From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit have now responded to my complaint about their fake “Reality Check”, which claimed that “there’s evidence hurricanes are getting more powerful”. Unsurprisingly they have rejected my complaint, without ever actually addressing the facts I presented.
I won’t go into all of the graphs and documentation that In based my complaint on – you can read them here. But I will show this one, which summarises all major hurricanes world wide. There is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the BBC’s claim:
NOAA confirm that they can find no trend in Atlantic major hurricanes:
And even the IPCC can find no evidence of long term trends in “intensity-based metrics”
It really should be an open and shut case – the BBC were wrong.
The ECU’s response dismissing my complaint mainly consists of “projections” and “computer models”, neither of which are evidence of anything. They also refer to IPCC claims that rapid intensification events have become more frequent. Whether this is true or not, the issue is irrelevant, if the frequency/ratio of major hurricanes has not increased.
The only actual data they were able to provide to back up their claim was a 2016 study of typhoons in the Western Pacific, which according to the BBC said:
“over the past 37 years, typhoons that strike East and Southeast Asia have intensified by 12–15%, with the proportion of storms of categories 4 and 5 having doubled or even tripled”.
Which is all well and good, except the data record back to 1951 shows a marked dip in super typhoons in the 1970s and 80s, but no long term trend:
In any event, given that the global frequency of major hurricanes has not increased since 1980, this increase in typhoon activity must be matched by reduced activity elsewhere.
Even the IPCC did not find it worth mentioning that paper, instead merely highlighting “substantial inter-decadal variations in the Western Pacific”:
The ECU finishes by saying:
Except that my complaint was not about what “scientists predicted”, it was the claim that “there is evidence that hurricanes are getting more powerful! They have not addressed this at all.
Running out of names
I also complained about the statement in the Reality Check that “the hurricane season has been so busy, they’ve used up the list [of names] and had to start again”
I pointed out that the reason why more names are needed nowadays is the fact that we can observe many storms with the help of satellites, which we could not do in the past, along with the fact that many extra-tropical storms are now named, which did not use to be the practice. It has nothing to do with more hurricanes becoming more frequent.
The ECU did not even bother to address these issues, and doubled down by pointing out that “the number of named storms had risen in the last 50 years”
Apparently viewers would not have been misled by the misinformation, despite the fact that most will now be convinced that hurricanes are becoming more frequent, when they are not!
The handling of this complaint sums up in a nutshell everything that is corrupt about the BBC’s complaints procedures. The whole system is crooked, and will continue to be until it is put in the hands of a genuinely independent body.
You did well to get a reply from the liars!
The BBC never accept they are wrong. Their fall back position is always to blame the listener or viewer for failing to absorb the entirety of the message, which, coming from the BBC is always balanced and correct. (sarc)
I do not know of anyone that has complained to the BBC who has ever had a correction announced. or where the BBC admit they knowingly told a lie. I do know of dozens of people that have complained to the BBC about false comments. No apology or acceptance of wrongdoing is ever conceded.
More tumbling warus anyone?
Their other fall back position is we asked them and they said they’re right, (so there pleb)
Check out Saul Alinsky’s book Rules For Radicals, especially the list of the 12 rules. The Beeb and Clinton News Network (I won’t mention MSNBC because children and sensitive viewers shouldn’t go there) are all in with the formalized liars format. Barry Obama began his political career in Chicago in Alinsky organizations, and the Alinsky Rules are still the format for the Marxist movement.
“Never admit , never explain, never apologize “
Describes Trump as well.
The BBC believes – corporately – that manmade CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming, despite the admonition by the respected atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen that such a proposition is ‘absurd’. Huge elements of its output, both factual and dramatic, are based on this belief. So the BBC actively promotes an absurd scientific position. That’s one of its problems. And what’s the other one? Oh yes…….
It’s institutionally corrupt.
It’s long past time to eliminate the UK’s TV and radio licenses and let them stand or fall on their own as a 100% private company.
