From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
MAY 10, 2022
By Paul Homewood
Good to see that the Mail has picked up on the Rowlatt story.
I contacted them last week with the tip off.
I gather it is also in the Times.
A BBC Panorama documentary about global warming made a number of false claims, an internal investigation by the broadcaster has found.
The programme Wild Weather, presented by climate editor Justin Rowlatt, said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change – whereas the opposite is true.
It also claimed Madagascar was on the verge of the first famine caused by climate change – despite other factors being involved.
The programme, broadcast last November to coincide with the COP26 climate conference, sparked two complaints investigated by the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU).
Last year Rowlatt’s sister Cordelia was among a number of Insulate Britain activists arrested for staging a protest at junction 3 of the M25.
Miss Rowlatt, who once appeared on TV advising her brother on how to be more environmentally friendly, pleaded guilty by post at Crawley Magistrates’ Court. She was fined £300 with £85 court costs and a £34 surcharge for committing a public nuisance on a highway.
The introduction of Wild Weather said ‘the death toll is rising around the world and the forecast is that worse is to come’. The ECU said this risked giving the impression the rate of deaths from extreme weather-related events was increasing.
In fact, as noted by a recent report from the World Meteorological Organisation, while the number of weather-related disasters – such as floods, storms and drought – has risen in the past 50 years, the number of deaths caused by them has fallen because of improved early warnings and disaster management.
BBC News said ‘it accepted the wording in the programme was not as clear as it should have been and a public acknowledgement was put on the BBC’s Corrections and Clarifications website before the complaint reached the ECU’.
The ECU said this was appropriate but ‘an oversight meant the programme was still available on BBC iPlayer without a link or reference to the published correction, and for that reason the complaint was upheld’.
The ECU also considered the language used in the programme about drought. It agreed the evidence showed southern Madagascar had suffered lower-than-average seasonal rainfall in recent years, and that climate change was one factor contributing to famine in the country.
It also noted the reporter’s language mirrored that used by the UN’s World Food Programme.
But the ECU added: ‘The statement that Madagascar was on the brink of the world’s first climate-induced famine was presented without qualification, whereas other evidence available prior to broadcast suggested there were additional factors which made a significant contribution to the shortage of food.
The complaint was therefore upheld.’
PBS would never issue a retraction.
Speaking of the PBS NewsHour in particular, I had to update my count tonight of their egregious bias favoring IPCC / NASA / NOAA-associated scientists vs skeptic scientists:
NewsHour Global Warming Bias Tally, Updated 5/10/22: 96 to 0
Isn’t that what you would expect given the consensus among scientists?
~ Michael Crichton 2003
And that quote just shows how ignorant Michael Crichton was about how science works and progresses. How many scientists wake up each morning and think, “I had better check Newton’s law of gravitation today, then tomorrow I will perform an experiment to check Maxwell’s equations and then the next day see if electrons are particles and waves etc etc.” Or do they start each day trusting in consensus science and start their research where it breaks down? There is no practical way that any reseacher could prove for themselves all the previous results in their field without wasting decades of their most productive time as scientists. Science is all about consensus. Why do you think nearly all people disbelieve in cold fusion without every having done an experiment to disprove it?
LMAO
The greatest lesson we learn from ancient philosophers is, we have learned nothing in 2500 years that will save us from organised ignorance.
So. Everything that was believed yesterday MUST be believed today? Anything newly found MUST be ignored because what we believed yesterday is still sacrosanct?
Thank you for that contribution Izaak as having just read this article I was under the impression that a BBC reporter just made up false claims about the effects of climate change in a BBC produced documentary. Having now read your comment it is now clear that he errrrr didn’t?????
Welcome to the Holocene Inter-Glacial, far better than one of those chilly Ice-Ages, now one of those really would kill millions of Humans, not to mention lots of wild life!!! Now I wonder how that giant fusion reactor up in the sky is doing, is it showing signs of bursting into life?
You are missing the point. There may be an appearance of agreement of most scientists on matters to do with CAGW. That is because its become one of those things that you don’t publicly question.
But take something much more important and immediate. Take the question of whether the Administration’s policy of moving the grid to wind and solar is doable, and if so at what cost. Ask power company engineers.
