BBC edits out climate warming data in climbdown

BBC_LogoJust like the IPCC and its reliance on reports from activist NGO’s has gotten them burned, so has the BBC.

From the Daily Mail:

The BBC has been forced into an embarrassing climbdown over climate change claims made in Sir David Attenborough’s groundbreaking Africa series. In the last episode of the series, entitled ‘Future’, Sir David discussed the challenges facing the region.

Speaking over footage of Mount Kilimanjaro, Sir David made the assertion that ‘some parts of the continent have become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years’. However, figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that since 1850 global temperatures have risen by 0.76C, causing widespread concern among viewers.

The comment, first broadcast in the final episode of the Africa series last Wednesday, was removed from Sunday night’s repeat of the show.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘There is widespread acknowledgement within the scientific community that the climate of Africa has been changing as stated in the programme.

‘We accept the evidence for 3.5 degrees increase is disputable and the commentary should have reflected that.

‘Therefore that line has been removed from Sunday’s repeat and the iPlayer version replaced.’

The BBC initially defended the claim, saying it was taken from a report by Oxfam and the New Economics Foundation, but in turn this report suggested the figure had come from a report by Christian Aid.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2276888/BBC-climbdown-climate-change-claims-David-Attenboroughs-Africa.html

h/t to WUWT reader steverichards1984

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
KevinM

Wrong spin on this issue but Attenborough’s nature shows are otherwise very watchable.

Kon Dealer

Well if the 3.5 degrees figure had come from such respected scientific organisations like Oxfam, The New Economics Foundation and Christian Aid, I can fully understand why the BBC believed them.
Shame on the denialist viewers who complained.
they must all be in the pay of “Big Oil”
(sarc)

Ken Hall

“A BBC spokesman said: ‘There is widespread acknowledgement within the scientific community that the climate of Africa has been changing as stated in the programme.
‘We accept the evidence for 3.5 degrees increase is disputable and the commentary should have reflected that.”

No it is not “disputable”. It is WRONG. W.R.O.N.G. WRONG! Incorrect, without foundation in truth, erroneous and completely wrong.
I am greatly saddened to watch any of the BBC natural history programmes fronted by Sir David Attenborough now. He was once a reliable teacher of the wonders of nature, but now resembles a geriatric old duffer who is slowly losing his marbles and has difficulty keeping in touch with reality.
I despair that the BBC still use Attenborough and not Dr David Bellamy who was a much loved regular expert and activist on the BBC, who never let hype or hyperbole get in the way of truth, and who was a vociferous supporter of all real environmental concerns. Naturally, he is a scientists first and foremost and never ever saw the scientific proof of human induced global climate disruption.
Sir David Attenborough should have been retired by the BBC several years ago. He is now an embarrassment.

pokerguy

Kon Dealer…
Beautifully done. I was thinking much the same thing.

Nick in Vancouver

Priceless, keep it up people, the more they spin, the faster they fall.

Yet another manifestation of 28gate

Frank K.

Oxfam, WWF, NASA/GISS, Greenpeace, NOAA, BBC…the CAGW misinformation sources are indistinguishable to me any more.

Wamron

Attenborough is an idiot.
Its the British way that if someone “talks posh” he’s regarded as intelligent.
In actual fact, as a communicator, Attenborough is a serial failure.

Village Idiot

Remember to keep focusing on “Surface air temperatures = global warming” and skirt around the planet’s total energy balance figures….

Wamron

…BTW, apropos the earlier thread on faked images, do those here who have watched BBC wildlife programmes realise that large parts of the footage (scenes supposedly inside nests and such like) is fake? I used to buy stuff at a shop that supplied the materials used in the fake settings. I also know a guy who is a consultant to them on the creation of such sets.

