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.
Ricegate!
The article is still misleading… And Black makes/quotes assumptions about possible outcomes only to support his own well demonstrated bias…
The real threat to food production is falling temperature not rising temperature – everything else being equal…
All soils have a finite limit for crop production – the rate of yield growth will always tend to reduce as that limit is reached – everything else being equal… It’s not rocket science!
Typical BBC campaigning drivel…
Wow! A correction, if only minor. Anthony, obviously your repute is gaining weight (no pun intended ;~P). Way to hold their feet to the fire.
Richard Black is, always has and ever will be full of the proverbial.
Once again, here we have an example of science versus; conjecture, incontinent headlines and downright bad journalism, the meme, getting in the way of objectivity and accurate portrayal of the quite evident facts.
Full marks Mr. Watts.
Jimbo says:
August 12, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“[…]Had this been a balanced news report the otherside might have pointed the error out before publication. ”
Ten years ago the BBC still did that; that was when i switched from German news channels to the BBC. I thought it was some kind of standard in British news reporting. They dropped that over the past decade.
I still occasionally stroll by but only to see the latest propaganda lie. Gotta stay current with that.
Well done, Anthony and gracious response from R Black.
Up to UK WUWTistas to make sure he follows through
Anthony
Have you complained to the BBC about this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage
[Reply: If you want to be sure Anthony sees your tip, put it in Tips & Notes. There are only so many hours in the day; sometimes Anthony misses a comment in other threads.
But readers should feel free to utilize your link here if they like. ~dbs, mod.]
This error is not uncommon, but not necessarily unintended. How many times has a politician told us taxes were being lowered only for us to realize later that it was the size of the increase that has been reduced but which still results in higher taxes?
He had the good grace to admit his error. Nicely done, Anthony.
Has anyone pushed back on the New Scientist? Their RSS blurb says, “The combined effects of climate change and deforestation threaten 80 per cent of Earth’s tropical forests – but they can still be saved.” The story starts with “BY THE end of the century, up to 82 per cent of today’s tropical forests could be damaged by a combination of climate change and local destruction.” My bet is 81.75% comes from “local destruction.” Link: http://bit.ly/caVs6j
The alarmist side is continually corrected.
Other than spelling errors what has the “skeptics” side had to correct?
“Yields have fallen by 10-20% over the last 25 years in some locations.”
Obviously not poor farming practices. Blame it on AGW and you might get a grant to fix it.
trouble is BBC “stories” go around the world…
Bangladesh: Rice yields falling under global warming (Courtesy BBC)
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=25255
Ghana: Rice yields falling under global warming
http://accra-mail.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21250:rice-yields-falling-under-global-warming&catid=62:business&Itemid=211
Ethiopia: Rice yields falling under global warming
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/201001/?p=340947
Lebanon: Rice yields falling under global warming
http://www.beirut-online.net/portal/article.php?id=7795
UAE: Rice yields falling due to warming!
http://sport.khaleejtimes.me/article/05V32Zqf1U31u?q=Africa
put “rice yields falling” in a google search. i got 34 PAGES of links to this story, incl most of the CAGW websites!
did AFP and Natasha Gilbert at Nature make the same “mistake” as richard black?
how many picked up the AFP article, either in French or English?
AFP: Global warming threatens Asian rice production: study
Rising temperatures in the past 25 years have already cut rice yields at several key growing locations by 10-20 percent
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQdV69W_J5hApCILihf6sFg0Xpng
10 Aug: Nature: Natasha Gilbert: Temperature increases damage rice yields
But as temperatures have warmed over the past 25 years, rice yields have fallen by 10-20% in Asia, which produces the lion’s share of the world’s rice…
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/08/temperature_increases
will they retract and apologise?
What a load of Bull Crap this is. Rice grows in WARM WET climates.
AGW supposedly will make it WARMER and WETTER, therefore MORE RICE
Problem is the story is STILL misleading! The title and first line are WRONG. Is it worth writing again Anthony?
Richard Black has not made an adequate correction. The heading is still wrong. If Richard Black doesn’t write a new article with an apology for his error, I will use this as an example of BBC warmist bias.
And Google will have this WUWT post on their first page of results. Heck, let’s do that anyway. You all know what to do don’t you?
Anthony – perhaps you would like to follow this up, too? I woke to the news that a researcher is going to spend a year with the Inuit (even though he still has to learn the language!) to study their habits, as they are soon to be wiped out by GW…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10955024
Now, how easy would it have been to get the grant if he hadn’t been able to invoke GW?
What gets to me is the tacit acceptance by the BBC that GW is a valid excuse. It’s become a given to them, so they don’t even bother to query it!
Excellent news. I had already contacted Richard about this and castigated him on his blog. I would love to believe it was an innocent error, but come on, the guy is a nailed down advocate.
The correction is completely inadequate, the headline is now stating “Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming”
“I had already contacted Richard about this and castigated him on his blog”
Does he have more than one? I’ve just looked on his ‘Earthwatch’ and the latest item was three days ago.
Mr. Black should be in government. Only a politician would say that a decrease in the rate of growth in something is a cut…
Never look a gift horse in the mouth. While the BBC has made a minor correction, its healdines and story lines are still false. As one commentor pointed out, amny of the CAGW sites have picked up the (false) line and are running with it. So it will continue to be an urban myth for years to come, and an easy way for the non-religious to shut down the faithful in real open debate.
I read “The Times” daily. I have yet to see this “correction”.
Maybe it has been printed (online), but if it is already in the newstand version it must be microscopic.
Whatever happens I guarantee it will not be given equal exposure.
Title – “Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming”
IS this some sort of ‘post norma’l journalism at work….?
Is putting ‘to fall’ in quotes an ironic way of meaning the exact opposite…
This is deliberate spin, by the BBC and Richard Black.
They have been informed that the headline is factually incorrect and confusingly means the exact opposite of the facts..
The Growth in the rate of increase in rise yield has dropped.
Or some such similar headline would be accurate.
Yet the BBC chooses a headline to misrepresent the facts
Why?
The BBC are supposed to be impartial, accurate and provide a public service, not spining any story into an activists environmental CAGW advocacy
Time to complain, again, to the BBC trust and copy some members of Parliament that srill actually care about impartiality at the BBC and in science reporting..
Enquiry into bias in science reporting at the BBC (including man made global warming)
trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk
If anybody cares about the world poor that is….
This story has already caused rice prizes to rize, countries like to Philipines to buy/store rice. Pushing up prices for the world’s hungry..
Well done BBC !
Imagine, as an analogy..
If the BBC business section had written an article titled.
House Prices ‘to fall’
When in fact the rate INCREASE of house price had fallen slightly….. ( they have increased, but only by 8% this year compared to 9% the previous year)
Imagine, if it had been pointed out to them, this was factually wrong, and they issued a minor correction and left the same title, and bulk of the story/spin..
The BBC would be (rightly) accused of spinning a headline against the facts, as a political statement, and there would be trouble (lots of it, poltical and otherwise – ie markets)..
(remembering, at all times, the BBC is publically funded, and has a charter that say it should be impartial and accurate, and provide an apolitical public service. It is not some sort of newspaper or media channel with a party line, or political bent)
So prior to the correction, ‘sloppy’ journalism….. possibly?
Following the correction, the facts having been spelt out to them by many people.
Then deliberate ‘spin’ to keep that headline, and not rewrite the article to get it accurate……. Totally unacceptable for the BBC