From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czvvqdg8zxno
The BBC’s Executive Complaint Unit has now upheld my complaint about the above report, which presented computer models as factual.
Here is their formal response to me:
Thank you for contacting the Executive Complaints Unit and asking it to consider your concerns about the above article on the BBC News website. I know you are familiar with the BBC’s complaints process and so I hope I can offer a swift response, particularly in light of the time which has elapsed since you first raised your concerns.
The original headline of the article stated there was a link between climate change and the heatwaves in America and Mexico and presented this as a matter of fact rather than indicating it was the finding of an attribution study conducted by a group of climate scientists. The headline therefore failed to meet the requirements for due accuracy which are set out in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. The subsequent edit to the headline and the addition of a note explaining the change were, however, sufficient for this Unit to consider the matter to have been appropriately resolved.
I note you have asked for “a formal correction be listed on your complaints site” and so I hope you’ll be reassured to know the Executive Complaints Unit publishes the outcome of its investigations every fortnight and a summary of our finding in this case will be published in the complaints section of the BBC website, bbc.co.uk, later today. This ensures the error you identified will be corrected as a matter of public record, over and above the correction now at the foot of the article itself.
In response to the second point you raised in your correspondence to this Unit, I can also assure you our finding has been discussed with relevant managers and editors in BBC News. This has included the way in which the findings of attribution studies are reported to try to ensure members of the audience are not misled in the future.
The edit to the headline, made after my initial complaint, consisted of putting quotation marks around “35 times more likely”, which was hardly a correction!
But my main reason for taking this up to the ECU was that “corrections” made months after publication will be seen by nobody.
.
They have now confirmed that their next fortnightly complaint report will include this finding:
Climate change made US and Mexico heatwave 35 times more likely, bbc.co.uk.
Complaint
A reader complained the above headline was published without qualification, suggesting it was an undisputed fact that Climate Change had made heatwaves in US and Mexico 35 times more likely. The ECU considered the complaint against the standards for accuracy set out in the BBC Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
The ECU considered the evidence, which came from climate scientists, was put into proper context in the body of the article, with readers informed about its nature and the uncertainty which accompanies the use of computer modelling in this area – but the original headline presented the precise link between climate change and the heatwaves in America and Mexico as a matter of fact, and failed to meet the requirements for due accuracy in that respect. However, the subsequent edit, with the addition of quotation marks round “35 times more likely” and a note explaining the change, were sufficient for the Unit to consider the matter to have been appropriately resolved.
Resolved
My second reason for involving the ECU was to get them to lay down future guidelines for using attribution models, which they have now published here.
It probably will not make much difference to the Justin Rowlatts of the BBC, but at least we now have a precedent laid down if further complaints are made in future. The ECU have made it clear that computer models cannot be treated as factual.
Very nearly a distinction without a difference, but take the win. Its a step.
An informed reader will see the difference, an uninformed reader will not. They probably didn’t read past the headline and have no idea what an attribution study is.
But take the win, would love to see if its a slippery slope that they can be pushed down. Perhaps next they should include an asterisk with a note that the models cited have not established that they are accurate predictors of future climate states. (Yes, I know, they’re trash, but baby steps).
” an uninformed reader will …have no idea what an attribution study is.”
___________________________________________________________
Google Search on “What is an Attribution Study?”
Among other things Google’s AI says:
What Attribution Studies Do:
. . .
Provide Evidence for Policy:
The findings of attribution studies provide a scientific basis for climate
policy and decision-making, informing mitigation and adaptation strategies.
So, you are now informed. Models ARE evidence!
</sarc>
Clearly they are because SCIENTISTS have said so. And models are simply facts of mathematical equations given a series of input numbers where the output can be calculated. All very much part of Science or i should say: sciency stuff. And yes, it does provide the ‘scientific’ basis for policy. You can defend an attribution study group IF you have decided they are trustworthy. And because the BBC are ignorant they ask the experts and they tell them what they want to hear. And so the circle goes. It is clearly not the BBC’s job to question the actual science behind the attribution. And why would they? 97% of scientist say..
I disagree. An attribution study from a computer model SHOULD announce all of the assumptions used in the model before any “result” is announced. Without the assumptions the model is useless to everyone. My computer can easily say I won the pools from a statistical model, but unfortunately chance says NO! The assumption is that chance plays no part, so c**p result. Weather is chaotic so pretty much completely unpredictable past a short period, usually about 2 days with predictions of local weather from the Met office. The gross weather (the entire Country) is possibly a bit better, but not a lot.
I apologize. I simply stated the way science is handled by the likes of the BBC. Their logic follows the pattern of trusting whatever their ‘trusted’sources are stating. It means whatever the( ir)experts say it means.
So, the outcome of attribution studies is taken as fact and reported, ie, promoted. They always say:”trust the experts”.
Now, anybody who knows anything about actual attribution studies clearly spots the anomalies at the outset. It is like modeling. The inherent uncertainties are rarely addressed, let alone the shakey foundations/ assertions they rest upon.
Equations are often incorrect. Ask any real scientist. Nobody trusts scientists because they are trustworthy- but they might trust the science if IT is shown by experiment to be convincing. And after it’s been repeated by others. Great publications have science writers who understand this and who are capable of questioning THE SCIENCE- and who also make note of critics and skeptics rather than just pass it along as fact.
But you would be greatly mistaken if you were to think that any of the legacy media have the objective to inform readers of facts, uncertainties, and conflicting hypotheses, so that the public could judge for themselves. The ONLY reason that science is covered at all is as a tactic in their Deep State propaganda.
The template is [extreme claim] scientists say. [Globalist control mechanism] urgently needed.
More of a tactic of using hyperbole to increase the ad revenue stream.
USA has voted about 50-50 for more than 20 years. All news options I know of chase one 50 and ignore the other 50. Even if the revenue splits mostly in one direction it seems odd for there to be any neglected half.
:…you would be mistaken if you think the legacy media …”
________________________________________________
But i just stated the way the BBC deals with anything in regards to ‘climate’. It is a propaganda channel. If you want to sell an idea you will find the right ‘facts’ to prove it and support those who force the issue w flawed science and call it ‘the science’. Nobody reads beyond the headlines. You dont get to work f the BBC if you are not already of a certain ilk.
You would have been well advised to include a /sarc indication.
I thought about that and left it out. Because i believe the people in the BBC actually believe or better said WANT to believe the chosen narrative and shut down dissent. This is how fascism works. It is not the brown/ blackshirts that force things but the media who start to believe the propaganda. Then people start to follow on the same path until everybody seems captured ( or taken by the body snatchers). The same in regards to many things like the Ukraine situation.
I actually think using sarcasm is much too light an approach..
There might be some who believe. But there are many whose only purpose is to ingrain the propaganda.
Journalists should ensure that attribution studies are accurately represented, avoiding oversimplifications or misinterpretations. They should ask questions about the methodologies used, the uncertainties involved, and whether findings are being communicated responsibly.
A decent journalist should critically examine attribution science, just as they would with any scientific field.
But while the “journalists” are a big part of the narrative, they won’t.
Journalists working for the BBC are hired if they have a base level from which they perceive things: on Climate that is to accept the basic premise of AGW, on Ukraine that Putin= Hitler. Everything else follows..
Exhibit A for “why nobody should use Google.”
nobody should use Google.
I heard a recent report that google has dropped below 90% of searches for the first time.
Because people are using AI for searching more.
Death to the BBC by a thousand paper cuts!
Keep at it…
They likely employ “Artificial Intelligence” as a complaint reply scheme. In keeping with their own “Artificial Intelligence” in producing content!
BBC reporting can also not be considered a priori as ‘factual’.
Well done indeed. But it is a tiny tiny gain in a trivial part of the BBC’s bias. The real bias, with no correction visible anywhere this side of the horizon, is that the BBC have published 10,972 articles giving one side of the story, and 0 giving the other side. Your effort, valiant though it is, has not corrected the 10,972-0 imbalance one iota. And they know it.
There must be a 97% number in there..
Why, anything “controversial” is edited out!
Well done Paul, maybe you have cracked open the
floodtrickle gates, we admire your tenacity.It’s not too different than challenging The Church a millennium ago.
Yes, since the “Climate Crisis” is a secular religion.
“The ECU have made it clear that computer models cannot be treated as factual.”
Amazing that they didn’t understand that before your complaint. Or, more likely, didn’t want to understand that.
“a summary of our finding in this case will be published in the complaints section of the BBC website”
Tucked away safely where few if any will read it.
It’s a akin to a Pyrrhic victory. The BBC should put it on the main website where it might be read.
I think it’s better than that. The story will spread through wider coverage and in turn through comments on the less extreme press the audience will widen.
Now that it’s official policy anyone who spots an article in contravention can aim to secure an immediate correction via the newssiterrors email, so the lie doesn’t get the time to go half way around the world. If there are enough of us that do that they will soon learn.
