BBC’s Coral Propaganda

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The BBC is corrupt, and this report is fraudulent:

Coral around the world is turning white and even dying as recent record ocean heat takes a devastating toll.

It has triggered the fourth global mass coral bleaching event, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Bleaching happens when coral gets stressed and turns white because the water it lives in is too hot.

Coral sustains ocean life, fishing, and creates trillions of dollars of revenue annually.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68814016

For a start, there has been no “devastating toll”, as the BBC pretends, from the possibility that the world is slightly warmer than a few years ago. (Given margins of error, there is no certainty about this.)

But more importantly, Rannard grossly misrepresents the science. Coral does not “turn white” because the water is too hot. Nor is this is a rare occurrence, as the “fourth global mass coral bleaching event” implies.

On the contrary, bleaching is a common event, which can take place for all sorts of reasons, including when the water gets too cold.

As the leading coral reef expert Dr Peter Ridd has explained, “bleaching” is merely part of a natural process, when coral expels algae in order to switch to a different type which is more suitable adapted to new conditions.

According to Ridd, coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef last year reached record levels, despite four supposedly catastrophic bleaching events in the six years prior to 2022. Neither has there been any significant change in corals worldwide.

Rannard’s article has nothing to do with science; it is just more scaremongering propaganda.

This interview with Peter Ridd which followed his annual review on corals last year is worth watching:

5 34 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
89 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
April 17, 2024 6:21 am

“The BBC is corrupt, and this report is fraudulent”.
Somehow, I don’t think you are stating this clearly enough. Is there something you could say which would force them to sue you so that this thing can be blown apart.

OK, OK, there’s the teensy weensy little problem that the courts are corrupt too. We live in dangerous times.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 17, 2024 7:04 am

I googled bbc balen report and got many results.

This one: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101629/BBC-wins-battle-report-biased-journalism-secret.html

Demonstrates just how biased the BBC is.

Spending £350,000 of tax payers money to keep a report into bias of its reporting of middle east issues.

You would like to think that if the report said the BBC was unbiased and impartial it would have released the report instantly.

Coral bleaching and other climate corruptions are nothing for the BBC to worry about.

BBC = Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

Reply to  Steve Richards
April 17, 2024 7:58 am

from that link:

‘Independent journalism requires honest and open internal debate free from external pressures. This ruling enables us to continue to do that.’

But when oil companies several decades ago wrote internal documents about their concerns over the climate- that can’t remain free from external pressures?

KevinM
Reply to  Steve Richards
April 17, 2024 10:51 am

“You would like to think that 
I understand you’ve used an everyday figure of speech or rhetorical device, but you have no idea what I would like to think – unless this reply is what you were hoping for.

Reply to  KevinM
April 18, 2024 9:49 am

Authors write for their audience. In this case, normal thinking, rational people. Not everyone will be included, but they aren’t the targeted readers,

April 17, 2024 6:52 am

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, who has worked in the field with Peter Ridd, posted this on her Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/JenniferMarohasyOfficialPage
“Update. Water Temperatures Near Great Keppel Island.
Some of the worst coral bleaching has apparently occurred at Great Keppel Island and has been attributed to unusually warm ocean temperatures. I’m planning to visit the island this weekend and see for myself. In the meantime, I’ve been searching for water temperature data to understand the extent of the problem.
AIMS has provided the New York Times with an underwater snapshot of bleached corals from Great Keppel Island, but apparently not any temperature data. They have some, and I posted the extent of this at my blog yesterday, some charts of monthly data for Square Rocks.
This water temperature data, from December 2009 until March 2024, is incomplete, including for some of this last summer. There is a more complete time series for air temperatures that I also posted. I am confident that these series have caught the peak of this last summer’s warm cycle, and these charts indicate that this last summer has not been particularly warm contrary to media reports – at least at Great Keppel Island considering the AIMS air and water temperature data.
I’ve also looked around for more information, and found water temperature data for Rosslyn Bay, that is just across from Great Keppel Island. This time series that is measured by the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project is twice as long, beginning in 1991, and complete for this last summer.
Consistent with the AIMS data for Square Rocks, it does NOT indicate that this last summer has been particularly warm. It shows a distinct seasonal trend; it does not show global warming.”

Here is Jennifer’s figure on the historical water temperature, near Great Keppel Island.

