd chart in the below post explains what it takes to become a climate scientist 😉
Also, Anthony is mentioned in the first chart…
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/how-to-deal-with-a-global-warming-skeptic-in-a-cooling-world/
so we learned:
the bbc is misleading the public.
the bbc is denying the met office hadley centre’s competence.
I thought that what was meant by “lead story” was that this was the lead “science” story. But no, it really is the Lead Story on BBC’s home page.
An interesting package deal, mixing environment in with science. So what we have here is a report about an advocacy speech by an ecologist to the AAAS gathering in Chicago. It is also interesting to note that the position of the AAAS is one that the governing body of the AAAS laid out without input or debate from its membership. Guess it was politically expedient to follow the line laid out by the politicians running the IPCC.
And the beat goes on …
John b,
The role of biologists at the IPCC is to predict the biological impact of the various climate scenarios, not to predict the climate scenarios themselves. That is supposed to be the job of the climate scientists.
If you go to the garden store, they may have experts who can tell you what types of plants grow well in your neighbourhood . That does not qualify them to tell you what the climate will be like in your garden in 100 years.
Wonderful how the sun is always shining in Arctic photographs.
From the related BBC TV news report:-
“The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..”
You can’t expect the BBC to identify an expert when they so clearly know so little about the subject, compared to them everyone is an expert.
Your will be done: this must my comfort be,
Sun that warms you here shall shine on me;
And those his golden beams to you here lent
Shall point on me and gild my banishment.
Richard II, Act I, W.S.
This is also a lead story on the BBC on both the radio and television. I have sent off my usual complaint to the BBC about bias, but it won’t do any good.
A completely unrelated comment:
In the ugly world of venture capital, there’s a classic method scammers and bullshit artists use to keep ignorant start-ups on the line, for whatever purpose they may have.
After promising an initial placement of whatever amount, say two million dollars here, once the start-up begins to ask where the hell is the money after a period of time, the scammers will come back, playing to greed and/or desperate hope, and say “we’ve been talking to our funding sources, and they’re so excited about your prospects, they want to invest 10 million dollars now, but it will take a little more time to put everything together.” This ratcheting up of supposed future funding in the face of growing evidence that it will never come through can continue through several rounds, as long as the victim is willing to believe it and let the increased stakes counter the plain reality in front of their eyes. At the point the start-up finally realizes they’re being taken advantage of, they’ve often shelled out tens of thousands of dollars in various expenses, or in the worst cases, irrevocably given part of their company or its assets to the con artists, or otherwise irreversibly damaged their company.
I feel like in certain cases, the general form of this con could be done with fear rather than greed…
Steven Goddard (23:04:14) said –
“The role of biologists at the IPCC is to predict the biological impact of the various climate scenarios, not to predict the climate scenarios themselves. That is supposed to be the job of the climate scientists.”
I think that most (say 85%) of the stuff I read/hear/see here in Australia in relation to alarming consequences are from scientists and others who simply take the AGW thing as a given, and procede from there.
Some of them are just wackos. Many are seriously putting forward what they think. But the climate change part of it is assumed. E.g. Nicholas Stern in England, Ross Garnaut in Australia. And particularly the Governments who espouse the cause. All are convinced before they start that the AGW thing is real, unprecedented, immediate and dangerous.
Unfortunately, they go beyond even what the IPCC says in relation to expected temperature increases, sea level increases etc.
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.”
Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
Re Diogenes (23:18:31) :
“From the related BBC TV news report:-
“The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..” ”
Are you fair dinkum? Was this really said? Really?
Bloody hell…!!!!
Re my above post, here is the complaint I have sent to the BBC.
I am complaining about the BBC’s coverage of global warming (aka climate change).
The Guardian this week ran the following story:
“‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts’
Experts at Britain’s top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming. The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent “apocalyptic predictions” about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist.”
Despite this story, the BBC ran the following headline as a major news item:
“Global warming ‘underestimated'”
In the news item Professor Field, an American biologist is quoted as follows:
“The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.”
So the BBC journalist who wrote this article is biased in favour of apocalyptic warnings from a biologist and has ignored the Met Office warnings about journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming .
It appears that he BBC prefers an American biologist compared to the “climate Scientists” of the Met Office when it comes to reporting on the future climate.
I have never seen such blatant bias in all my life.
The reporter and those responsible for making this a lead item in the BBC news should be removed from office immediately.
Field’s claims raise some serious questions.
1. Does the IPCC agree with him that last year’s report is incorrect?
2. He claims “fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected. Does that mean that he is claiming that the Mauna Loa CO2 data is incorrect?
3. What new data does he have that supersedes the 2007 conclusions of the IPCC? Two years of lower temperatures and little or no change in sea level? No change in ocean temperatures? Record snow in the Northern hemisphere and record sea ice in the Antarctic? The end of the rapid melt in Greenland?
The claims that climate has changed for the worse since 2007 are unsupportable. I always wondered what it was like to be a scientist in the time of Galileo. Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.