From: Richard Black
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:01 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: RE: Your article on rice yields
Dear Anthony,
Thanks for your email. You are correct – I am mistaken – a correction will be made to the news story shortly.
Best regards,
Richard Black
…my letter follows
From: Anthony Watts
Sent: 11 August 2010 00:51
To: Richard Black; Richard Black-Internet
Subject: Your article on rice yields
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Black,
I’m writing as a courtesy to advise you that I believe your article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591
Which says “Yields have fallen by 10-20% over the last 25 years in some locations.”
…is in error.
The actual press release says ”Rising temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uoc–htt080610.php
It is not the gross yield that has supposedly fallen, but the rate of increase in the yield.
Further, I have a graph from the International Rice Research Institute which supports this and demonstrates that gross rice yields are still increasing in Asia:
http://beta.irri.org/test/j15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393&Itemid=100104
I think it’s just a simple interpretive error on how you read the press release, but it does have large consequences for how the story is interpreted by readers. Here in Northern California, one of the largest rice growing areas of the world, a call to our local Rice Association confirmed this. A correction might be in order.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts
=============================================
See these related WUWT stories:
Rice yields, CO2 and temperature – you write the article
The norwegian met office’s weather site yr.no corrected their rice story after I made them aware of the error. I referred to rice production data from this site http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx.
Mr. Black deserves commendation for correcting the error promptly. The authors of the original paper, however, deserve condemnation for producing such a shoddy work.
Compliments on polite persuasive communication.
Cool, a polite letter pointing out an error in a news story provokes a polite response and action, news at 11! If only all disagreements could be handled similarly…
Another example of confirmation bias at work. It was not an innocent mistake, it was a mistake driven by a desire to print on anything that supports CAGW.
The one sentence that you brought to his attention to has been changed, but the title “Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming” and the introductory sentence “Global warming is set to cut rice yields in Asia, research suggests” remain unchanged.
If you have any Scottish blood in you Anthony, You could join the Black Watch Regiment and maintain a reconnaissance on Mr Black and his colleagues at the BBC for further “mistaken” sorties into the arena of climate science journalism and propaganda.
It is probably so that the idea alone that agricultural yields are steadily rising is so foreign to an arch-malthusian in the pay of the BBC that Richard Black never considered he might have misinterpreted that sentence.
Well done, Anthony!
My faith in the BBC has improved over the last couple of days what with this and a good explanation, on the main news weather, of the Jet Strem causing the weather extremes in Moscow and Pakistan. However I’ll be interested in the prominence of the correction.
By the way you can call him Richard from now on.
cheers David
Good job! this is what is needed-call’em on it!
The correction has been made, such as it is, but the headline has not been corrected and is still patently wrong.
Headline: Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming
However there is no suggestion that yields are going to fall. The scariest justifiable headline is something like:
Global Warming threatens hoped-for increases in rice yields.
Fairer:
Rice yields to rise more slowly under global warming
Modified quote follows:
“Thanks for your email. You are correct – I am mistaken – a correction will be made to the news story shortly. Once hades freezes over.”
No, just kidding, really! It is just so rare to see such a quick and honest response from a news agency that I was overcome by cynicism. Let us assume that the honorable Mr. Black will do exactly as he promises, in a timely and appropriate manner.
Thank you Anthony. All I can do is grit my teeth. I have just been listening to a BBC report on Radio 4 that is claiming an American company has devised a method of removing CO2 directly from the air. The tone of the announcement was as of a messaniac revelation.
They’ve put a small correction at the foot of the article but the headline reads :-
“Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming”
Thanks for this Anthony.
The truth has finally got its boots on…
You got a reply, Anthony, I did not.
Black has altered a few words but the article is still the same scare-mongering “future scenario” as before. You wouldn’t expect any less from an elite climate warming propagandist, would you?
He could have chosen population growth as the hook to hang a rice production story on but he chose the phoney “climate change” angle instead.
Black spits in the face of our concerns over accuracy.
Good work. Succinct, irrefutable, professional.
This can serve as a template for effectively dismantling the hype of AGW.
Well well well.
The Independent online editor acknowledged my message within 30 minutes, and the article has been pulled now, under an hour later.
So they do listen…
Still readable via the google cache, if anyone cares…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-threatens-asian-rice-production-study-2049267.html
Regardless of the “correction, they still spin the story faster than a 78 rpm vinyl record…
Still towing the same old doom stories of AGW without any critical reading of the paper itself… very poor journalism indeed!
It’s not enough to report a story, one has to understand the subject and obviously Mr. Black hasn’t.
This is important.
This BBC journalist acknowledges the existence of WUWT as a serious voice in the ongoing climate debate. This looks like the beginning of the acceptance of the facts and opinions presented on WUWT into the mainstream media.
The admittance of error must have hurt, so it is reasonable to expect more care in the future.
Well done Anthony. I used the BBC website to make a complaint about the misrepresentation in the article. I don’t suppose Richard Black would have changed anything for a mere mortal.
More power to your elbow.
Richard Blake made his correction at the bottom of the article in a “fine print” type usually made in dubious contracts. The rest of the article keeps implying there will be reduction in yields. Especially the article heading.
It is just me or the following is a contradictory statement in the article?
Quote: “However, if temperatures continue to rise as computer models of climate project, Mr Welch says hotter days will eventually begin to bring yields down.”
“We see a benefit of [higher] daytime temperatures principally because we haven’t seen a scenario where daytime temperatures cross over a threshold where they’d stop benefiting yields and start reducing them,” he told BBC News.” –End of quote—
Isn’t this a fallacy based on ignorance? There are too many negative-negative terms in the equation. They haven’t seen a scenario (so there is not one) where higher temperatures will not benefit yields. Ergo, higher temperatures WILL benefit yields. So how can he say yields will go down if temperatures go up?
The BBC corrected something??? WOW!
The BBC have corrected the text of the article – but the headline still reads:
“Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming” – a claim which is unsupported by the research.