BBC and climate change: are we about to see more balanced reporting?

The lunatic "consensus" on man-made climate change is starting to break down. 

As Damian Thompson has spotted, the BBC has posted a comment about climate change which questions if human emissions of CO2 really do influence the climate. 

For years, the BBC has reported opinion about the impact of human CO2 emissions on the climate as if they were fact.  From fawning coverage of the Stern report to their foreign correspondents' constant assertions that droughts and natural disasters are a result of man-made global warming, the BBC has totally failed to present any of the counter arguments.  Until today.   

Is this evidence that the BBC realises its license fee funded prejudices are no longer defensible?  Or does it suggest that the memes in Ian Plimer's book, which questions man-made climate change, are starting to spread?

Posted on 12 October 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Perhaps there is hope for science yet. I for one am fed up with alarmists quoting the undisputed fact that global temperatures have been rising as 'evidence' that man did it. When questioned as to their real evidence that it is not a natural chaotic system just doing its thing they then quote the output of computer models (which have yet to make a validated prediction in all the 20 years they've been around). Let's be quite clear on this, A COMPUTER MODELLER IS NOT A SCIENTIST. A scientist may, of course write computer models, (though I am told usually bad ones) but a computer modeller per se is exactly comparable to the highly-skilled glass-blowers and machinists who provided services to laboratories. These people are in many ways superior to the ivory-tower scientists and should be revered as the top technicians they are rather than being confused in the public mind the way technicians and engineers are

Posted on 12 October 2009 08:07 by Disputin

Their political coverage seems more balanced too, re platforming the BNP (though no change yet in their coverage of the EU).
I think they realise the blogosphere is only going to grow in influence and their left wing bias will increasingly be exposed. Survival instinct kicking in!

Posted on 12 October 2009 08:53 by cmp

They have covered some of the sceptic angle though very, very rarely and in a dismissive fashion. It's probably there to keep up the pretence the BBC are impartial. At a guess it's one article in a thousand. Look they're telling both 'sides' of the story!

Posted on 12 October 2009 09:31 by Gareth

Some people just don't want to listen. From the ABC last weekend:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/la_la_la_la_im_not_listening/

The ABC is just as bad as the BBC.

Posted on 12 October 2009 09:59 by boy on a bike

They completely ignore the contrary evidence.

What people need to do is to repeatedly make complaints via their website. The more complaints about bias the better. They are sensitive to claims of bias, given their charter. Their internal stats start showing up problems.

On climate models. The real problem is to get a real model with predictive power in the future rather than a curve fit to the past data. The second relates the quality of the data from the past. It's ropey

Posted on 12 October 2009 10:41 by Nick

The terms "sinking ship", "rats" & "desert" come to mind. Doubtless there will be some new eco-fascist scare story shortly. Having written to Mr Cameron to point out that all 3 examples of catastrophic warming he gave in his conference speech were false I hope he is noting the media change.

[His examples were Kilimanjaro, where the ice shrinkage is due to deforestation making the air dryer; Greenland where the ice isn't melting while it is significantly growing in Antarctica; & the Thames where sea level rise is actually less than historically - no reply to my email yet]

Posted on 12 October 2009 11:03 by Neil Craig

Shock Horror: The BBC might report something in an unbiased way!

The fact that the above is a story at all is horrifying. BBC Trust please take note.
A large chunk of the BBC seem to be intent on undermining democracy in the UK and the EU. Every time they (rightly) slate another country for not upholding western style democracy to the letter the BBC should look at itself in the mirror*.

* No, not Kevin's one.

Posted on 12 October 2009 12:52 by Adam

Douglas, while on the subject of climate change, have you seen the monstrous bit of propaganda which WE the taxpayers are paying for? You can see it today on The Times website at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece

The advert is alarmist rubbish and politically biased to boot. Can you ask a parliamentary question about cost/waste of resources/political bias etc.?

Posted on 12 October 2009 17:03 by Alfred T Mahan

The BBC may have been off-message on Friday, but they were totally on message just two days earlier here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8283909.stm

Professor David MacKay telling the BBC we "probably" cause twice as many emissions that we think. No science or statistics to back that statement up at all.

A new phrase "embedded emissions" supposedly illustrates the emissions that we cause in India and China. Thanks to our jobs being exported (like we had any control over that).

Poor science and poor reporting, plainly propaganda.

Posted on 12 October 2009 23:57 by Delphius1

Perhaps I could recommend
you read to the end of the article instead of reading the first few paragraphs and rushing off to blog about how right it all is. I know it is near the end, but the reporter does point out that the Met Office (collectors of huge amounts of data on this) say

"The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up."

Posted on 13 October 2009 00:26 by Martyn

The climate alarmists most wicked contribution is the effect on the minds of children, who are in no way equipped to debate the issues. Today's children are being told that when they grow up - in fifty years time - they will be boiled alive/ drowned/ living in hell. They are being turned into eco-nazi youth brigade, who must at all costs stop their parents from destroying their future.

Posted on 13 October 2009 08:39 by AndrewSouthLondon

Since that article was published on Friday, there have been more articles with a distinct lack of balance - quoting scientists saying 'This is yet another paper that makes the future look more scary than previously thought by many' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299426.stm) and government advisers claiming 'a major change in policies - which must entail a switch away from reliance on market forces to encourage investment in low-carbon technology' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8300048.stm) with little or nothing from another point of view.

Oh well, back to normal then.

Posted on 13 October 2009 08:57 by Tim Wallace

There are quite a lot of uncertainties in the climate research used to support the idea of anthropocentric global warming. However, I have yet to see evidence of how a 22% increase in atmospheric CO2 (and even larger rises in other greenhouse gases)since 1960, and even more massive rises in future (if we don't do something) can NOT produce increased climate temperature. What is this counteracting process? How strong is it? How long will it last? To what level of certainty do the sceptics believe in it?

Posted on 13 October 2009 11:51 by john ratford

22% rise in CO2 sounds serious. State it as an increase in 1 part per 10,000 of the atmosphere of a gas which is not only harmless to us but beneficial to crops.

In my lifetime I have seen a drop of much more than 22% in the wearing of hats by gentlemen. I have yet to see any evidence of how men not wearing hats will NOT alow a giant mutant space-goat to eat the Earth. Indeed I believe no scientific research whatsoever has been done on this question.

Nonetheless, since no credible evidence exists that we do suffer the space-goat risk I do not spend time worrying about it. The same applies to the environmentalists global cooling, global warming, GM, nuclear, acid rain, peak oil, death of all sea life, death of most land life, reduction of life expectancy to 42 through pollution scares, acid rain, CFC & indeed the rest of their subsidy demanding scams. I do worry a bit about a society that seems so millenialist that it keeps falling for all the hundreds of eco-fascist scare stories, none of which have come true.

Posted on 13 October 2009 13:21 by Neil Craig

Anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) is a hypothesis, not a theory. In the absence of evidence any hypothesis is equally valid. There is no evidence for AGW; none, not any of any kind. Hence, AGW is a superstition of exactly the same kind as astrology. It has no supporting evidence but many people believe it and think it can tell the future. Perhaps it can, but it is very risky to act on that belief. There is a severe risk in preparing for warming and not cooling. And there is most risk in preparing for neither but trying to control the climate of the planet instead.

Posted on 13 October 2009 22:10 by Frans Halls

Maybe the BBC isn't losing its left wing bias as much as you think - Piers Corbyn, the climate change sceptic quoted in the article, is a left wing activist and brother of Jeremy Corbyn, the plain spoken Labour MP. It's fun to see you support his views though - climate change makes strange bedfellows it seems.

Posted on 14 October 2009 14:00 by William Lees

Well, if Neil Craig and Frans Halls don't believe in basic physics and chemistry there is no point in arguing! In 1896, Svante August Arrhenius worked out that the earth's surface would heat up 4 - 5 C with a doubling of atmospheric CO2, using basic scientific laws. The exact figure is still not known because climate is a complex system, but are you saying that CO2 does not absorb solar energy? Perhaps other factors will counter this, or excacerbate it. You don't know what these factors are.

Posted on 14 October 2009 14:53 by john ratford

John checking what you said on his wiki site I find that "In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C" which you unaccountably omitted to mention. 22% of 1.6C is 0.35C. Since during the medieval warming temperature was 1-2C warmer & in 5,000BC up to 4C one third of a degree is clearly irrelevent.

There is also the basic scientific fact that fact trumps theory & it is a fact that temperature is falling.

Posted on 14 October 2009 17:53 by Neil Craig

This issue is certainly pretty emotive given the harsh views expressed here. Hasn't anyone considered what if the climate science is true? Why is everyone so eager to disbelieve the science? Would it have something to do with vested interests against tax and regulation I wonder?

