Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > "6m sea rise in India in 18 years" unchallenged in appalling BBC Radio

- Appalling Bias in another BBC World Service Radio prog
- Do we have any BHers in India and Asia ?
After 2 minutes of buildup of climate catastrophe hype the prog opened with a caller confirming "CC it's true ! in Chennai sea level has risen 6m yes "SIX metres" since 1995.
.. No a hint of challenging from the presenter, just shear acceptance. "hey wow"
- here is the programme intro text ..the actual audio is slightly differently worded.

Does we need to be made to act on climate change? (Their bad English) Mon, 31 March
A major UN report released today says that global warming is likely to have a "severe, pervasive and irreversible" impact - floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires are likely to become commonplace. But the warnings are only increasing in severity; meanwhile what actions have historically been agreed to have been torn up or abandoned. So should people be forced to change their behaviour for the sake of the planet? Or, is it about governments having to do something? And if so, is that compatible with their need to be re-elected?
- The way I listen to it the second time, the poor confused Indian guy means the water is coming 6m further up the beach NOT 6m higher.

Apr 1, 2014 at 7:30 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

BBC WHYS World Have Your Say
One of the most biased BBC prog on climate ever. Producers chose to air a series of speakers airing extreme views of catastrophe, with no one informed enough to challenge them.
1. 'confirmation bias' all the way through.
- Yes of course some areas will rise above average just as others move in the opposite direction, so you can't.ignore perspective by only mentioning one

- It's NO RECYCLING week in my household in honour of the presenter Chloe Tilley for extreme bias in BBC WHYS, next weekk will be Lord Hall no recycling week

Apr 1, 2014 at 7:38 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Abridged idea of the audio
- Actual title of podcast "Does we need to be made to act on climate change" (yes bad English I know)

prog opens with presenter Cloey Tilly hyping up the panic report says
, before this, we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have OVERWHELMING evidence that it is happening
- Arctic Sea Ice &
- coral reefs.. will be affected
.. global crop yields are beginning to CLIMB (does she mean decline ?)
.. especially for wheat, raising doubts about whether production could keep up with the growth in population.

... could lead to war and drive people to
leave their homes.
..hear from ..
..Russia where awareness of climate change is incredibility low.
.. Mozambique, where poverty and illiteracy means the risk of CC..
..fines for people who fon't recycle ?
.. should driving become incredibly expensive ?
.. or about govs having to do something ?
if so is that compatible with their need to be re-elected ?
1:40 Daniel Lobez Diaz is an advisor to global corporations on business sustainability

2:00 Over to Bangalore to speak to Sailor (that's a 5hour bus ride inland of Chennai)
..since 1995 at least a yearly rise of 1 feet (18 years times 0.3) at least 6m
CT : Wow that's incredible
water coming closer to the shore (aha I think he means 6m nearer to the shore not 6m higher)
..Do you think enough is being done by gov to address ..."

.... Take a a transcript of this prog and have ypur school class do a critical thinking execise with it. Go through it line by line analysing it and you sill come to understand why the UK public are less inclined than ever to accept the message of the Climate Change Alarmists.

Apr 1, 2014 at 7:39 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Links and background

- Direct link to discussion of 60 posts on their FB page

@BBC_WHYS .. despite their hyping "Can you see CC happening in your area ..they only got 2 tweets

- Presenter @ChloeTilley hyped up on her twitter feed "Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by impacts of climate change," says UN report. Should we be forced to tackle it? @BBC_WHYS
3:55pm - 31 Mar 14"

- she has form someone complained last time she will only interview alarmists ... and cut off skeptic

 BBC News hyping IPCC news item

- 2008 They ran a subtley titled eco-warrior prog before

Apr 1, 2014 at 8:04 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

- Do we have any BHers in India and Asia ?

Apr 1, 2014 at 7:30 PM stewgreen

I think that Chandra is Indian. Dunno where he is though. Bangalore? Aligarh? Wolverhampton? ...?

Apr 1, 2014 at 8:16 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

- Direct link to 2nd discussion of 90 posts on their FB page on Monday

@MartinA .. I meant someone on this planet.

Apr 1, 2014 at 8:48 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

From NOAA, sea level trend at Chennai is approximately 0.3 mm/yr. No recent change is apparent.

More graphs and downloadable data here.

Apr 1, 2014 at 9:52 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

The BBC claims a quarter of a billion people tune in to their global news service every week. That's one reason why I take a dim view of their naked enviro-political proselytizing.

Apr 2, 2014 at 2:13 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

HaroldW: how the blue blazes do they measure 0.3mm a year? I seriously doubt that they can see 0.3mm; I doubt a change of 3mm would be observable – even 30mm would be dubious. Should they be referring to an average of measurements taken over the longer term (say, 100 years), then how can they be sure of the accuracy of the original measurement? How can they be certain that the measurement point has not altered? I take both radar and mechanical measurements of liquid levels in more controlled environs than the sea (or the maritime coast, if you prefer) and will accept an accuracy of 10mm – any less is just guesswork, and the mechanical reading is trusted over the radar.

The only good thing about this story is that it is so patently absurd that some will have noticed, and their trust in the BBC will be diminished.

Apr 2, 2014 at 5:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

I think the BBC World Service is still paid for by the Government rather than out of the license fee. If this is the case the tone of the programme should come as no surprise since the current Prime Minister leads the 'greenest government ever'.

Apr 2, 2014 at 6:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterEcclesiastical Uncle

Radical Rodent -
Perhaps I should have quoted the page more precisely; the trend is 0.32 mm/yr +/- 0.37 mm/yr. (I think that's the 5%-95% confidence interval.)