It would be a fine thing if the BBC had a decent complaints procedure to start with. Auntie just cannot deal with the truth which she once did most ably in her younger years. She is now sadly unable to enter coherent discourse on anything that departs from her obsessive agenda of lies, lies and more lies
The propaganda service….
The BBC is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Conservative Party.
The Director General is a close friend of Boris and a former boss of Sunak. He was Head of a think tank created by Thatcher.
It’s no surprise that the BBC promotes fear and unreason. That’s how the rich exploit the poor. The whole point of the Conservative Party.
“” The BBC is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Conservative Party.””
Acshully it’s The Royal Charter…
Dumbing down seems to work
Have to disagree MCourtney. Boris’ mates and financial advisors may be the figureheads but the organisation is woke and socialist through and through.
It appears that you can get a sinecure by helping to arrange a financial loan for Boris
It’s a staff collective.
I complained about their handling of the Thunberg arrest story.
Their first response was -“ what are you actually complaining about”
I replied with more info. and links.
They replied “thanks for getting back to us”
Then, later “we are very busy”
Then , later still “we can’t find the program to which you refer”
Someone, I can’t remember who, once wrote a comment about the best way to jump through the BBC complaints hoops.
As with FOI (freedom of information) requests, they have standard, stock replies to most things which lets them side-step anything which is not crafted by a lawyer. Complainants are thus fobbed off without the BBC really addressing the question, yet seemingly showing due process in cases where the complainant isn’t demoralised by bureaucratic stonewalling.
It would be a tremendously useful resource if Paul, or some other similarly experienced person, could make a post detailing the best way to go about this.
The first graph has something wrong with the X axis. The years start at 1980, go through to 2022, then reset to 1982 and go through to 2021. When I plot the data from the linked Colorado State University page, the eyeball does seem to show a slight upward trend, despite the low values for the last three years. If I plot the Named Storms data instead, there is actually much less of a seeming upward slope.
Groundhog’s. 1980-2022 repeated.
I was about to make the same comment about the ‘Global’ graph.
I think the idea is to show that if you splice on the history again it shows no obvious step discontinuity, which would be quite evident if there were some sort of underlying trend.
Are hurricanes getting more powerful? Evidence for that is sort of thin.
The IPCC AR6 Chapter 11
Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate
Executive Summary Page 1519 says:
It is likely that the global proportion of Category 3–5 tropical cyclone instances has increased over the past four decades. The average location where TCs reach their peak wind intensity has very likely migrated poleward in the western North Pacific Ocean since the 1940s, and TC translation speed has likely slowed over the conterminous USA since 1900. Evidence of similar trends in other regions is not robust. The global frequency of TC rapid intensification events has likely increased over the past four decades. None of these changes can be explained by natural variability alone (medium confidence).
NIce of the IPCC to ignore all the records that go back to the 19th century.
So, if you go to the NOAA’s report
Continental United States Hurricane Impacts/Landfalls 1851-2021
You will find that all the Class 5 hurricanes occurred since 1935.
Here’s what that looks like:
I’ve noticed in the last year 18 months a slight change in BBC climate and environmental reporting. They seem to add vague caveats now and again. Not sure if this is anything to do with Harrabin leaving or the number of complaints about biased reports. It gives them a get out “we did include in the report”
Get with the Climate Narrative, people. From the Book of Harrabin
“World temperatures are rising because of human activity, and climate change now threatens every aspect of human life. Left unchecked, humans and nature will experience catastrophic warming, with worsening droughts, rising sea levels and mass extinction of species.”
Extreme weather events are already more intense across the globe, threatening lives and livelihoods. With further warming, some regions could become uninhabitable”
Where is the uncertainty? There is no doubt, the sceance is settled; and has been since 2006
I believe you mis-spelled seance. “The seance is settled;”
Gosh and there is me, thinking people already knew, that George Orwell worked for both the BBC and British Military Intelligence and he based his book 1984 on them… lol
To be fair, the BBC in the 20s to 40s was a very different organisation. The left, however, have remained true to themselves capturing every institution in later years….
“In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality.
