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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m not too impressed by the correction
Headline still says “Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming”
Anthony,
In typical BBC/Richard Black fashion, the headline remains unchanged, and the correction is buried !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591
A study published at the begining of last year concluded that half of the world’s population could face a climate-induced food crisis by 2100, with the most extreme summers of the last century becoming routine towards the end of this century.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
__________________________________________________________
Correction 12th August: this story has been amended to reflect the fact that it is the rate of growth in yields that has fallen, not the yields themselves.
Phillip Bratby says: “Well done Anthony. Of course nobody will notice the correction. The damage has been done, presumably as intended.”
Phillip, I very much doubt that Mr. Black intended to mislead. More likely, he was mislead by the way the press release was phrased. “Growth rate in yield” would have been much clearer.
I agree the PR was poorly worded. Many made the same mistake.
That said it does demonstrate confirmation bias in the media.
If you expect the worst from climate change you’ll surely find it.
I found the graph that Anthony linked to interesting. Apart from China which has a strange shape anyway by eyeball the other regions recent yields look to be growing in the recent years. Presumably this is based upon measurement rather than models as used by the alleged study. 🙂
Having read the article by Black with the small correction it just now seems to fall apart, I am surprised that he did not remove his name. 🙂
I think the only credit due here is to Anthony Watts. As others upthread comment they have emailed Richard Black on errors with no response. All this correction demonstrates is that Anthony has “traction” and that is due to the work he has done with WUWT. RB’s reporting and correction to the story are pathetic.
I feel so sorry for people like Richard Black.
He is part of this new generation that have been brainwashed by schools and universities for their entire lives. You can’t honestly expect them to be capable of critical thought – suffering as they have done in the dark – a mushroom being fed only propaganda. They see everything through their religious beliefs in Mother Gaia and that mankind is evil and that everything is bad or will lead to catastrophe. What a sad sad and disturbed & depressing way to grow up. The Sky is Falling!
No wonder, everything is interpreted as more evidence that Henny Penny was right and we are all doomed. After all, Black is only trained as a “journalist” – whatever that means – he only knows how to scaremonger and preach disaster in everything he writes.
This new generation enjoys the highest standards of living and health EVER and yet all they ever do is worry, mope, moan and complain. Perhaps it is the disease that comes from having too much good food and too much leisure time and having very little hard work (like our ancestors did when they toiled dawn to dusk only to survive, if lucky). Something there for psychologists for sure – life is just too easy for this new generation – they have it too good and it destroys their self esteem.
The title indeed gives the impression they are attempting to exagerate the impact of the finding. It’s the yield increase that is to decline not the yields. This is equivalent to saying the stock market is to fall when it in fact is growing but the earnings growth reduced. If the BBC reported the business news like the climate news, heads would roll at the editorial board at the BBC.
I also notified Richard Black about the mistake, and got a response mail:
“Indeed – corrected now, thanks.
RB”
Not much, of course, but it sure earned him a few points in my book!
This looks like a breakthrough to me.
Not because of the minor correction. No, quite the opposite.
As in Anthony’s original email it is polite to assume that the original mistakes were a simple case of misinterpreting the story. However, Richard Black admits his mistake and makes a minor correction but leaves the headline which is still clearly wrong.
I would say that it is now an obvious case of deliberate misinformation. Proof, from his own email, that Richard is willing to misrepresent the facts really does like a breakthrough to me.
So the fact that Anthony’s rice yield graph completely negates Richard Black’s article doesn’t disturb him in the slightest. See, premise destroyed, conclusion still intact; look Ma, no hands. The fine school of British public broadcasting. East Germany’s Aktuelle Kamera couldn’t have done it better.
Unless of course he really does not understand what the words mean. But that wouldn’t be a whole lot better.
Please see below my email exchange with Richard Black:
Hi Richard
With the greatest respect, I think you are being disingenuous. As the press release on which you base your story clearly states:
Rice yields will only fall if “we cannot change our production methods or develop new rice strains”. Aided by good science, rice growers have, in the recent past, adapted extremely well to fluctuations in the environment.
The headline is a dud which admittedly fits in well with the agenda of the waning CAGW religion.
Kind regards
Mike Post
—–Original Message—–
From: Richard Black-Internet [mailto:Richard.Black2@bbc.co.uk]
Sent: 12 August 2010 18:47
To: Mike Post
Subject: RE: Rice yields
Thanks, Mike. No, the headline does still work because the research is projecting yield falls in the future.
Cheers,
RB
——————————————————————————–
From: Mike Post [mailto:mikepost@talktalk.net]
Sent: 12 August 2010 18:24
To: Richard Black-Internet
Subject: Rice yields
Dear Mr Black
I see that you have corrected your rice yield story. However, the headline still reads incorrectly: “Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming”. Can I suggest that you arrange for the headline to be corrected too?
