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’
Thinking about it maybe the BBC tv report was accurate.
“The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..”
If I worked for the BBC I would be very much affraid of that as it would make a whole decade of obsessional reporting obsolete at a stroke.
Barry Foster
February 15, 2009 12:18 am
Undaunted, the BBC have just ran the story on the main hour news as ‘second lead piece’ – still stating that Prof Field is a senior and respected climatologist. If you would like to contact the BBC news department with your views on this then they’d be pleased to hear from you http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3980000/newsid_3986100/3986153.stm
AnonyMoose
February 15, 2009 12:27 am
This story is appearing in a bunch of places. But the headline refers to “global warming” being worse, while the article does not mention actual warming. The article only states there has been an unpredicted increase in CO2, while not mentioning measured temperatures.
Does the BBC still use editors?
Sandy
February 15, 2009 12:43 am
” Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.”
You are so right!
What fascinates me are the people who really believe in the hype then either make no attempt to look at the facts or walk through the science with eyes wide shut.
Unfortunately these opinion zombies also have a vote.
Sandy (00:43:09) :
” Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.”
You are so right!
What fascinates me are the people who really believe in the hype then either make no attempt to look at the facts or walk through the science with eyes wide shut.
Unfortunately these opinion zombies also have a vote.
—
No. It’s worse than that.
Unfortunately these opinion zombies are actively, deliberately MISLEADING their voters.
Lindsay H
February 15, 2009 12:58 am
Given that we are now celebrating the birth 200 years ago of Charles Dawin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his publication of Origin of the Species, the relevance of which is still being debated by a significant sector of the community which hold certain beliefs regardless of the proofs put in front of them, I’m increasingly of the view that the climate debate is of a similar nature, and in 200 years we will still be debating the theoretical relevance of claims from all sides.
What concerns me most is the enthusiastic support of AGW models by the established scientific magazines Scientific American, New Scientist, Nature, and by mainstream media like the BBC, NY Times etc etc. and to accept uncritically the pontifications of the IPCC, and to report with a blatant pro AGW bias.
Perhaps it represents for the scientific magazines a desperate attempt to sensationalize to save their declining readership and sales in the face of the internet age, lets face it catastrophe sells almost as good as sex.
.
There has to be a reason for their unwillingness to examine the increasing evidence for holding a sceptical and critical view, and unquestioning acceptance of pro AGW papers, and destructive criticism of anything that challenges the status quo.
Are we looking at a climate conspiracy of some sort between the media and left leaning governments, or is it a co-incidence of political expediency to use “climate change” as a mechanism for justifying increasing political intervention and control over the lives of people, to save us from the issues of “peak oil”
Perhaps the failure to critically examine IPCC claims flows from the kind of staff employed by media and central government, and their advisors who seem to arrive young, educated from infancy to accept a “green ” ideology where to criticize or question, amounts to betrayal of the cause.
Recent elections of right and center right governments in a number of countrys plus the economic downturn worldwide will focus minds for the bureaucrats like never before.
As sceptics perhaps we should be more proactive in the political process and aggressively sew seeds of doubt in the minds of the public, and make a particular effort to engage the “climate” and science reporters to modify the sensationalist language used by them.
Perhaps we should establish a fighting fund and sue the bastards for publishing false and misleading information.
WUWT is doing a brilliant job in raising the standard of debate, I’ve no doubt that you are being read by the magazines and media I’ve complained about.
interesting times
J.Hansford
February 15, 2009 1:08 am
LoL… I liked the shakespearean anecdote at the end… very apt.
Much ado about nothing… to do with science. Is more like it though.
Having listened to the BBC report and read the BBC link above, all I can muster is one very loud, Col. Potter of the MASH TV series, HORSEFEATHERS!
What the heck is “negative feedback” mentioned by the BBC journalist?
The principal reason why so little traction is made in countering the science is that it’s not science we are dealing with, but politics misusing science to further an agenda.
Countering the science is simply a well constructed distraction to keep us usefully employed so as not to focus on the real issues – subjecting us to a quasi-tax on air.
This is politics folks, not science.
May be BBC needs more negative feedback from readers like you, Anthony. And these “unprecedented” carbon emissions are even an old hat dated September 2008 and sold as a new one: NEWS!
I then figured out that with IPCC standard 1% increase in CO2 per annum during the 21st century, we might get to 1000 ppm by 2100. However, we are unlikely to get even close to this CO2-concentration with the current global carbon trend.
Bil
February 15, 2009 1:42 am
On the BBC news channel they are repeating this drivel every 30 minutes.
On the BBC Radio 3 news every day this week there has been a different AGW doom-mongering item. I fear a war is being waged.
What really distresses me is that there is never a balanced debate. Every little AGW piece of news is reported as fact with never any real analysis.
I have complained to the BBC repeatedly over their lack of impartiality and balanced reporting, trying not to attack AGW directly, just asking for a balanced debate. All I ever get is the continued mantra that the weight of evidence is incontrovertible, the AGW theory is fact.
We’re doomed, but not because of what they say, but because of the way they have completely lost the ability for independent investigative journalism. It’s not just AGW, but don’t get me started…
The BBC are a laughing stock in the UK, they cannot be relied upon, as with much of the MSM, to report objectively and in full on any topic.
Apologies for the rant.
Stephen Goddard 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.
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.”
—
I guess it really depends on his belief systems. If he feels that CO2 contributes to catastrophic warming and he is seeing more CO2 than his previous models were running, wouldn’t that give him enough reason to think that future temperatures would be higher?
My questions for him would be?
1) How is data from 2000-2007 considered “Fresh”? The IPCC report was delivered in 2008, it would seem that they had plenty of time to incorporate up to 8 year old data.
2) Where are the inaccuracies in your model to have the delta in CO2?
3) Taking that 7 years worth of “Fresh” data and compare it to global world wide temperature trends, why would CO2 rise and temperatures fall?
For what it’s worth, I don’t want to see WUWT going down the road of questioning whether someone’s credentials are strong enough to have opinions on climatology. This entry is selling Chris Field’s short as it doesn’t mention his IPCC background, or his work with Carbon Sinks/Sources. I am sure that Anthony has critics criticize his background as a meteorologist because it’s so different from long term climate. Personally, I think that’s a crock.
I heard this repeated, alarmist style, on Norwegian radio this morning. They just copy from the BBC. It is quite annoying, to say the least.
I am hoping that the public will see the nonsense though, as this winter is much colder and with a lot of snow in and near the city of Oslo (1m+ at my home), where a large fraction of our population lives. But realistically, the it will take some time to sort this mess out.
Ben Kellett
February 15, 2009 1:59 am
Can anyone help!!
Regarding melting ice! I left this post a couple of topics back regarding the smoothing of the NSIDC sea ice growth record for 2009. I have been in touch with NSIDC but so far with no response.
Last week for 2 days – I think 10th & 11th Feb, the graph showed a definate up spike – eg sudden growth in sea ice extent. This has now been smoothed away. It’s not the first time this has happened but the odd thing is that it is (by my reckoning) ALWAYS the up spikes that are smoothed downwards rather than the down spikes smoothed upwards. In the summer melt season, whenever sudden down spikes occur, I have to date not seen any smoothed upwards. It is possible I’ve missed them, but it seem to me that the incidence of smoothing up or down should be roughly equal.
Anthony, I wondered whether this might be worth exploring further if it hasn’t happened already?
Ben
Barry Foster
February 15, 2009 2:04 am
Carsten. If the Norwegian media simply copies the British media, this must annoy the hell out of you people there! You’ll be telling us you get our football next. Is Norway still the best place in the world to live – because that’s what we’re told in the UK?
old construction worker
February 15, 2009 2:09 am
In the real world water vapor is the negitive feeback to heat.
It would a step in the right direction if models were based on water vapor and not CO2.
Robert Wood
February 15, 2009 2:09 am
On the same page is a link to an article about the Himalayas melting!!
Steven Goddard (00:02:04) :
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?
Chris field is one of the Stanford University Global-Warming-Alarm! team headed by Stephen Schneider, a lead IPCC author who says:
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
They both flew to Oslo to The Goracle’s Nobel Prizegiving, I wonder what the carbon footprint of that little junket was.
Be careful with this though Steven;
Mauna Loa measures atmospheric co2 content, not changes in emissions.
I think the “negative feedback” B.S. is a semi deliberate mistake to muddy the waters.
It will lead to all sorts of secondary debate about how “warming can cause cooling events”
Get ready for the night-battle.
Robert Wood
February 15, 2009 2:20 am
This is all part of what is most likely an orchestrated campaign to raise the hysteria to a crescendo at Copenhagen.
I think they will over-do it.
The alarmist Chris Field cited in the BBC article (who is now co-chair of the IPCC working group 2), has stated in previous work that global warming reduces wheat crop yields. His work is contradicted by the data – see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/BBC_IPCC_Field.htm
Thinking about it maybe the BBC tv report was accurate.
“The fear is that increased global warming could set off what’s called negative feedback…..”
If I worked for the BBC I would be very much affraid of that as it would make a whole decade of obsessional reporting obsolete at a stroke.
Undaunted, the BBC have just ran the story on the main hour news as ‘second lead piece’ – still stating that Prof Field is a senior and respected climatologist. If you would like to contact the BBC news department with your views on this then they’d be pleased to hear from you http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3980000/newsid_3986100/3986153.stm
This story is appearing in a bunch of places. But the headline refers to “global warming” being worse, while the article does not mention actual warming. The article only states there has been an unpredicted increase in CO2, while not mentioning measured temperatures.
Does the BBC still use editors?
” Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.”
You are so right!
What fascinates me are the people who really believe in the hype then either make no attempt to look at the facts or walk through the science with eyes wide shut.
Unfortunately these opinion zombies also have a vote.
Sandy (00:43:09) :
” Now we are finding out what the ugly face of religion based science looks like.”
You are so right!
What fascinates me are the people who really believe in the hype then either make no attempt to look at the facts or walk through the science with eyes wide shut.
Unfortunately these opinion zombies also have a vote.
—
No. It’s worse than that.
Unfortunately these opinion zombies are actively, deliberately MISLEADING their voters.
Given that we are now celebrating the birth 200 years ago of Charles Dawin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his publication of Origin of the Species, the relevance of which is still being debated by a significant sector of the community which hold certain beliefs regardless of the proofs put in front of them, I’m increasingly of the view that the climate debate is of a similar nature, and in 200 years we will still be debating the theoretical relevance of claims from all sides.
What concerns me most is the enthusiastic support of AGW models by the established scientific magazines Scientific American, New Scientist, Nature, and by mainstream media like the BBC, NY Times etc etc. and to accept uncritically the pontifications of the IPCC, and to report with a blatant pro AGW bias.
Perhaps it represents for the scientific magazines a desperate attempt to sensationalize to save their declining readership and sales in the face of the internet age, lets face it catastrophe sells almost as good as sex.
.
There has to be a reason for their unwillingness to examine the increasing evidence for holding a sceptical and critical view, and unquestioning acceptance of pro AGW papers, and destructive criticism of anything that challenges the status quo.
Are we looking at a climate conspiracy of some sort between the media and left leaning governments, or is it a co-incidence of political expediency to use “climate change” as a mechanism for justifying increasing political intervention and control over the lives of people, to save us from the issues of “peak oil”
Perhaps the failure to critically examine IPCC claims flows from the kind of staff employed by media and central government, and their advisors who seem to arrive young, educated from infancy to accept a “green ” ideology where to criticize or question, amounts to betrayal of the cause.
Recent elections of right and center right governments in a number of countrys plus the economic downturn worldwide will focus minds for the bureaucrats like never before.
As sceptics perhaps we should be more proactive in the political process and aggressively sew seeds of doubt in the minds of the public, and make a particular effort to engage the “climate” and science reporters to modify the sensationalist language used by them.
Perhaps we should establish a fighting fund and sue the bastards for publishing false and misleading information.
WUWT is doing a brilliant job in raising the standard of debate, I’ve no doubt that you are being read by the magazines and media I’ve complained about.
interesting times
LoL… I liked the shakespearean anecdote at the end… very apt.
Much ado about nothing… to do with science. Is more like it though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal
How does this man get away with it?
And in the Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/4626170/Climate-change-will-be-more-devastating-than-predicted-top-scientist-warns.html
Having listened to the BBC report and read the BBC link above, all I can muster is one very loud, Col. Potter of the MASH TV series, HORSEFEATHERS!
What the heck is “negative feedback” mentioned by the BBC journalist?
The principal reason why so little traction is made in countering the science is that it’s not science we are dealing with, but politics misusing science to further an agenda.
Countering the science is simply a well constructed distraction to keep us usefully employed so as not to focus on the real issues – subjecting us to a quasi-tax on air.
This is politics folks, not science.
May be BBC needs more negative feedback from readers like you, Anthony. And these “unprecedented” carbon emissions are even an old hat dated September 2008 and sold as a new one: NEWS!
I then figured out that with IPCC standard 1% increase in CO2 per annum during the 21st century, we might get to 1000 ppm by 2100. However, we are unlikely to get even close to this CO2-concentration with the current global carbon trend.
On the BBC news channel they are repeating this drivel every 30 minutes.
On the BBC Radio 3 news every day this week there has been a different AGW doom-mongering item. I fear a war is being waged.
What really distresses me is that there is never a balanced debate. Every little AGW piece of news is reported as fact with never any real analysis.
I have complained to the BBC repeatedly over their lack of impartiality and balanced reporting, trying not to attack AGW directly, just asking for a balanced debate. All I ever get is the continued mantra that the weight of evidence is incontrovertible, the AGW theory is fact.
We’re doomed, but not because of what they say, but because of the way they have completely lost the ability for independent investigative journalism. It’s not just AGW, but don’t get me started…
The BBC are a laughing stock in the UK, they cannot be relied upon, as with much of the MSM, to report objectively and in full on any topic.
Apologies for the rant.
OT but FYI
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25057235-601,00.html
Stephen Goddard 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.
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.”
—
I guess it really depends on his belief systems. If he feels that CO2 contributes to catastrophic warming and he is seeing more CO2 than his previous models were running, wouldn’t that give him enough reason to think that future temperatures would be higher?
My questions for him would be?
1) How is data from 2000-2007 considered “Fresh”? The IPCC report was delivered in 2008, it would seem that they had plenty of time to incorporate up to 8 year old data.
2) Where are the inaccuracies in your model to have the delta in CO2?
3) Taking that 7 years worth of “Fresh” data and compare it to global world wide temperature trends, why would CO2 rise and temperatures fall?
For what it’s worth, I don’t want to see WUWT going down the road of questioning whether someone’s credentials are strong enough to have opinions on climatology. This entry is selling Chris Field’s short as it doesn’t mention his IPCC background, or his work with Carbon Sinks/Sources. I am sure that Anthony has critics criticize his background as a meteorologist because it’s so different from long term climate. Personally, I think that’s a crock.
P.S. to above:
Here is climatepatrol’s two cent worth on global carbon trends and climate sensitivity.
Afterthought: Ironically, extreme mitigation efforts could
set offeliminate negative feedbacks.I heard this repeated, alarmist style, on Norwegian radio this morning. They just copy from the BBC. It is quite annoying, to say the least.
I am hoping that the public will see the nonsense though, as this winter is much colder and with a lot of snow in and near the city of Oslo (1m+ at my home), where a large fraction of our population lives. But realistically, the it will take some time to sort this mess out.
Can anyone help!!
Regarding melting ice! I left this post a couple of topics back regarding the smoothing of the NSIDC sea ice growth record for 2009. I have been in touch with NSIDC but so far with no response.
Last week for 2 days – I think 10th & 11th Feb, the graph showed a definate up spike – eg sudden growth in sea ice extent. This has now been smoothed away. It’s not the first time this has happened but the odd thing is that it is (by my reckoning) ALWAYS the up spikes that are smoothed downwards rather than the down spikes smoothed upwards. In the summer melt season, whenever sudden down spikes occur, I have to date not seen any smoothed upwards. It is possible I’ve missed them, but it seem to me that the incidence of smoothing up or down should be roughly equal.
Anthony, I wondered whether this might be worth exploring further if it hasn’t happened already?
Ben
Carsten. If the Norwegian media simply copies the British media, this must annoy the hell out of you people there! You’ll be telling us you get our football next. Is Norway still the best place in the world to live – because that’s what we’re told in the UK?
In the real world water vapor is the negitive feeback to heat.
It would a step in the right direction if models were based on water vapor and not CO2.
On the same page is a link to an article about the Himalayas melting!!
Steven Goddard (00:02:04) :
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?
Chris field is one of the Stanford University Global-Warming-Alarm! team headed by Stephen Schneider, a lead IPCC author who says:
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
They both flew to Oslo to The Goracle’s Nobel Prizegiving, I wonder what the carbon footprint of that little junket was.
Be careful with this though Steven;
Mauna Loa measures atmospheric co2 content, not changes in emissions.
George Manbiot, never heard of him until he started to appear on the media telling us the world was going to end. Has a degree in zoology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot
He has a column in the Gaurdian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/05/kingsnorthclimatecamp.climatechange
David Bellamy, a popular and frequent contributer to natural history programmes when I was growing up. Has a degree in biology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
“BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE”
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
The debate is over.
I think the “negative feedback” B.S. is a semi deliberate mistake to muddy the waters.
It will lead to all sorts of secondary debate about how “warming can cause cooling events”
Get ready for the night-battle.
This is all part of what is most likely an orchestrated campaign to raise the hysteria to a crescendo at Copenhagen.
I think they will over-do it.
The alarmist Chris Field cited in the BBC article (who is now co-chair of the IPCC working group 2), has stated in previous work that global warming reduces wheat crop yields. His work is contradicted by the data – see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/BBC_IPCC_Field.htm