Old England

Kevin M
“Wrong spin on this issue but Attenborough’s nature shows are otherwise very watchable.”
Yes they are very watchable but Attenborough who, for many years, I had the greatest of respect for, has been 100% captured by the warmists and takes every opportunity he can to put out propaganda.
Even though the 3.5 deg C had been pulled all his comments were of increased temperatures, reduced rainfall, the increasing desertification and increasing size of the sahara and also snow loss on kilimanjiro due to global warming/climate change – points which have all been comprehensively, scientifically debunked.
I have always had the greatest respect for him, although it genuinely saddens me to say that I have lost that because of his ceaseless warmist propaganda in recent years.

Lance Wallace

I read the 100 or so highest-rated comments. Didn’t find a single one supporting the BBC spin. I wonder if the BBC takes notice.

Owen in GA

I used to love Attenborough’s nature documentaries. He gave me a glimpse of things that were beyond my ability at the time to go see for myself. Lately though, the guy seems to think that he has to pound home the CAGW meme with every episode. I was watching one of his documentaries on NetFlix and it sounded like a much older Attenborough voice added as a voice-over toward the end exclaiming how all this was in imminent danger due to the actions of man and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Took a very enjoyable nature diversion and turned it into a preach fest…ruined the whole thing for me. Now I don’t know if I dare watch any of the old documentaries I remember enjoying years ago for fear the old guy will have defaced more of them with CAGW pap voice-overs.
I am with him on basic conservation measures, but this anti-industrialization nonsense has got to go!

Betapug

Attenborough was simply reading the script written for him by the producers.
The mood music background to tragic scenes, gives the whole game away despite their denial that “…. the programme’s score ‘told viewers how to feel’ at different points”….
‘It is part of the process of looking deeper and creating that more immersive experience”.
Watch and weep.

Rob Potter

“Sir David Attenborough should have been retired by the BBC several years ago. He is now an embarrassment.”
Absolutely correct, Ken. Yet who was it the BBC did can from their science and nature programs? David Bellamy who had the temerity to question the “end of the world” line the BBC was pushing.

Paul Westhaver

[snip – off topic]

Dodgy Geezer

I hope that someone is putting in a strong complaint to the authorities about this.
We had evidence that the BBC were over-egging the climate scare. Are they now to be allowed to change their program retrospectively and claim that they didn’t really broadcast this? Because that’s what it will look like to future historians…

Colin Gartner

Heh, 3.5 degrees increase in 20 years? This claim ranks up there with the gone-by-2035 Himalayan glacier story. It’s so patently absurd on its face, it’s laughable.

Great News. Does this mean the law for non payment of the license fee is ‘ disputable’ now?
/sarc

numerobis

A claim about “some parts of Africa” can’t be debunked by pointing to a global average. I am nearly certain that at least one weather station somewhere in Africa has seen 3.5C increase: it’s a big continent! But the claim seems ill sourced and too vague to mean anything. Good on viewers to challenge it. I presume you challenge all claims equally, right?

J. Watson

I’m certainly no warmist, and can’t believe I’m backing him, but you should give credit in this instance to Leo Hickman at The Guardian, who exposed this glaring error. It was not The Daily Mail, as you reference, and we live in hope that The Guardian’s environment and science journos might behave similarly in future, checking the facts rather than accepting guff from any green advocacy group.

apachewhoknows

Therefor it should follow that any end of movie, TV , book, news article, ect. with Al Gore’s claims on the tempature rise he claims should be reviwed and his claim/claims edited out.

This story popped up in the Graun om 8th February. Following on from the story it took me no time at all to find information about the station in a paper called “Raised temperatures over the Kericho tea estates: revisiting the climate in the East African highlands malaria debate”
Judith A Omumbo, Bradfield Lyon, Samuel M Waweru, Stephen J Connor, Madeleine C Thomson
From the paper it seems that: In the Tx time series (Figure 2a) a single break-point, with
an associated shift of 1.29°C, was detected in 1986. KMD
indicates the timing of this shift corresponds to a change
in the Kericho station location from the Hail Research
Center (35.27E, 0.37S; elevation 2184m) to its current
location (35.35E, 0.37S; elevation 1976m) at that time. The
sign and magnitude of the identified shift in the mean
temperature are both consistent with expectations given
the average change in atmospheric temperature with elevation
(lapse rate).
Later on there is a table that gives the Mean Temp increase as being 0.21°C per decade – so about 12% of the BBC figure.
Come on BBC it ain’t hard!!

The BBC and accuracy in the same sentence appear to be an oxymoron. I guess the English are learning some things from its former Colonies. Just not the right things.

jorgekafkazar

Ken Hall says: “No it is not “disputable”. It is WRONG. W.R.O.N.G. WRONG! Incorrect, without foundation in truth, erroneous and completely wrong.”
You mean, a lie? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you! The BBC? Lying? (Amazing how they continue to dig the hole ever deeper.)

3.5C warmer, when from the record low 20 years ago to the most recent record high?
‘some parts of the continent have become 3.5C hotter in the past 20 years’. totally meaningless without context.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

I fear for Mr Attenborough’s mind in the same way that I fear for Mr Archibald’s mind. Is it age? Is this what I have to look forward to?

Filbert Cobb

DM were behind the timeline – Leo Hickman at the Guardian ran a blog post twitting Attenbore, Delingpole more or less reposted Hickman’s blog at the Telegraph, DM ran it a day later. Probably ran out of stories about minor starlets having wardrobe malfunctions on red carpets.

Ian_UK

And what about Kilimanjaro’s impending nudity? I’ve written to the BBC to complain about the lies spoken by (if not written by) Sir David. I’m not expecting an apology.

AnonyMoose

I look forward to a Ken Burns documentary on Global Warming Alarmism, with a slow pan across this story and the announcer describing the embarrassing followup.

The BBC could all be gone by 2035.

Dan from Durham

Like far far to many BBC documentaries and publications, they continually try to get across to the public the Warmists view point, it would be laughable if it weren’t our taxes that go towards funding this organisation that can’t even get their facts right in this otherwise excellent documentarie.

Jeff Norman

From the article:
Experts have also questioned the figure, with Dr Tim Osborn of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit telling the Guardian: “So I would say that our data do not support the claim of 3.5 degC warming in the last 20 years in some regions of Africa.”
Does this mean there is some data at the CRU that does support a claim of a 3.5°C increase in other regions of Africa? Is there anyone from the CRU that can give a straight answer that includes the truth?

Jeff Norman

So I went to the GISS web page to check on the African station data and found:
“All interactive content, such as global temperature maps or station data plots using a web form, is currently disabled.”
Is this new? I haven’t been there in a while.

Dave

The BBC is not a scientific body. Nor is Attenborough a scientist. His nature programmes are quite breathtaking because of the supreme skill of the cameramen and women who should take all the credit. His pontifications on AGW are so much hot air. I once had a conversation with him at the Royal Geographical Society and, in my opinion, found him to be scientifically illiterate.

zz

I first saw reference to the story here – itself being primarily a reference to the Guardian article.
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2013/02/08/bbc-exaggerated-climate-change-in-david-attenboroughs-africa/
Perhaps the most interesting thing is that Attenborough held out from becoming a CAGW spokesman for the BBC for so long – stating that it was an area in which he has no expertise. I guess the BBC eventually ground down his principles.

johnbuk

Sadly the requests for David Attenborough to step down won’t make matters any better – standing in the wings is Prof Brian Cox (physicist) who will appeal to the masses (especially the younger ones) as he had some success as a pop star earlier in his career. Have a look at the Wiki page for him and you’ll see he has an impressive pedigree – plus he also a “humanist”. He is also a big fan of the scientific consensus and therefore the BBC can still toe the line as it were.

johnbuk

Mostlyharmless said “The BBC could all be gone by 2035.”
Bloody hell, this CAGW is better than we thought.

Owen in GA

AnonyMoose says:
February 12, 2013 at 9:14 am
I look forward to a Ken Burns documentary on Global Warming Alarmism, with a slow pan across this story and the announcer describing the embarrassing followup.

I wouldn’t hold my breath on that – Burns (like most of PBS) is totally taken in with the “Settled Science”. To do a good documentary, you really shouldn’t be part of the story.

Matt

jorgekafkazar,
“You mean, a lie? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you! The BBC? Lying? (Amazing how they continue to dig the hole ever deeper.)”
Not every wrong statement is a lie. To show it was a lie you would need evidence that Mr Attenborough knew it was wrong when he said it.

Pull My Finger

[snip -off topic]

Nik Marsall-Blank

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of “science” at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

Why are we not seeing those self-proclaimed protectors of ¡’Nullius In Verba’! ripping these BBC reporters / editors into quivering moronic shreds?
Why?
John

Richard

Owen
“I used to love Attenborough’s nature documentaries. He gave me a glimpse of things that were beyond my ability at the time to go see for myself. Lately though, the guy seems to think that he has to pound home the CAGW meme with every episode”
it’s not Attenborough, he has to narrate the scripts he is given . In the BBC you have to toe the line!!

Nik Marsall-Blank

I really think the core problem is that people are looking at the minutiae of climate. In the mid 1970’s scientists were worried about a marked drop in global temperatures, perhaps the next ice age? So that passed and say perhaps 5 years later people started to look at “climate”. Well, it warmed after the “false ice age 1976” and now everybody is saying we are going to melt because of AGW.
Looking at the temperature swings between glacial periods the change since the 70’s is like the planet waking up with a “zit” and saying it’s going to die.
If…if we are the cause of the warming then we will probably die out with the destruction we have caused. There will be lots of species left that survive and will be the future custodians of the planet. Just as previous events have caused major changes.
Should we question the will of God and deny him that which he created us to do?

Paul Westhaver

[snip – off topic]

Warrick

Agree with other comments – I used to really enjoy his programmes. I get too hot under the collar listening to this guff now. Pity. There are some real gems, but hidden like pearls in a pigsty. I’m afraid my nose is now too sensitive to the smell to find the occasional pearl worth the effort.

John Finn

Jeff Norman says:
February 12, 2013 at 9:37 am

From the article:
Experts have also questioned the figure, with Dr Tim Osborn of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit telling the Guardian: “So I would say that our data do not support the claim of 3.5 degC warming in the last 20 years in some regions of Africa.”
Does this mean there is some data at the CRU that does support a claim of a 3.5°C increase in other regions of Africa? Is there anyone from the CRU that can give a straight answer that includes the truth?

I thought Osborn used the GISS data (that you couldn’t find) but i’ve lost the link to the Leo Hickman article. The key Osborn statement for me was this
For the last 20 years there is a paucity of data over Africa. In African regions with data there is only one box where warming in one season is above 3 degC. More boxes show warming in some seasons between 2 and 3 degC. No African boxes show warming above 2 degC in the annual average temperatures.
This basically says that there is one region where warming was above 3 degC for one season. However, as Osborn himself says there is a “paucity of of data over Africa”, so it’s quite possible that the data for this region comes from a single station. While I think the global trend is fairly robust, I would take trends from specific regions of Africa and some parts of Sth America with a large pinch of salt.

Pull My Finger

[snip – I’m removing all references in comments to this off topic distraction – Anthony]

People have to pull the plug on the BBC for them to sit up and take notice. If enough people stop watching it, they might take a look at why – yes, I know they get the money anyway – perhaps mob reluctance to pay the fee might work, but it would take some organization. It needs a lot of people angry enough to protest and demand a cease to the fee being compulsory and/or charges brought against the BBC – the BBC should NOT be above the law. I rather think angry people ARE on the uprise, too many people right across society are being bullied, abused or discarded. Quite frankly, the whole MSM needs a wake-up call.