You’ll find the answer is no, or that what it will take to do it is so outlandish that its in effect impossible.
There is increasing realization also that for one country to decarbonize while China, India and the rest of the world increase at current rates will have minimal effect on global emissions and none on global warming.
As to consensus in science, Crichton’s point was not what you are representing. The point is that the argument for any scientific proposition simply from agreement is not valid.
We do not question Newton’s laws when arguing about the motion of the planets because they are not at issue. But if we were to question Newton’s laws as a subject in itself, the fact that everyone accepts them would rightly be considered irrelevant. The discussion would immediately focus on the evidence. That is how AGW must be treated. Its an interesting hypothesis, now what is the evidence?
There is one more issue. When it concerns a matter, like AGW, that is quite remote from first principles, and has to do with hypotheses about how the system works, and what it will do next, rather than what the laws of nature are, the fact that everyone currently agrees is especially neither here nor there.
They used to agree that miasma caused malaria and cholera. AGW is a theory at the same level of removal from basic well established science. Its not first principles. Its about how the machine works. If you like, its more engineering than science. If you want another example consider when doubts were raised that HIV really does cause AIDS. The reply to the doubters was not to claim everyone believed it did. It was to put forward the evidence. Similarly this is what must be done with AGW.
People have booked holidays 10 years in advance to see solar eclipses based on predictions by Newton’s laws. They never have been found wanting.
Cruises have been endangered and expeditions to the poles abandoned due to flawed predictions by AGW scientists.
Newtons ‘law’ of gravity is a theory which has not yet been falsified, so it remains a useful tool.
As does any other scientific theory. That’s why they are called theories. They are not considered the finished article.
They do not form a ‘consensus’.
You have no idea how the scientific method works, do you?
Newton’s law of gravity was a theory that was superseded by Einstein’s general relativity theory which is, in turn, being proven and refined by direct observation of gravity waves. Nowadays Newton’s law of gravity is seen as a rough approximation and not very useful when doing precise calculations.
That, in a nutshell, is how science advances and progresses – a gradual refinement and improvement over time.
I was answering the question posed, in the terms it was posed.
Maybe you should read a little from Richard Feynmann to understand just how stupid and ignorant your comments are.
“You are the easiest person to fool”
(So don’t try to fool us)
Izaak says:”… law of gravitation…”
You don’t seem to understand the meaning of word LAW in science.
You also don’t understand the word reproducible.
It is becoming clearer why you post the things you post.
There are always “LAWS” in science, that is until someone like Einstein comes along.
That’s all very well, but CAGW is a dodgy hypothesis with currently no empirical proof. Hence it should be checked every day, or more usefully, written off as twaddle.
I take it you still believe in the existence of phlogiston. After all, it’s existence was once a consensus amongst scientists.
When I drop a pencil on the floor I’m pretty convinced that Newton got it right. When I see 50 years of failed predictions from climate scientists I’m less inclined to trust in their work. Why do you trust people who’ve been getting it hopelessly wrong for half a century?
If you can’t remember all their failed predictions, try this little link:
https://extinctionclock.org/
It was once the scientific consensus that land masses are static and do not move. It was once the “scientific consensus” that the earth was the center of the solar system. It was once the “scientific consensus” that malaria was caused by bad vapors from swamps. Etc, etc, etc…
Hmmmm lots of failed consensuses there
Which is exactly why Gallego couldn’t discover gravity. Because he was a afraid of Astrology, ge couldn’t look into the observable fact that the tides are controlled by the relative position of the sun and moon. Thus, afraid to buck the consensus, he couldn’t see reality … granted, being seen as researching astrology could get one’s neck stretched in his day … which come to think of it, isn’t so different from today, now is it.
It’s Galileo, but otherwise you are correct.
There are mountains of hard, physical evidence for Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and for Maxwell’s Equations. The evidence came first, before the consensus.
There is precisely zero evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Izaak, your ignorance of history and science is manifest in regards to, at least, cold fusion:
1) Fleischmann and Pons’ original paper on cold fusion was peer reviewed, where many experimental mistakes slipped through. Sound familiar, Mr. Mann?
2) They refused to release the exact details of their setup. Sound familiar, Mr. Mann?
3) There were some fraudulent “studies” that purported to duplicate their work. Sound familiar, Mr. Marcott?
4) Experiments are ongoing, with Google having spent $10 million by 2019, with no publishable results to date.
Well, throughout the centuries, most, if not all, consensus science was wrong, primarily because most just wanted to be “with the crowd”. It only ever took one to disprove them all.
Actually that is how many of us learn science in school: we repeat experiments in school labs, and we verify that the laws we are taught are consistent with the experiment. I certainly did this for elements of Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s equations and illustrations of wave/particle duality of electrons: I repeated the Millikan experiment too. Not even university level stuff in my day. Of course, we have to learn these laws in order to be able to apply them in further endeavours.
Climate and medical researchers have boxed themselves into an impossible corner. So much research has been proven false that a top doctor now suggests:
False research, bogus conclusions are causing scientists to disbelieve published research.
“It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary”.
That is caused by your heroes using spurious statistics to enable their fake results.
Exactly what is this “consensus” everybody is talking about, Izaak? Did you notice that there is no specificity when the word “consensus” is bandied about?
Do a majority of atmospheric physicists agree that there will be significant warming in the foreseeable future? Do a majority of meteorologists agree that extreme weather events are becoming more intense or increasing in frequency?
Dave,
the consensus is the same one that Russell was referring to. IPCC associated scientists v skeptics. Perhaps you should ask him.
Izaak, you pitch the IPCC associated scientists against the group of scientists, you call skeptics?
All effective scientists are skeptics. If they are not, they are not operating as a scientist must.
We skeptics, carry that badge with honour. It is what differentiates us from the herd, from what you might call the ‘consensus’
Robert Boyle:
“The sceptical Chymist” (1661) – which assailed the then-current Aristotelian and especially Paracelsian notions about the composition of matter and methods of chemical analysis,
(from online biography )
Surely “IPCC associated scientists” is an oxymoron.
The IPCC is a body devoted to demonising atmospheric CO2. It was in their original remit.
Consequently, this unelected, bureaucratic body actively seek out ‘evidence’ to support that objective whilst ignoring everything else.
We can’t blame them for doing that as it’s in the job description, but it doesn’t make it right or scientific.
If you want to start quoting the IPCC, try this little doozy from their scientists in 1995:
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/18/world/scientists-say-earth-s-warming-could-set-off-wide-disruptions.html?smid=url-share
Again: why do you believe this junk Izaak?
Izaak, you didn’t answer the question. Also, are you talking about actual IPCC associated scientists or the politicians that write the summaries? It takes inordinate amounts of reading and analyses, but the summaries often contradict the actual science, not only in the IPCC documents but also in the U.S. National Climate Assessments. Further proof that governments lie; it takes honest science and an impartial press to keep them at least semi-honest.
You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. You are skating on thin ideological ice, Izaak.
@Izaak Walton: One of the hallmarks of far-leftists is their propensity to present false premise arguments in an anti-intellectual manner. In my comment where I posted the link to my updated count of the egregious reporting bias of the PBS NewsHour, I made no such claim that the 96-to-0 figure indicated any sort of science consensus. And — since you apparently never got the memo on it — science conclusions are not validated by a show of hands and science is not done by consensus.
So a political body could not possibly have a desired view based on politics or advancing its own power? Would never hire credentialed persons to advance their own cause regardless of facts.
You do know that every syllable of one their reports is parsed by politicians before it is released? That is why it takes so long to come out with their reports,
Yet again, consensus is politics, NOT science!!!
If scientists relied on consensus, they would still think there were 4 elements and the Earth was at the centre of the universe, surrounded by crystal spheres.
What consensus?
Izaak, reading the replies to this comment of yours is the definitive example of someone having their backside handed to them on a plate.
You need to up your game Izaak.
96-0 eh? Sounds impressive, but then PBS NewHour is a voice of reason compared to NPR AnyHour. In fact, I’d bet the latter’s record in favor of alarmist mentions far exceeds that of the Harlem Globetrotters 16,000+ wins against 3 to 6 losses to the Washington Generals.
A sound bet to make about NPR’s bias. If only the Exxon brothers would send cash in my direction, then I could afford a staff to tally up NPR’s bias figure!
That statement is also misleading and should read: “… the recorded number of weather-related disasters – such as floods, storms and drought – has risen in the past 50 years …”.
Bjorn Lomborg:
“The problem is that the documentation of all types of disasters in the 1970s was far patchier than it is today, when anyone with a cellphone can immediately share news of a storm or flood from halfway around the world. That’s why the disaster database’s own experts explicitly warn amateurs not to conclude that an increase in registered disasters equates to more disasters. Reaching such a conclusion “would be incorrect” because the increase really just shows improvements in recording”.
Anyone that thinks the cabal that promotes AGW (among other things) hasn’t bought and controlled world wide MSM is naive.
Isn’t that the MSM is just happy to be stupid for free, rather than actually having to be bought? There are so many people in general, not just in media, who are desperate to be seen as an environmental champion – even though they end up making the same mistakes as previous polluters, pushing and rushing some new tech or other thing without thinking carefully.
Global warming could be totally like the doomsday crowd says it is and still they are doing the wrong things (wind/solar build out while the tech is in its infancy and with no appreciable storage)
“Isn’t that the MSM is just happy to be stupid for free, rather than actually having to be bought?”
I think so. The MSM is more than happy to promote any leftwing idea that comes along. After all, most of the MSM are leftwingers so they look at things from a particular perspective.
They need to be taken to court when you realise how damaging their lies are
I just love “upheld complaints”.
Welcome to Planet Earth gone mad.
I’m sure that our new Department of Homeland Security Disinformation Specialist is all over this obvious foreign attempt to misinform people.
Weasel words for “We lied and didn’t think we’d get caught”
Indeed. Somebody scripted the programme and selected the wording to use. And the wording they chose would have reflected the message they were wanting to get across.
Groan oh no, I missed that.
I was probably too busy eating cake at the time.
<little voice says> “Peta, it might be an idea to buy a TV licence”
Peta says: “Take a hike little voice, that means I’d have to get a TV also.
Did ya know, the price of a TV licence used to getya over 110 packs (4 in a pack) of Genuine Lancashire Eccles Cakes = my fave.
Thank you for nothing Boris Bonehead Jonston – a TV licence now only gets 75 packs these days.
While you’re here Boris, you or Carrie will definitely know this:
How many bottles of Vino Gluggio de la Plonka does a TV licence get you?
“Just one, peasant”.
Love, Boris.
I complain all the time, but they never listen to me! Must have been someone ‘important’, like Lawson, or Monkton. So much for eaquality!
Paul Homewood has been submitting official complaints regularly about blatant misinformation, at times downright lies, from the BBC climate “journalists” (They insult a once respected profession). He is not a member of any elite or wealthy class so far as i know , just an honest , persistent and patient man who finally is being taken seriously by TPTB at the BBC.
I asked Paul if he could do a little research on how notalotofpeopleknowthat has grown in ‘membership’ numbers over recent years.
It would also be good to understand the same with WUWT.
Especially post coronavirus as people begin to realise they are being conned about everything by governments.
I too complain, although not recently, and have done since the days of Richard Black. I’ve not managed to have the same success as Paul but had a couple of minor victories over wording. Usually after a second comaint when the first was sent to Room 101.
My advice keep complaining and appealing
I , as well – the one I filed over Radio 4’s Aug 2020 “How They Made Us Doubt Everything, Episode 6: ‘Reposition Global Warming‘ ” broadcast probably ultimately landed in their big virtual circular file this past November. Details here: “Ofcom Complaint“
I am not sure that the finding is correct. Is it really true that
The number of reported or recorded disasters may have risen – we know about them now when we did not 100 years ago. The number of extreme weather events which have led to a disaster may have risen, due to increased human exposure – more building in more exposed places, a great increase in population and therefore a higher chance of some densely inhabited area being hit by one of the weather events.
But I doubt that there is proper evidence that the number of extreme weather events itself has risen. Paul Homewood for instance has posted a long piece about the weather disasters of the 17c. Go back over European history and you find many extreme weather events. Is there any evidence their number has increased recently?
Satellites and Doppler radar. Neither of which existed before the mid 70’s.
