Complete Disregard For The Truth At The BBC

The BBC says  Greenland saw record melt this year and we are all going to drown

Yet the graph in article shows ice loss decelerating, not accelerating, and they say Greenland gained ice last year. There are many things wrong with this graph, but the point is that it shows other claims in the article to be wrong.

Climate change: Greenland’s ice faces melting ‘death sentence’ – BBC News

Greenland contains 2,900,000,000,000,000 tons of ice.  Even if the graph was correct it would require over 12,000 years for the ice to melt.

This is essentially the same article as 80 years ago, when experts said Greenland glaciers faced “catastrophic collapse” and that seaports were going to drown. The difference being that in 1939 Greenland actually was melting down.

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier

18 Feb 1952 – POLAR ICE THAW INCREASING

Melt was nowhere near a record this year, and 170 billion tons more snow fell on the surface during the winter than melted during the summer.

The surface mass balance (surface gain minus surface melt) shows a 1.2 trillion ton increase in mass over the last three years.

2017      2018      2019

Tide gauges show no indication of an acceleration in sea level rise. Many show no sea level rise at all.

 

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

In 2002, the BBC discussed a 9,000 year old city which is now 120 feet underwater. Apparently their SUV usage did them in.

BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | Lost city ‘could rewrite history’

Like essentially all climate journalism, the BBC completely disregards the truth with their junk science and propaganda.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Complete Disregard For The Truth At The BBC

  1. MGJ says:

    I had the misfortune to witness the BBC’s evening news headlines last night and it was bonanza time.

    They reported *evil* Senor Bolsonaro plotting to destroy the Amazon (‘the world’s lungs’! Gasp!!!), sinister Capitalists deliberately melting the Greenland ice cap and Brexit destroying democracy All in addition to the staple diet of Trump being literally Hitler and all white people being simply terrible.

    I didn’t hang around to see whether they reported any actual news. I assume not much.

    • Aussie says:

      MGJ
      Perhaps the BBC should drop the “news” bit and just call it entertainment or something similar. It , like most news services, is actually completely unreliable as an accurate source of information.

      All jokes aside though. If I am defamed I have legal recourse but if the news service lies then what recourse do you and I have. We can present the truth in our own way but the mud has already thrown and stuck. …

      It appears that nearly all news services have abandoned any commitment to truth, which in the past was a byword for them. Even up to the 1990s we would have editors jealously guarding their businesses reputation and insisting their employees verify facts etc. These days, anything goes as long as it sells papers or draws more clicks…

  2. Bob Hoye says:

    Snow Cover Extent for the Northern Hemisphere remained well above the high-side of the standard deviation band through all of the “melt season”.
    https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/NH_sce.png

    This is the third consecutive year. When can you call it a trend?
    In the meantime, the old albedo through the summer would have been reflecting energy.
    Albedo of open ocean is 0.06.
    Bare ice is 0.5.
    And snow is at 0.9.
    In geological time it adds up.

  3. Gamecock says:

    ‘During this year alone, it lost enough ice to raise the average global sea level by more than a millimetre.’

    ‘Tide gauges show no indication of an acceleration in sea level rise. Many show no sea level rise at all.’

    Somebody has some splainin’ to do, Lucy!

    ‘Researchers say they’re “astounded” by the acceleration in melting and fear for the future of cities on coasts around the world.’

    We know researchers are easily ‘astounded.’ Experts are surprised every day.

    They fear for the future? Now that’s just funny. It’s looking like you have to be really, really stupid to be a ‘researcher.’ Just below ‘journalist.’

  4. Joel says:

    12,000 years to melt?!? Somebody needs to tell Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that she put the decimal point in the wrong place…

    • Snowleopard says:

      Estimates of the average temperature of the previous interglacial are from 10-15 F warmer than today and it melted 24-30% (depending on your source) of Greenland’s ice. in about 11Kyr. So 12Kyr from today for Greenland to completely melt is VERY conservative, short of a solar nova or other extraordinary event, I don’t see how it could happen.

  5. Disillusioned says:

    In 2002, the BBC discussed a 9,000 year old city which is now 120 feet underwater. Apparently their SUV usage did them in.

    Bbbbut they din’t have SUVs 9,000 years ago! So they musta had a lot more coal-fired power plants back then than we have today. Had to have had a lot more – we have been told, consensus has it, that CO2 IS the climate control knob. The seance is settled!

  6. Travis T. Jones says:

    They were advanced … if only they had a carbon (sic) tax …

    Mesolithic boat building site discovered on seabed off Isle of Wight

    The Maritime Archaeological Trust has discovered a new 8,000 year old structure next to what is believed to be the oldest boat building site in the world on the Isle of Wight.

    The site is now 11 meters below sea level and during the period there was human activity on the site, it was dry land with lush vegetation.

    “The site contains a wealth of evidence for technological skills that were not thought to have been developed for a further couple of thousand years, such as advanced wood working.”

    https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2019/08/mesolithic-boat-building-site.html#7U1BQ2DCKv2RE8Jp.97

  7. Logic n reason says:

    BBC balance: a climate alarmist is interviewed. Grave faces all around with presenters nodding in agreement. No detailed questioning and no sceptic to counteract the argument. Climate science sceptic is interviewed. Aggressive questioning, incredulous
    looks of disbelief by interviewer and a demand for an inquiry by the climate alarmist lobby as to why this ‘irresponsible and dangerous’ interview was allowed to be aired.

    • Noel Herron says:

      Very well put! That is their exact methodology in a nutshell. I despise them.

    • MGJ says:

      Back when I used to watch the BBC – and I assume nothing has changed – they would also use the tactic of providing ‘balance’ by interviewing a sceptic nobody had heard of with some completely whacko explanation, ideally involving space aliens.