Posted on 14 October 2009 18:27 by Dave

If readers are interested in the science, they may wish to check out http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

For those who want the punchline: short term pauses in warming do not change the long term trend. As realclimate puts it:

"The bottom line is: the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. "

Posted on 14 October 2009 21:37 by Steve

My reading of the evidence (Stern Report etc) leads me to think it is prudent to reduce CO2 emissions. To be characterised with David Cameron, Barak Obama and most scientists as a lunatic consensus leads me to wonder what your criteria are. Like Dave, I wonder what the reluctance to consider the science is based on. Why run the risks of not organising things in a more sustainable way?

Posted on 14 October 2009 22:47 by Paul

3 entirely unrelated posts together, all from previously unknown people with one word names claiming that just because there is no evidence of warming doesn't mean we shouldn't be frightened into giving alarmists lots of money. Who would have thunk it?

For those not in the know Realclimate is Mann's site & he has been caught repeatedly faking results - whatever that is it isn't science.

Posted on 15 October 2009 18:22 by Neil Craig

I am neither a sceptic nor a believer. AGW is a plausible hypothesis, but unquantifiable. What is undoubtedly true is that some in society have made it into a religion. Offsetting, and other greenery is no better than the selling of indulgences by the medieval church. Of course computer models confirm the theory, because the models have been designed according to the said theory. I am confident that if AGW is a fact, its effects are likely to be a lot less serious than the alarmists would have us believe. There is still a significant chance the whole theory is bunk on a grand scale. However, resources are finite, and this mad religion could have us doing some of the right things, albeit for the wrong reasons.

I would say though, that seeing Zac Goldsmith on Newsnight last night gave me pause to rethink my intention to vote Tory. If I vote Blue, I don't want to get Green. Green is after all usually the colour of ignorance.

Posted on 15 October 2009 18:40 by Gerard

What part of the science of climate change do the you denialists not understand? Is it the greenhouse gas emission rate, the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it IR absorption spectrum, the evidence for warming and other aspects of climate change, the accelerating melting of arctic ice, greenland ice, and glaciers, the melting of western antarctica, rising sea levels, the warming of the antarctic, or the correlation between CO2, methane and temperature record in ice core data? Can I recommend a bit of reading of the peer reviewed literature and the removal of heads from the sand and an end to flat earthism?

Posted on 29 October 2009 09:33 by Dr David Knight

If you read the aftermath of Paul Hodson's piece on the BBC you will see that what Mr Hudson claims has been completely refuted. He makes a schoolboy error of confusing a data point with a trend. There is virtually no disagreement between scientists about whether or not global warming is real, nor about the likely causes - us. That is, not in the peer reviewed literature, the only arena where it matters scientifically.

Posted on 29 October 2009 10:19 by Nick Bardsley

The most vocal climate-change deniers have been shown to be in the employ of the petrochemical industries, notably Exon who have taken on the same PR consultants who for decades persuaded the public there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. The International Panel on Climate Change is a rigorous body of top scientists from around the world. Anyone who disbelieves their findings

Posted on 29 October 2009 10:38 by Catherine Macintosh

Even if Climate Change isn`t happening we have to make radical changes NOW because the current way the human race is behaving means no future.With Peak Oil and future fossil fuel energy descent the PARTY IS OVER! A Resilient society in the future will have to tackle energy,water,food security(which the UK has very little)deforestation,loss of topsoils, pollution, poverty, overpopulation etc. in a very different way.
My own knowledge in the field of food production and health tells me that a change of diet to a plant-based one and Stockfree-Organic Farming and Horticulture is necessary and our only hope.

Posted on 29 October 2009 11:44 by Graham Cole

Yay! You can count me in the lunatic fringe: up there with the thousands of climate scientists (count 'em!) who contributed to the IPCC, the thousands who are members of the Royal Society (http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761), and the untold folk who work for all the delegations of to the Copenhagen Conference.

BBC coverage of science may occasionally be poor, but you hardly seem very qualified to comment, frankly.

Posted on 16 November 2009 17:11 by Tim

So are you saying that the vast majority of the world's climate scientists are in on some kind of conspiracy? If so, conspiracy against whom and why?

Posted on 4 December 2009 23:44 by Michael Medlock

If Cameron really believes that climate change (if it is occurring) is man-made, he is stupid. He may think that if he questions that change is man-made he will be jeered at by the tree huggers. Even assuming that it is man-made what a farce to think that walking an extra 5 miles a day will save the planet. Why extra taxes on air flights when China intends to build another 96 airports.In answer to the last comments asking why some scientists still think the climate change is man-made, the answer is simple: If you are a denier, you don't get a job and your rearly heard.

Posted on 23 January 2010 18:19 by Alan Wood

Make A Comment