Screenshot-2024-04-17-21.41.44
Mr.
Reply to  John B
April 17, 2024 10:32 am

There’s a sloop named after you John. 🙂

(I know, I know – you’ve never heard someone say that before in your whole life)

bobpjones
Reply to  Mr.
April 17, 2024 11:07 am

Grab your coat!

pillageidiot
April 17, 2024 7:00 am

If dissemination of “disinformation” and “misinformation” truly caused a ban from all legacy communication outlets and the internet, then every Leftist organization would apparently be left without a voice!

MarkH
Reply to  pillageidiot
April 17, 2024 6:33 pm

The trouble is that they define “disinformation” and “misinformation” as anything that they don’t agree with. In their minds, they cannot be wrong.

April 17, 2024 7:05 am

(Given margins of error, there is no certainty about [global warming].)

This is just wrong. Over the past 4-decades, the warming trend in all the global temperature data sets, surface and satellite, is statistically significant.

That is, the probability that the warming trends observed would occur by chance in a system in which warming or cooling were equally likely is less than 5%.

Tom_Morrow
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 7:21 am

Even if that were so, does a 40 year trend on a 4+ billion year old planet have any significance? It’s not like there haven’t been warming and cooling trends of more significant consequence in times past, or that this current one is due in any part to human activity, or that human intervention can change it, or that it isn’t going to reverse direction shortly, etc.

Data is important, but it is more important to interpret the data sanely and always question our own conclusions about causes, our models of events, and our predictions about future events.

Nullius in verba

Reply to  Tom_Morrow
April 17, 2024 10:54 am

… does a 40 year trend on a 4+ billion year old planet have any significance? 

the fact that the trend is ‘statistically significant‘ answers your question.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 11:15 am

You make it hard to debate with you by starting from such an incredibly wrong position. But I will try to educate you. Please do some reading on the issue before replying,

‘Statistically significant’ means there is a signal relative to the expected noise in the observation that is unlikely to exist by chance (probably about only a 1 in 20 chance but it may be 99% or 1 in a 100, you don’t say).
It says nothing about whether the observation is meaningful in itself. Hence the 4 billion years point.
And it needs to be remembered that for every aspect of the climate that is measured you increase your chance of finding that signal. Temperature is up, but is global rainfall or localised rainfalls or cloudiness or… Each measurement makes the signal more likely and less indicative on its own.

Also, the expected noise is assumed to be random over the observed period. But we have no way of knowing if that is true. Indeed, it seems very unlikely. The warming trend from 1900 to 1940 is very similar to that from 1980 to 2020 but the CO2 emissions are very different. Something else must be significant. Probably.

And then there is the relationship between air temperature, sea temperature, the behaviour of corals and the well-being of the wider marine ecosystem. Whoever told you that this was a simple subject was, at best, an idiot, or – more likely – a knave.

Reply to  MCourtney
April 17, 2024 12:14 pm

The warming trend from 1900 to 1940 is very similar to that from 1980 to 2020…

According to which data set?

According to GISS, the warming trend between 1900 and 1940 is +0.07C per decade; between 1980 and 2020 it is +0.19C per decade. More than twice as fast.

What global data set are you using to make your claim? Or did you just make it up?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:43 pm

According to GISS… roflmao… fakery on steroids

There is absolutely no way GISS knows anything about global ocean temperatures in the 1900-1940 or even from 1980-2000

Show us where it was measured.

Yes.. GISS is just made up…. Thanks for pointing that out.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 17, 2024 3:25 pm

Then you have a try, since MCourtney seems to be absent.

Which global data set do you think he used to make the absurd claim that “The warming trend from 1900 to 1940 is very similar to that from 1980 to 2020″?

I can’t find one that doesn’t show close to or more than a doubling of the trend in the latter period.

Where do you think he is getting his ‘alternative facts’ from?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:46 pm

Stop with the straw man arguments and trying to get someone to address them.

The original claim was about uncertainty and your refutation. Show us the evidence that the signal is larger than the uncertainty by showing us the uncertainty budget for each calculation and how uncertainty has been propagated throughout the entire process. Surely the entities putting out the GAT have done that already.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 18, 2024 3:27 am

You didn’t do the reading, did you?
 
