Just 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.
h/t to WUWT reader steverichards1984
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mostlyharmless said “The BBC could all be gone by 2035.”
Bloody hell, this CAGW is better than we thought.
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.
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.
[snip -off topic]
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
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!!
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?
[snip – off topic]
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.
Jeff Norman says:
February 12, 2013 at 9:37 am
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.
[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.