In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box. – George Orwell
Just change the opinion bit to Greenpeace, WWF etc
Yes i was an avid listener to the BBC up until the mid-1970s. There was a lot of good stuff, and on TV then to be fair. It still had the Lord Reith’s BBC -public service aims to educate, inform and entertain. I suppose some of the the educate and inform missed out things regarded as important now. But in my memory there was alot discussions on non=political subjects which gave both sides, unlike today.
Now I don’t listen to any of the BBC radio output which is sad because I really enjoy just listening, most of the TV output I don’t really watch which gets me grief when I ask what happened
There is only one acceptable side in today’s [media] world. Impartiality now means censoring and cancelling those who disagree with you.
Radio 4 is now Radio Woke.
BBC radio 3 output isn’t woke … yet.
But they have been playing more storm music…
Haydn: “Symphony 39 ‘Tempesta di Mare'”
Johann Strauss II: “Polka ‘Thunder and Lightening'”
Beethoven: “Symphony no 6 ‘Pastoral’: 4th Movement, Thunderstorm”
Berlioz: “The Trojans: Royal Hunt and Storm”
Khachtaurian: “Gayaneh: Storm
Debussy: Estampes: III. Jardins sous la pluie
Rossini: Overture to William Tell
Tchaikovsky: The TempestRichard Strauss: Eine Alpensinfonie – Gewitter und SturmBenjamin Britten ‘Storm’ Interlude from ‘Peter Grimes’ Vivaldi StormDebussy: La Mer III. Dialogue du vent et de la mer
Wagner :- Flying Dutchman (Overture)Sibelius: ‘The Tempest’ PreludeRimsky-Korsakov. : Scheherazade. Movement 4 (2nd half )Ravel : Daphnis et Chloé Suite No 2 (last 1/3rd )
Edvard Grieg: Peer Gynt’s Homecoming
Alexander Glazunov : The Sea, fantasy for orchestra Op. 28
Mendelssohn: Fingal’s Cave
True but in the BBC he learnt how to change history via the message
“Apparently viewers would not have been misled by the misinformation.”
That, it seems is a favourite ploy by the BBC Complaints Unit. Some years ago I submitted a complaint (on a non-climate-related matter) and was told that the lie the presenter had made would not have misled the average listener.
The truth is not the commodity relevant to most public and private media these days. They are selling propaganda and advertising. Time to stop supporting the public media with taxes and forced fees – let them succeed or, more likely, fail on their own.
Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the “truth’. Or something like that. The MSM is really good at that and has been for a while. Its straight outta the commie manifesto.
Grifters keep hanging their hats on the weak pegs and now are getting called on it. So, double down. Grifters gotta keep grifting. Beats getting a real job. PT Barnum would be so proud.
You should write to OFCOM that can actually work.
OFCOM will not entertain a complaint about the BBC until “the BBC’s complaints process has been exhausted”.
Other than in exceptional circumstances, Ofcom can only consider your complaint if you’ve already complained to the BBC first. Please visit the BBC complaints page to make a complaint to the BBC.
The full BBC complaints process consists of three stages -Stage 1a, 1b and 2. If you are unhappy with the response from the BBC at each of stage 1a and 1b, you can ask the BBC to look at it again. Stage 2 is the final stage, where you can complain to the BBC Executive Complaints Unit, the ECU. You should wait to see if you are happy with the BBC ECU’s final response before making a complaint to Ofcom.
I would urge each and every citizen of the UK to cancel their TV licence if they have not already done so, you really won’t miss it, I promise.
The BBC deserves to wither and die, and starving them of their funding is a simple step to help make this happen.
The Great Oz has spoken!
The BBC and the Great OZ seem to have something in common here. Pay no attention to the science behind the curtain.
Sue em! you could probably get a class action suit organized. I know I would join. Mental distress, ya thats it, mental distress! I’m sure others could come up with more reasons. Too bad the blokes over the pond are paying for this propogation of lies.
Parents should take a page from the climate activist playbook & start suing media corporations on behalf of their children. NPR & the BBC should probably be high on that list. They have been lying to them & it should not go unpunished. https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1602834395567718401