Kind regards
Mike Post
Craig Loehle’s book “Becoming a Successful Scientist” has a good treatment of bias related to science. NOTE: WUWT prominently advertises it near the top of the main blog page. I bought the ebook version.
One section is “Values and Bias” where he discusses problems of a person’s values biasing the view of a piece of science. Certainly, this would apply to media interpreting a science paper to correspond to the journalist’s values.
I enjoyed Loehle’s book very much. He mixes in the history of the philosophy of science into his discussion very well.
John
The correction is in but the title says:
and also
——–
Frederick Michael says:
August 12, 2010 at 8:16 am
Richard Black deserves high praise for including the words, “I am mistaken.” His response would have read just fine without that. It reflects true professionalism and sturdy self-esteem. I am impressed.
Don’t be misled by weasel words. They cost him nothing. Wait for the correction. I think you will be disappointed. Black is a rabid warmer, predjudiced novelist. If he corrects I will apologise.
See last post!! No correction merely a deflection.
Andoman says:
August 12, 2010 at 7:46 am
Easy enough error to make, I don’t think there was any ‘secret’ motive on this one. Good on you for correcting this mistake though.
Isn’t Richard Black supposed to understand things like this. It was pretty clear in here so some people understood the report.
I expect we can now look forward to a triumphant article by George Monbiot in tomorrow’s Guardian on why a writer on one side of the AGW debate had to admit a mistake and correct his story due to an error pointed out by someone on the other side.
RayG says: “… the Most Holy Church of Mann-made Global Warming …”
Indeed, Ray. I’ve heard they accept nearly all denominations – but a $50 bill will do.
Where are the headline writers? Have they all knocked-off early, or, (more likely) been instructed not to amend? Spin … spin … spin …….
1.5 down and 120,000 news stories to go!!! :o(
I wish journalists could just realise the kind of damage and alarm they cause by not checking their sources or even asking the opinion of sceptics. Had this been a balanced news report the otherside might have pointed the error out before publication. With CAGW we now have journalism by press release.
“Thanks, Mike. No, the headline does still work because the research is projecting yield falls in the future.
Cheers,
RB”
Hey, it’s the news. It’s…. educational.
(Thank God for WUWT)
It sounds like AGW is a disease of western nations who feel guilt ridden by their standard of living while carbon credits is a disease of the wealthy, luvvy, jetset bunch who would rather die than reduce their luxury lifestyles. All the while the jetset bunch tell us how wicked human greed is and we are destroying the planet. Al Gore has 2 mansions, 1 one the beach with its 6 fireplaces churning out co2!!!!
An unavoidable retraction, so I would not be heaping any praise on Black. You would expect a professional journalist to be able to interpret the press release correctly, so it certainly does indicate yet more of this confirmation bias disease that is completely endemic within the BBC these days.
Unless they wholeheartedly retract the original article and its headline most of the damage has been done.
Another example of their obsession was demonstrated earlier this week during the BBC Breakfast programme. In a report about impending water shortages due to lack of rainfall, the voiceover quite clearly stated that 1H 2010 was “the dryest 1st half of the year since 1914” whilst the moving graphic (the bit that sticks in your memory) showed “hottest 1st half year since 1914”.
They simply never miss an opportunity to keep the hype going
The headline has changed from “Rice yields falling under global warming” to “Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming”.
I emailed Mr Black regarding this story, and also sent in a complaint to the BBC. I also made a fuss on Mr Black’s blog. The email and the complaint both resulted in very polite responses from Mr Black. The blog posts were ignored, though frankly I think I would have ignored them if I was him, as I was in “irritating twerp” mode when I wrote them. And to be fair, two acknowledgements of my concerns must surely be enough.
Here is another story for the CAGW crowd. Follow the link for the rest of the story.
It looks like everything is in danger, rice, corn, broccoli, truth…
If only the Toronto Star would correct their stories…
The U.N.’s network of climate scientists — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — has long predicted that rising global temperatures would produce more frequent and intense heat waves, and more intense rainfalls. In its latest assessment, in 2007, the Nobel Prize-winning panel went beyond that. It said these trends “have already been observed,” in an increase in heat waves since 1950, for example.
Still, climatologists generally refrain from blaming warming for this drought or that flood, since so many other factors also affect the day’s weather.
Stott and NASA’s Gavin Schmidt at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, said it’s better to think in terms of odds: Warming might double the chances for a heat wave, for example. “That is exactly what’s happening,” Schmidt said, “a lot more warm extremes and less cold extremes.”
The WMO did point out, however, that this summer’s events fit the international scientists’ projections of “more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming.”
On on and on…
Just look for the key words for all your favorite memes.
You got some lip service. Is that good? You know where those lips have been.
You didn’t win any retraction, for sure. I call premature triumphalism. I think your projection of decency was irrational, no matter that it demonstrates your own fundamental goodness. Get this: he’s laughing. He’s got the $$. We get the shaft.