As others have demonstrated that you don’t understand statistics and you conceded all the other points I made – by refusing to tackle them – let us deal with the temperature rise and lack of correlation with CO2 emissions.
 
(NOTE: CO2 emissions are not correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentration anyway, as the COVID shutdown demonstrated, so there is no reason to expect CO2 emissions to correlate with any temperature dataset.  My statement was far from controversial).
 
As a Brit I looked at the MET Office data. If you can see a dramatic difference in the rise, considering the fact that the later dataset is contaminated with non-atmospheric anthropogenic warming such as UHIs, and that the number if weather stations has altered so its not like-for-like, but nothing is…
 
Frankly, you’ve look like you nit-picked to try and cover the foolish objection you made, and you have just fallen flat on your face again.
 
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets

1900-1940-and-1980-2020-HADCrut5
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:43 pm

You still are not mentioning anything about uncertainty. Do you or don’t you have the data to back up your claim that the findings are larger than the uncertainty in the data?

Show us your data and the calculations. Stop throwing out straw man arguments that do not address the question.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:54 pm

Each year about 4.6 million people die from cold-related causes compared to about 500,000 people who die from heat-related causes.

Cold makes our blood vessels constrict to conserve heat. That raises blood pressure causing increased strokes and heart attacks in the cooler months.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:39 pm

Please show us where there measured ocean temperature before ARGO.

The trend is tiny and meaningless, and there is absolutely zero evidence of any human causation.

You have proven that many time.

OHC-in-perspective-2
Reply to  bnice2000
April 17, 2024 3:26 pm

What is that chart supposed to be even showing?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 6:20 pm

Ignorance of a basic OHC chart.

Not surprised.

It shows just how INSIGNIFICANT the ocean warming over the last 50-60 year has been.

Sorry if the facts hurt your tiny little mind. !

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:40 pm

(Given margins of error, there is no certainty about [global warming].)

This is the statement you quoted and disagreed with. You need to show that your statement indicating that it is incorrect has facts to back it up.

Please note, the statement from Tom_Morrow does not address statistically significant, that is your straw man. The point is the uncertainty in the result, not whether the result is statistically significant.

Show us the data that refutes the claim about uncertainty. You surely have it or you wouldn’t make the claim that it is false.

Mr.
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 7:47 am

5% sounds too made up.

Better call it 4.368%.

(as you usually do with made up numbers)

Reply to  Mr.
April 17, 2024 10:55 am

It’s the scientific standard for statistical significance. 2-sigma, or >95% confidence.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:45 pm

But in the longer period the slight warming is totally natural recovery from a cold period, and the IHC is still way below what it was in the MWP.

Corals lived and prospered through period when oceans were much warmer than now.

OHC-in-perspective-2
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 8:01 am

Lets say there is a minor warming. That doesn’t mean we’re having an EMERGENCY which requires the expense of gazillions of dollars to fix it and a rise of authoritarianism telling us how to live and watching everything we do. Many political entities, like CA and NY and MA and the UK claim it is an emergency. There is no evidence that a slight warming is an emergency.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 17, 2024 10:56 am

Nobody mentioned ‘EMERGENCY” other than you.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 10:57 am

The point is that Paul Homewood made yet another unsubstantiated and flat-out wrong claim and that none of you self-described ‘skeptics’ either failed to notice it or failed to pick him up on it.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:49 pm

Paul Homewood is absolutely correct.

The BBC is a LYING bunch of alarmist prats.

It is YOU that is permanently WRONG on every comment you make.

You mind is rabidly infected by cult-based-alarmism.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  bnice2000
April 18, 2024 6:29 am

Saw Georgina being interviewed on BBC breakfast programme yesterday morning. It was obvious she didn’t have a clue what she was talking about and the presenters just accepted everything she said

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:49 pm

It is up to you to show the evidence to make the refutation. It isn’t up to anyone but you. Show us the calculation of uncertainty propagation for GISS or one of the other organizations. Give us the data to make a judgement with.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
April 18, 2024 2:32 pm

He isn’t here to do that because he doesn’t understand it, which is why we get the usual foggy thoughts from him instead.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 18, 2024 2:30 pm

HA HA HA HA HA, you haven’t made any argument against his article, you are here to spread fog because I can’t believe you are that stupid.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:58 pm

The media mentions “climate emergency” all of the time.

