Saturday, January 29, 2022
HomeNewsThe climate scaremongers: BBC's fake hurricane report

The climate scaremongers: BBC’s fake hurricane report

-

WELL, that didn’t take long, did it? Last week I wrote about the BBC’s propaganda campaign to deceive the public into thinking that global warming is making hurricanes worse, despite the fact that neither the data nor hurricane experts agree

On cue, a day later they published a report claiming that this year’s Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active on record. Naturally it went on to link this to climate change.

It probably won’t come as any great surprise to learn that they were not telling the truth. This year there have been seven Atlantic hurricanes, which is below the 30-year average. According to the official data, there have been 50 other years with as many or more hurricanes:

US Hurricane Research Division

https://web.archive.org/web/20160301110936/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

So what is the BBC claim based on? It turns out they are counting ‘named tropical storms’, not hurricanes, which are two different things entirely. Although tropical storms include hurricanes, most are much weaker storms, with wind speeds as low as 39mph, something we would call a gale in the UK.

Prior to the satellite era, most tropical storms meandered their way around the Atlantic without even being noticed, but now every one is recorded. Hurricane experts are clear that you cannot compared storm numbers now with those of just a few decades ago, never mind a century or more.

But, of course, the BBC already knew all about this! In March they published an article called Should the hurricane season begin earlier? by the very same Simon King who wrote this week’s piece, in which this precise point was clearly made.

It stated:

‘Over the past 10 to 15 years, though, named storms have formed prior to the official start about 50 per cent of the time. And the way they are defined and observed has changed significantly over time. “Many of these storms are short-lived systems that are now being identified because of better monitoring and policy changes that now name sub-tropical storms,” Dennis Feltgen, meteorologist at the US National Hurricane Center (NHC) told BBC Weather.

‘And Dr McNoldy of Miami University added: “The number of named storms has increased over the decades, but there is no real evidence this is the result of a warming world. The overall increase from 1961 is also likely to be due to better technology, along with observations over the Atlantic Ocean. Since satellites came along in the 1980s, we can spot and monitor the development of tropical cyclones and name them when they meet the threshold. We are simply able to record more”.’

Dr Neil Frank, director of the US National Hurricane Center between 1974 and 1987, complained last year that they were now ‘naming’ normal winter storms and thunderstorms, which would not have been counted in his time, rather than only genuine tropical storms.

We know, of course, that the UK Met Office delights in giving silly names to every depression that comes near our shores nowadays. But that does not mean our weather is any stormier than the old days.

It is grossly misleading for the BBC to omit any mention of these issues. And it is dishonest not to mention the fact that Atlantic hurricanes were actually below average this year.

Madagascan drought not due to global warming

Another day, another climate lie from the BBC. Last month Panorama ran an hour-long edition devoted solely to climate propaganda. This column covered it at the time. Called Wild Weather: Our World Under Threat, it was presented by Justin Rowlatt, the BBC ‘Climate Editor’, who reported on a handful of weather disasters this year, claiming without any evidence whatsoever that they were all linked to climate change.

One segment covered the current drought in southern Madagascar. On several occasions, viewers were told that the drought and consequent famine were ‘climate-induced’.

It now turns out that global warming had nothing to do with it at all. A new study has analysed rainfall there and found that the current drought is no worse than the one between 1990 and 1992:

The study concludes:

‘Based on observations and climate modelling, the occurrence of poor rains as observed from July 2019 to June 2021 in Southern Madagascar has not significantly increased due to human-caused climate change. While the observations and models combine to indicate a small shift toward more droughts like the 2019-2021 event as a consequence of climate change, these trends remain overwhelmed by natural variability.’

In other words, while the current drought is exceptionally severe, it is not unprecedented, but an event we would expect to see every few decades or so.

Another recent study from Germany confirms the existence of several other similar droughts In Madagascar in the last century, noting that by far the worst was in the early 1900s.

Is it too much to expect the BBC’s Climate Editor to check the data?

Harrabin says Britain is not doing enough about climate

I did warn you! Just a few weeks after all the backslapping at COP26, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin admits that the world is nowhere meeting its climate targets.

Reporting on a letter from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to the government, in his usual doublespeak Harrabin wrongly implies that the UK is falling behind ‘emission targets enshrined at the Glasgow Climate Summit’. In fact, as I pointed out at the time, the pledges by every country mean that emissions would actually carry on rising until 2030, not be cut in half as the goal of 1.5C in theory requires. 

In reality, the UK has committed by law to cut emissions from 1990 levels by 68 per cent in 2030, and has already achieved a cut of 48 per cent. Moreover, this pledge is in line with the CCC’s own recommendations. However most of the world has stuck two fingers up at the West’s climate agenda and said they have no intention of cutting emissions any time soon.

So the CCC’s solution is for the UK to cut even faster to make up for the laggards! This is an abuse of the CCC’s powers. Their remit is to advise government on how to achieve Net Zero by 2050, as enacted by Parliament. Not to set policy or change the law.

How do Harrabin/CCC propose we achieve faster cuts? Tax the British people more for petrol, gas and aviation, until the pips squeak. Why does Harrabin hate ordinary British people so much?

It gets worse. According to him, we must also accept responsibility for the carbon emissions of the goods that China and other countries export to us. What he actually wants is for us to consume less, much less.

The ultimate insult to the British public is that none of this self-flagellation will make the slightest difference to global emissions, never mind the world’s climate.

But it will keep Greenpeace happy.

Carbon rationing?

Your home, sometime in the next decade. You click the heating on and receive an app notification telling you how much of your carbon allowance you’ve used today. Outside in the drive, your car’s fuel is linked to the same account. In the fridge, the New Zealand lamb you’ve bought has cost not just pounds and pence but a chunk of this monthly emissions budget too. Welcome to the world of personal carbon allowances.’

Sounds like some sort of dystopian future? Not according to the Independent, which floated the idea, saying it is ‘a concept that is increasingly gaining traction among experts as a possible response to the climate crisis’. 

According to the paper, academia started exploring the possibilities of such schemes in the late 1990s, while between 2006 and 2007 David Miliband commissioned two reports into their potential use. The concept, the then Environment Secretary enthused, had a ‘simplicity and beauty that would reward carbon thrift’.

‘Individuals account for about 45 per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions,’ says Dr Tina Fawcett, acting leader of Oxford University’s energy programme. ‘Personal budgets could be a relatively simple, straightforward tool for reducing that.’

How dare we emit carbon dioxide! (You might have thought, by the way, that an acting leader of Oxford’s energy programme would know you don’t emit ‘carbon’).

Naturally, as the object is to reduce emissions, those monthly allowances will be gradually cut back. The control over our lives that this ‘simple and beautiful’ concept would give to central government is frightening. Not only would we need permission to drive our cars, heat our homes, eat meat, go on holiday or even buy consumer goods, but some central database would be keeping track of every aspect of our daily lives.

Quite what we are supposed to do when faced with a choice between driving to work or eating, heaven only knows.

Not long ago, nobody, not even the far left Independent, would have given this crazy idea the time of day. But in an era when Greta is taken seriously by all and sundry, I am not so sure.

- Advertisement -

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Paul Homewood
Paul Homewood is a former accountant who blogs about climate change at Not a Lot of People Know That

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.