If the day ever dawns, when the BBC gives priority to the truth above the priority for their message. That will be the day I listen/watch the BBC.
Until that fateful day comes, I will continue to ignore their nonsense. Their ongoing climate alarm agenda is simply more ‘tumbling walrus’ nonsense.
I would rather they just stuck to facts. ‘Truth’ is a matter of opinion.
The WPF described it as the worst in 40 years last July, and due to climate change. The drought is only in the semi arid Grand Sud.
“The Grand Sud of Madagascar is facing its most acute drought in 40 years, accentuated by the effects of sandstorms, due to three consecutive years of failed rains, army worms and locusts. Between October 2020 and January 2021, less than 50 per cent of the normal rainfall was received in the Grand Sud, causing devastating damages to agricultural production during the main harvest in May-June 2021, with losses of up to 60 per cent in three of the most populated districts (Amboasary, Ambovombe and Ampanihy).” OCHA of the UN. They mention “Madagascar is increasingly vulnerable to the climate crisis” but not so stupid as to blame it on global average going up a fraction of a degree.
The Grand Sud has most of the poorest areas of Madagascar because of poor farming land, so ill prepared to see out a drought.
A picture from 2009
and yet, according to Reuters
“A green island turns red: Madagascans struggle through long drought.With precious few trees left to slow the wind in this once fertile corner of southern Madagascar, red sand is blowing everywhere: onto fields, villages and roads, and into the eyes of children waiting for food aid parcels.
Four years of drought, the worst in decades, along with deforestation caused by people burning or cutting down trees to make charcoal or to open up land for farming, have transformed the area into a dust bowl…”
And yet the capital and other regions in the North had serious flooding in January this year.
“And what makes you think you’re suitable for the job of Climate Editor of the BBC Mr. Rowlatt?”
“My sisters and insane greenie who gets arrested regularly”
“YOU’RE HIRED!”
He’s spent nearly his whole career at the BBC, Ethucal Man since 2006.
Although with 4 children is he doing his bit for climate?
I actually posted the information on the BBC “have your say” on the article about “50/50 chance of breaching warming limit”. Surprisingly enough they accepted it.
I also managed to post a snip about WUWT on the BBC and currently that has been approved.
“50/50 chance of breaching warming limit”?
It’s OK folks, I tossed a coin and won. Climate change is cancelled.
This is typical. The Lie gets halfway around the world before the Truth gets its boots on. They’re more than happy to publish corrections on page 12 or on their complaint webpage but still leave the story or documentary published or online. It’s an almost meaningless gesture to acknowledge a lie but leave the lie out there for people to see and believe.
From the article: “In fact, as noted by a recent report from the World Meteorological Organisation, while the number of weather-related disasters – such as floods, storms and drought – has risen in the past 50 years,”
The numbers are up mainly because of better observations and reporting. A lot of storms in the past were missed because of poor coverage.
From the article: “The ECU also considered the language used in the programme about drought. It agreed the evidence showed southern Madagascar had suffered lower-than-average seasonal rainfall in recent years, and that climate change was one factor contributing to famine in the country.”
Oh, you agreed about that, did you? Where’s the evidence that CO2/climate change had anything to do with this drought?
Here’s the ECU itself putting out misinformation about CO2.
Who will watch the Watchers?
WUWT will watch the Watchers.
The BBC is masterful at amplifying the messages it wants your to hear and dialling down the uncomfortable facts that don’t fit with its narrative.
I wonder what the viewing numbers for this programme are compared to the number of page views for their “correction” buried away in some dark and obscure corner of their website? I’ve tried to find the numbers but haven’t succeeded yet.
The BBC’s much vaunted rules on impartiality must surely disqualify Justin Rowlatt from anything that his sister is so closely associated with.
“First climate induced famine”?
What about the little ice age with failed crops, widespread malnutrition, reduced immune function and rampant infectious outbreaks that took away a third or more of the European population? What about all the other cold periods including the forbidding glacial periods where much of the current industrial world would have been under miles of ice? These people are professional liars and intellectually bankrupt.
536 AD…..the worst year in history….that super volcano caused a huge famine.
Panorama has always been a ‘ never let the truth get in the way f a good story ‘ It’s their Raison-d’être.