The record spans about 100 years, but there's a large gap, and only 50 years of continuous data. 100 years at that rate is only about an inch of sea level change. I can't vouch as to the accuracy of their trend information, but I suspect that the monthly data represent an average of many individual measurements. Say they take a reading every hour; over a month that's 300 readings. If each reading has a 10 mm uncertainty, and assuming independence of errors, the monthly average should be accurate to ~10 mm/sqrt(300) ~ 0.5 mm. This isn't meant to imply that *biases* are less than 1 mm -- biases aren't reduced by having more measurements. But biases -- assuming that they don't change appreciably over the observation time -- don't affect the calculated trend.

But my main point is not to argue about the precision of the NOAA trend estimate, it was merely to note that Chennai is not a place where there's a large trend.

Apr 2, 2014 at 6:16 AM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

That's how I read your original HaroldW - thank you for it. Nothing to see here, move on. Apart perhaps from the kneejerk alarmism of one presenter on the World Service. (Another one did a very good interview with Judy Curry eight days ago on Newshour. Lots of cross currents at the moment. That's only to be expected.)

Apr 2, 2014 at 6:54 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

I know, HaroldW. Sorry. I wasn’t harping at you, specifically, but at the many, many measurements that are being used to “prove” one way or the other; some are, as in Chennai, so trivial as to be laughable. One only has to look at the blatant manipulation of temperature data to realise that: why are the older records being revised (generally downwards)? While the instruments of the time were possibly not as accurate as they are now, perhaps they were better sited (let’s face it, a field is probably a good place to have the thermometer; but, when that field becomes a car-park – well, the middle of a car-park is not really a good place, now, is it? But still it remains). I remember reading that NASA had reversed its revision (re-revised?) of earlier temperatures, and that 1935 was actually the hottest year of the 20th century; but, why did they feel that the original temperature had to be revised (downwards, of course)? And why is 1998 still being cited as the hottest?

It is the same with sea-levels: how soon before historical sea-level records have need to be “revised”? If it does happen, you can bet your bottom dollar they will be revised downwards – i.e. the sea levels in Bournemouth were not as high as the Victorians thought, after all. Hey! Perhaps they could have walked to the Isle of Wight at low tide, if only they knew that that water they could see wasn’t there!

And so on to sea temperatures – especially the deep oceans, where all the extra heat has suddenly taken a dive (for no explicable reason). Oceans are warming. We know that; they have been warming since the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago. For some reason, this warming has become dangerous. But, how do they measure the increasing heat content? They give us fancy (and steep) graphs in Joules (or 1022 Joules). So, how is it measured in such a way? The only way I know of is by measuring the temperature; this turns out to have risen by 2/100ths of a degree C since… well… when? Nobody seems to say, only that there has been a rise of 2/100ths of a degree C – and this in an environment that we have only just begun to monitor, with sparsely-scattered instruments of unknown reliability over the long-term in an extremely hostile environment. Now, my work does involve taking temperatures, but even the biggest, fanciest thermometer I have used is only accepted as accurate to about 0.1°C (i.e. 10/100ths); the tables to which this is applied are calculated to 0.25°C, with no interpolation allowed. What is the point in declaring that a temperature rise that is essentially unmeasurable has to be considered dangerous? Answer: to whip up yet more hysteria and fear over a story that is based on lies and half-truths. Why such efforts to maintain the fear? To keep the people frightened; frightened people are pliable people.

Sorry about that rant; you just touched a nerve. By the way, the recordings are quite possibly continuous, using a float on a sensor. It’s in a dock, shielding it from the open sea, yet will still bob up and down more than 0.3mm – and probably more than 30mm, most of the time; then it will have to deal with the disturbance caused by boats…

Apr 2, 2014 at 7:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Float or ultrasonic sensor, either way it's measuring the distance between the sea level and whatever it is fixed to, which can easily move more than 0.3 mm for a multitude of reasons from thermal expansion to settlement, but even the concept of relative motion is way beyond the comprehension of your average greenie BBC arts graduate, assuming that they were interested in inconvenient facts which don't support their narrative.

Apr 2, 2014 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterNW

Useful link .. the BBC Guidelines on accuracy
Note that is a wholçe chapter with subheadings e.g. Avoiding Misleading Audiences

We must not knowingly and materially mislead our audiences with our content. We may need to clarify the nature of some content by labeling (for example, verbally, in text or with visual or audio cues) to avoid being misleading."
..I observe that they seem to break their guidelines all the time

Apr 2, 2014 at 2:01 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

HaroldW thanks for posting the correct data
michael hart - thanks for sympathy

Ecclesiastical Uncle - World Service is paid by you the UK licence payer now plus a small number of local commercials

Radical Rodent Perspective and Context
you are worried about 0.02mm that page says level rises at 0.1feet per 100 years that guys claim was it was risinng by 1ft every year thats , 1000 years worth by NOAA so he's 1000 times out and the stupid presenter didn't pick that up !

I was hoping that you'd list the 20 further errors in the prog I could make a dossier

Apr 2, 2014 at 2:40 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

How do they measure 0.32mm sea level change? LOL, last time I looked the satellite based instruments have an accuracy of +/-10cm or more. They take multiple readings and perform some QA magic and spit out accuracy to the hundredth of a mm. O_o

Apr 2, 2014 at 5:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul in Sweden

The Indian guy has confirmed my version and I have passed that on to the prog makers
(No one else noticed of course.
- skeptics just switched off
- and true believers will believe any old crap)

I see where you guys are coming from
.."Wow BBC made a deceiving prog about Climate Change with my licence money .. is the Pope Catholic" , " The smart would have switched off, the faithful and stupid will have lapped it up. We skeptics are powerless as 'BigOil funds skeptics is a myth' ..we can't do anything.. they'll do it again next week'

Apr 3, 2014 at 9:47 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen