VIA CHRIS MORRISON
Countless mainstream media programs now incorporate extreme green climate propaganda into their output, seemingly without any desire to question the most outrageous and unlikely claims. Last Monday start the week on BBC Radio 4 provides a case study of how fiction is mixed with carefully selected fact, used in Net Zero’s error-filled political propaganda and presented as a contribution education to help us understand how the climate is deteriorating. Needless to say, the whole incident was a one-way mess, fed with misinformation.
Host Kirsty Wark questions as extreme weather becomes more frequent, whether we’re moving away from nature. The question was rhetorical because in the same sentence she added, “How and why did it happen and can we humans cause a climate disaster?” But extreme weather is not becoming more frequent. All that seems to have happened is that the BBC, like most mainstream media, has begun to categorize every bad weather event. Last year, four leading Italian scientists published a joint assessment of historical climate trends and concluded that declaring a ‘climate emergency’ was not supported by data.
During the study, the scientists discovered that the intensity and frequency of rain are fixed in many parts of the world. Tropical cyclones and hurricanes are little changed over long periods of time, and the same holds true for tornadoes in the United States. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity did not show “clearly positive trends of extreme events”.
The BBC show features three guests who help Wark “convey the story and impact of climate”. They are Oxford historian, Professor Peter Frankopan, Professor Dame Jane Francis, Director of the British Antarctic Survey and climate novel author Jessie Greengrass.
Frankopan notes that we live in a world with a “cascade effect”, asks how we got to the point of “existential threat”, and suggests that we are living through an “extinction”. series” is in progress. One can’t help but wonder if students in a Frankopan history tutorial would be welcome to ask questions along the lines of what cascade effects and existential threats? This instilling fear is merely echoing the opinions of activists, and there is little scientific evidence to back it up. As for the phrase ‘mass extinction’, which keeps popping up in the mainstream media, the evidence suggests something else entirely. The foundational fear of extinction comes from the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London, who have made the unbelievable claim that vertebrates across the planet have shrunk by 69% since 2005. 1970. But a group of Canadian biologists recently pointed out that this is an odd statistic. . They revealed that the estimate was driven by 2.4% of wildlife populations, adding, “Excluding these extremely declining populations, the global trend switch to increase.”
Antarctica scientist Jane Francis said the climate is changing rapidly and we need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To support her observations, she refers to the Antarctic ice core expeditions, correctly noting that the gas bubbles gave an accurate indication of the past atmosphere. . From this and other elements present in the ice, both the temperature and the amount of CO . can be deduced2 in the atmosphere 800,000 years ago. But Francis did not provide further details, possibly because ice cores drilled at Vostok show that temperatures usually rise before CO.2 level.
A specialized scientific paper in 1999 (Petit et al.) concluded that CO . gas2 hysteresis temperature during the beginning of the glacial period for several thousand years. The graph above shows over many periods, especially during the current Holocene, the temperature and CO2 level is not a public key step. A more plausible observation might be that naturally rising temperatures lead to higher CO levels2 as gas is released from all over the Earth’s surface.
There are a number of contributions billed as precisely fictitious by author Jessie Greengrass, who invokes Noah’s Ark in a new book called High building. The film tells the story of the heroine who leaves her family because she is too worried about the climate and wants to make a difference on a global scale. No further details on making this global difference are available, though it wouldn’t be surprising if it included shouting loudly and glued to everything. Like Noah, Greengrass also worries about flooding and cares about islands in the Pacific (most of them increase in size last look) and England, which she thinks could be the “backbone” of the future.
But enough fiction, back to fiction. Professor Francis worries about the extreme weather “we have created”, referring to the recent hurricane in Mississippi with the suggestion that such events have become “more frequent and worse”. Unfortunately, some minor error has crept into these claims, namely that it was a tornado hitting Mississippi, not a hurricane, and far from getting worse, recent achievement. has become better.
Of course, it is in Francis’ interest to declare black as white as far as tornadoes in America are concerned. Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann claims that the latest science “indicates that we can expect more of these massive (cyclonic) outbreaks because Human-caused climate change”, while Jennifer Francis, a scientist at the Woodwell Center for Climate Research, told guardian that climate change has “created some of the ingredients needed to create an outbreak.” like this is more likely“.
The author Greengrass concludes that we need to communicate climate change “in every way possible to reach as many people as possible about what is happening”. There’s nothing wrong with the BBC trying to create interesting shows with interesting people hotly debating interesting topics. But on climate change, the appalling decision was made years ago to avoid debate over the so-called ‘settled’ but unproven scientific narrative that means almost every green and agitprop point of view. of the crackpot can be broadcast without any effort to investigate its validity. This sterile approach should be left to the wider reach of social media and cannot justify imposing a hefty license fee on everyone in the UK who owns a head. terrestrial television receiver.
Chris Morrison is daily skepticismEnvironment Editor’s.
Related