If you Google it you will get over 8 million hits.

Reply to  scvblwxq
April 18, 2024 5:18 am

The state of Wokeachusetts, now led by a feminocracy, mentions it countless times every day- as a justification for its NUT zero policy. It’s in just about every document the state produces.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 9:32 pm

Your juvenile histrionics show you think it is an emergency.

Zero rational thought … just manic panic!

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 18, 2024 5:16 am

Nobody? other than most governments and solar/wind firms and enviros who hate fossil fuels and THE UNITED NATIONS.

bobpjones
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 17, 2024 11:09 am

That’s a CANYMAUK! 😊

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 8:23 am

Yes, accepted that it has warmed since the cooler ‘70’s. The point is whether the climate is worse or not.

0perator
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 17, 2024 10:27 am

Which presupposes “climate.”

Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 17, 2024 10:58 am

What’s that got to do with Homewood making flat-out false claims?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:52 pm

He hasn’t made any false claims.

Every claim he made is totally correct, you just don’t like them because they destroy your manic brain-washed cult-alarmist.

In the scheme of things, the very slight warming in recent times is totally insignificant to the coral.

You have been CONNED by the BBC yet again..

Time you woke up to reality.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 3:09 pm

He hasn’t

“(Given margins of error, there is no certainty about this.)”

A totally reasonable statement, especially once this El Nino dissipates.

A large proportion of surface sites are heavily urban effected and have probably error margins of +/- a few degrees. Surface sites cannot possibly give you any indication of global temperature change, they are way too corrupted by site changes, and the data way too corrupted by agenda-driven changes.

In the satellite data, up until this El Nino, the globe was actually cooling since 2017.

And before the 2016 El Nino, there was no warming for 15+ years.

El Ninos are actually a release of energy from the oceans…

… and what happens when you release energy from something ?

Every other statement by Paul is 100% correct as well.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 17, 2024 3:30 pm

He hasn’t

“(Given margins of error, there is no certainty about this.)”

As I explained in the first post, the observed warming is well above the upper boundaries of the margins of error, hence ‘statistically significant’.

I am not surprised that you do not understand this.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:53 pm

Again, you are simply throwing out strawman arguments with no support. Basically they are appeals to authority. You don’t site any references where uncertainty is calculated from day 1 at a station and up to the GAT. You want to claim Mr. Homewood is incorrect, show your evidence.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 5:16 pm

In the US, When people don’t like the temperature they can move. There are temperatures from cold Alaska in the Arctic to warm Hawaii in the tropics.

Some people like it warm some people like it cool. The same temperature doesn’t fit everyone.

In the US people have been moving south since it became urbanized to live in a warmer climate.

I moved from Cleveland in the north to Los Angeles in the south where it was about 6C warmer years ago and it was fine.

I moved back to Cleveland after a few years. Both were fine.

In LA it rains all of the time in the winter, in Cleveland it snows. Both places are very livable.

Reply to  scvblwxq
April 18, 2024 5:26 am

The population of FL is booming- not Labrador or Alaska.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 6:24 pm

Simple understanding of possible error margins is absolutely beyond your capability, Isn’t it

Paul is absolutely correct.

Apart from El Nino events, it is totally uncertain if the globe has warmed at all over the last 45 or so years.

Certainly you can’t use GISS or any of the surface data, too corrupted by urban warming and agenda manipulation.

There is absolutely no evidence of human caused atmospheric warming in the satellite era.

That is a fact you have yet to counter with anything remotely resembling science.

ducky2
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 8:55 pm

You don’t know the difference between uncertainty and error. Who would’ve thought?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 18, 2024 5:23 am

I seriously doubt that you’re correct about the margin of error. For that you’d need very, very, very good numbers- which we don’t have as noted on this site frequently. There’s little that is statistically significant when it comes to the climate.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 18, 2024 5:21 am

It’s better. I worked as field forester for 50 years. The winters used to totally suck- often sub zero F and often very deep snow so that I couldn’t get out into the forests without snowshoes. I liked snowshoeing but I’m happy to live without their need. And who wants sub zero F weather? The summers seem trivially warmer but not every year. And I like warm weather.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 9:30 am

Wrong.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 17, 2024 10:59 am

Insightful.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:53 pm

No, you are deluded and ignorant.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 11:03 am

You say that the GT data is “statistically significant”. What are the statisitcs that you are referring to?

Reply to  Ollie
April 17, 2024 12:15 pm

All the global temperature data sets using linear regression with error margins.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:55 pm

But the trend is so small, and the current temperature is much cooler than for most of the last 2000 year.

Corals grew and thrived in much warmer times.

A fraction of a degree is totally insignificant to them.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 17, 2024 3:32 pm

… the current temperature is much cooler than for most of the last 2000 year.

Another evidence-free assertion.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 6:27 pm

I meant to write “ocean” temperature… since we are talking about corals

The chart I posted shows that to be the case.

Just because you don’t understand the chart.. not my problem..

Ocean warming in the last 50-60 years is an insignificant red squiggle compared to the last 2000 years.

OHC-in-perspective-2
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 5:27 pm

It is too cold and snowy for Hannibal to cross the Alps with his elephants today.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:33 pm

Made up probabilities.. from where… not attribution junk studies, surely, even you aren’t dumb enough to fall for those..

There has actually been barely a degree of ocean surface warming

ie TOTALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

Meanwhile NATURAL absorbed solar radiation is still increasing..

Nothing to do with human causation.

Absorbed-solar-radiation
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:37 pm

Not only that , but if we look at the recent OHC change , it is totally insignificant even over the longer period.. it is actually just a minor RECOVERY from a cold period,

Get some perspective on reality, and stop your mindless chicken-little routine.

OHC-in-perspective-2
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 1:58 pm

In the satellite data, which is not linear at all, All the warming comes at natural El Nino events,

There is no warming apart from those events.

Do you have any evidence of human causation.

or do you agree that those El Nino events are totally natural.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 2:15 pm

Over the ARGO period, the change in global ocean temperature is in the SECOND DECIMAL PLACE.

Even in your totally deluded state on mindlessness, do you really think that is going to be even remotely noticeable to corals that grow is waters at have year temperature ranges of a many degrees !

Ocean-Temperatures-ARGO
Reply to  bnice2000
April 17, 2024 3:39 pm

Your chart shows a clear warming trend and stops 3 years ago.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 6:29 pm

OMG .. what don’t you understand about simple numbers.

The warming amount is in the SECOND DECIMAL PLACE of a degree.

Only a mindless idiot would think that was significant amount of warming.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 18, 2024 2:38 pm

We are dealing with a warmist/alarmist child here be glad we never see Mamooth show up here as he is a million times worse……., I deal with him at a couple of forums.

They are all whack jobs because they will defend their climate delusion to the last drop..

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 2:50 pm

(Given margins of error, there is no certainty about this.)”

A totally reasonable statement, especially once this El Nino dissipates.

A large proportion of surface sites are heavily urban effected and have probably error margins of +/- a few degrees. Surface sites cannot possibly give you any indication of global temperature change, they are way too corrupted by site changes, and the data way too corrupted by agenda-driven changes.

In the satellite data, up until this El Nino, the globe was actually cooling since 2017.

And before the 2016 El Nino, there was no warming for 15+ years.

El Ninos are actually a release of energy from the oceans…

… and what happens when you release energy from something ?

Every other statement by Paul is 100% correct as well.

Reply to  bnice2000
April 17, 2024 3:41 pm

“(Given margins of error, there is no certainty about this.)”

A totally reasonable statement, especially once this El Nino dissipates.

Other than that the warming is outside the margins of error in every global temperature data set and by a significant amount.

But you carry on giving your money to Mr Homewood.

He really appreciates people like you.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 6:32 pm

Poor fungal.. you are really digging yourself deeper and deeper into the mindless sewer-like ignorance of your tiny little mind.

You really believe the stated error margins of GISS et al.

That marks you as a mathematical idiot !.

And there is NO WARMING in the satellite data except at El Nino events.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 6:35 pm

You carry-on and carry-on…. like a mindless chicken-little, about a tiny amount of totally natural warming.

It really does make you look like an extremely stupid and ignorant little person.

Still waiting for that evidence of human causation. !!

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:34 pm

I tell you what. Since you object so strenuously to this comment, show us the uncertainty calculations that propagate throughout the global temperature from a daily temperature at one location to the final temperature calculation.

Evidence is required for you to show that the statement is not true. It should be easy for you to obtain since it should have already been calculated.

SHOW US!

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 4:50 pm

The Earth is still in a 2.6 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation in an interglacial period that alternates with glacial periods, and it will be in this ice age until all the natural ice melts

MarkH
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 7:05 pm

A 40 year trend in a series with a major cycle that has a period of ~70 years is less than meaningless. It’s very likely misleading, especially when the trough of that cycle coincides with the beginning of your 40 year observational period. You are all but guaranteed to see an apparent warming signal. But, it is not a true signal, you have just observed approximately half of the full cycle.

You are taking the observation and then making an assumption that it cannot be for any other reason than “global warming”. Without taking into account the medium and longer term climate cycles you cannot make any claims about significant warming. It is like looking at the temperature trend from 9am until 2pm and concluding that the world is doomed by tomorrow afternoon.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 17, 2024 9:55 pm

Did you not read that “NOAA fabricates temperature data for more than 30 percent of the 1,218 USHCN reporting stations that no longer exist.”? That was only about 6 days ago. When 30% of the temperatures are fabricated, there is no valid trend that can be gleaned from the “data”. How can that not be obvious to you?

strativarius
April 17, 2024 7:41 am

It’s even worse when you have to pay for it

It really is

Mr.
April 17, 2024 7:55 am

Well, as I keep pointing out to the coral doomists modelers –

the real-world observation of the Bikini Atoll coral reefs’ total obliteration by atomic bomb testing in the 1950s, and their complete natural resurrection to previous size and health in just 60 years kinda puts paid to the bullshit you’re pedalling about the fragility of coral reefs.

Corals are like the marine equivalents of flat weeds in your lawn –
you can’t permanently kill the buggers off.

Reply to  Mr.
April 17, 2024 4:58 pm

I think you can but it needs some salt I hear. /sarc One needs to look how old some of the ocean species are. Has the boiling oceans engendered new species? A jokers dream!

April 17, 2024 8:02 am

Has anyone made a complaint to the BBC? I watched the piece on the News and thought that’s not right but I don’t have the scientific background to challenge the BBC.

April 17, 2024 8:22 am

Given the miniscule heat content of air compared to water its impossible for climate change to be responsible

April 17, 2024 11:52 am

I saw the show NOVA on PBS which is probably directly using this BBC crap. I had to fast forward through the talking bits to avoid the alarmist talking points that could be debunked with a minute of research.
I must admit, the propagandists have good photographers. Too bad they are more interested in a narrative than science research.

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 17, 2024 2:22 pm

The corals are everywhere reported as dying, in particular in fraudulent pseudo-scientific papers, except in the brochures for scuba diving holidays.

April 17, 2024 3:14 pm

Note that each of the GBR “bleaching” events is at a strong El Nino.

The thing that near surface coral doesn’t like is over-exposure to direct sunlight.

In the GBR, an El Nino event causes a dip in tide levels that exposes surface corals (the ones seen from the air) to more direct sunlight.

This is what happens in 2015/16

GBR-Sea-Level-2015
David Goeden
April 17, 2024 3:44 pm

The BBC is busy promoting the agenda. There is no time left to report the “facts”. How dare you?! Luv…Greta.

Edward Katz
April 17, 2024 5:42 pm

When the BBC, CBC and other media outlets are instructed and pressured by leftist governments and extreme environmental organizations to inflate the most minor weather anomalies into positive evidence of human-induced climate change, it’s no wonder they have lost so much credibility. They must follow these types of instructions; otherwise, they stand to lose funding and/or donations. In addition, they’re told to downplay any occurrences that cast doubts on their alarmism. So when the public is exposed to a steady flow of such propaganda, it’s no wonder that climate change concern frequently ranks at or very near the bottom on national and international polls surveying people on their most important priorities.

UK-Weather Lass
April 19, 2024 7:25 am

The Regulator is more interested in knocking GB News down to size for very minor infringements than it is in dealing with BBC’s constant stream of lies, language abuse, misinformation, disinformation and cowboy journalism. The last professional walked out at least a decade ago and the BBC is filled with agenda obsessed bilge, scum, excrement, and little else, most of it grossly overpaid. The BBC has also forgotten how to do the stuff it was once good at and is not even a shadow of itself. The real BBC is long dead and gone and so why the hell are they taking our money (they have no conscience that is why)?