I think it also is a step along the road to getting publicity via more prominent public figures such as politicians.
I do wish I shared that optimism. But I know the BBC and its friends better than that.
Sites like this are, to be frank, niche. They do not have the global coverage like Auntie, nor the resources.
The BBC has effectively buried this where nobody goes. I wonder why? /sarc.
Compared to [BBC] disasters like Cliff Richard, Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter and many more like them, this is nothing.
Much less niche are the Mail, Telegraph, Express. Read comment there, and articles too and you find that a much larger slice of public opinion is becoming better informed. Also visible in opinion polling that downplays climate issues and shows a significant balance in favour of cutting spending on them.
I’m not sure which way it will break – privileged USA kids are going on several generations of both “everybody must learn STEM” and “everybody must not apply STEM concepts to certain ideas”.
Adults I’ve known sideline politics and philosophy to avoid conflict and pay bills but I can see it going either way.
(STEM is an acronym that stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)
STEM is an acronym that stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
There’s been a movement recently to make it “STEAM”.
You can guess what the “A” is.
Actually, I don’t see it. I’m probably on the wrong track looking for an ‘A’ that encompasses DEI, climate, socialism or globalism. I hope it’s not Art. I love art, but the message I’d get from reading “Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics” is that everything is prioritized so nothing is prioritized.
Edit: “Everything” except history and literature which become super dangerous when one learns that all these “new” ideas were thought of and even tried out long, long ago.
Saving other clueless wonderers like me the effort of the Google: “STEM and STEAM are both educational approaches that emphasize science, technology, engineering, and math, but STEAM adds the arts.”
So yeah. One might expect more creativity from artists, but the artists just sat their ‘A’ in it.
Reminds me of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences where dance skill was categorized as a form of intelligence by people who derived their authority from academic achievement. And those “Coexist” bumper stickers that don’t take into account that some of the symbols worked into the font want to eradicate some of the other symbols worked into the font according to their own literature off the shelves of any Barnes and Noble.
Yes, it is “Art”.
There’s also STREAM, which adds “Reading and Writing”
Pretty much renders STEM pointless, as it now encompasses everything.
“And”?
That’s a very important concession to have achieved. Now you can short cut via the article errors report to get corrections made at the time, not months in arrear.
They have really buried the link to the article corrections page (it used to be at the bottom of every news article)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55077304
Please use the following email address – newsonline.errors@bbc.co.uk , external – to let us know if there is something you do not think is right with our content, such as a spelling or grammatical error.
If you can let us know the following information it will make it easier for BBC News to understand:
A link to the page (URL) where the issue occurs
Name
Email address
Explanation of the problem
To avoid being redirected to the spam folder it may be useful to use a different email if you find you are being ignored. I found that they can act really quickly via this route if they realise they are badly wrong. Regular complaints just go in the pending folder by comparison.
I also wonder whether OFCOM might take a more proactive interest where the BBC breach their own editorial guidelines. It might be worth asking them directly, picking issues where OFCOM have ruled against the BBC already or on non climate issues where an ECU complaint has already been upheld as examples.
OFCOM
When they have a moment not pursuing GB News?
“Ofcom’s vendetta against GB News has got to stop“
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/04/ofcoms-vendetta-against-gb-news-has-got-to-stop/
Ofcom is part of the problem. It’s definitely no solution.
The point is to make the point to them. Again, there are public voices pointing up their bias.
I followed your link to look at the guidelines and lo and behold there is a telephone number !!!!!
However it says that we can only complain about something that has been broadcast, not about something that they haven’t done or reported. A pity, I was all set to ask why they don’t report the fact that the atmosphere is almost saturated with CO2 and adding more will do little or nothing to the temperature while being good for growing plants.
But as they say, live on auld horse and ye’ll aye get corn. (Keep up the good work, Paul.)
Wouldn’t expect anything less from the Brazenly Biased Communiques.
Strictly speaking, quotation marks should be reserved for exact quotes, which then puts the onus of accuracy on the person speaking the quoted words. They say nothing about any implied accuracy either way. With attribution, one can deduce the veracity of the quote based on their own assessment of the source. If some ‘fact’ requires flagging to question its pedigree, it is probably a better practice to use italics or single-quotes out-side the usual practice of being embedded between double-quotes, indicating a quote of a quote. That is, an unconventional use of single quotes becomes a flag that it has an alternative meaning, such as sarcasm, or is of questionable accuracy.
What the BBC should have done was to rephrase it such as, “a computer model suggests 35-times more likely.”
Keep up the good work.