      This is one reason why I think anybody not on the far left should completely disengage from appearing on the mainstream media. You’ll only be there to push their agenda, not your own.

  8. Jimmy Haigh says:

    One of my Geology lecturers from 30 years ago posted this BBC nonsense on FB. I replied with one of Tony’s Greenland posts showing the huge increase in ice over the last couple of years.

  9. Michael Olsen says:

    A month ago, I tried to tell the geniuses at skepticalscience.com that Greenland ice melt had decelerated in the last decade. I even cited a per-reviewed PNAS article from earlier this year (Mouginot et al) that concluded the same thing.

    They did not not publish my comment.

    Then, to ensure I would not confuse readers of their website with any other truths, they removed my ability to comment.

    • Noel Herron says:

      Well done! They not only peddle propaganda, they also use suppression.The funny thing about the truth it will out. If they try to silence us we will shout louder , if they build tall fences we will climb higher. We also have a great ally the weather ! It will make fools of them.

    • Gator says:

      Years ago, after being censored at SkS and RealClimate, I received an offer from a believer, to post one of my comments under his name. He did not believe that alarmists would censor a well reasoned comment. So I composed a very polite and honest skeptical comment, tailored to be on topic for two different threads. The believer then edited my comments to be damned sure there was nothing that any alarmist, no matter how fragile the snowflake, would consider heretical, antagonistic, or offensive. He then attempted to post these comments, and immediately found himself censored on both sites. He was shocked, I was not.

      Leftists cannot handle the truth, it destroys their narrative. This is why they refuse public debate, and why they carefully control the conversation everywhere they are able.

    • Betty Mullett says:

      Are these people aware that they used to farm on the southern part of Greenland.

  10. griff says:

    Except you still ignore the caling loss in addition to the SMB balance.

    And in 2017/2018 there was indeed an increase in snowfall which meant that loss was very small… but it is a blip. and you know it.

    I don’t know how you can call this year’s SMB loss not significant… and there was indeed a record melt event during the season.

    This really won’t do!

    • Gator says:

      Ms Griff, why do you hate poor brown people?

      There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be concerned about alleged, or even real, ice loss on Greenland.

      1- Sea levels are rising at the same rate they have for thousands of years showing zero acceleration

      2- There is enough ice in Greenland to last for over 13,000 years, or well into the next glaciation

      3- Nobody eats ice for survival

      4- Up to 25,000 humans needlessly starve every day thanks to you and your alarmist buddies

      So again Ms Griff, answer the damned question. Why do you hate poor brown people?

    • spike55 says:

      Greenland total ice mass since 1900.

      https://i.postimg.cc/vZ83sQdq/Greenland_ice_mass2.png

      INSIGNIFICANT LOSS

      Greenland area for the last 8000+ years., Is still only a tiny amount down from the largest area in those 8000 years.

      https://i.postimg.cc/VkYrnZhL/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Briner.jpg

      Seems griffool’s post is totally insignificant, and basically a waste of space..

      … mainly because it is based totally on his abject and wilful IGNORANCE.

    • spike55 says:

      it is noted that yet again, griffool produces ZERO EVIDENCE of the amount of calving loss.

      Empty sad-sack that he is.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey griff, you say, “Except you still ignore the caling loss in addition to the SMB balance.”

      What, exactly, does calving loss have to do with (undetected) CO2 induced upper troposphere warming? You do realize that CO2 does not cause calving, don’t you?

    • Disillusioned says:

      Griff said, Except you still ignore the caling loss in addition to the SMB balance.

      Loss? Calving is a sign of ice GROWTH. Really now, are you an idiot or just pretending to be one?

  11. Winston says:

    I have come to regard any discussion of the left’s apocalyptic claims regarding the state of the earth’s climate as playing into their hands. I think reasonable people need to understand what people like AOC are doing; they are intentionally controlling the discussion by making these wild, reckless claims of impending doom. Attempting to refute assertions that are obviously wrong (namely, “the world is going to end in 12 years”) is the wrong approach, because the masses don’t really remember or track with the finely argued points refuting these claims; they simply remember the claim itself. It becomes a kind of social contagion where the truth doesn’t really matter, just the assertions of doom. In this respect, there is a peculiar parallel with the psychology of cults and cult leader’s assertions of (usually) impending doom.

    Those with common sense should be changing the subject altogether. If I had a large platform from which to speak, I would ask the thinking public, “At what point in the future do we begin to critically question the claims of the AGW crowd if the polar ice caps are largely unchanged or well within the bounds of historically normal ranges?” Let’s settle on a year as follows: Would you say that if in the year 2050 the ice caps are largely unchanged from historical averages, can we then question the veracity of the AGW alarmists’ claims? Most would probably agree to that. Ok…What about 2040, some 20 years from now? I think most would agree that we could begin to seriously question the claims of the AGW crowd. Ok, how about 2030? You see my point. You force the discussion of “when” and by doing this, you are taking a page out of the leftist playbook; you control the conversation and get people thinking about an endpoint to the madness and a legitimate basis on which to question the alarmists.

    Anyway…that’s my thoughts on this.

  12. david chamness says:

    We found a city at 120 feet below the surface of the water…. The city is 9,000 years old. Now, 120′ is 36576 millimeters, and when one divides that by 9000 years, one gets… about 4mm sea level rise per year.

    This means, over the last 9000 years, the average SLR is about 4mm, which means that SLR today (under 3mm) is historically low, for at least the last 9000 years. It’s almost as if ice melts during Interglacial periods, and as we have not yet exited the current Interglacial, ice is continuing to melt. When the new glaciation period gets here, ice will begin growing again, sea levels will start falling, and crops will begin failing in the North (and South) of the planet. We’ll have to move our farms to the equatorial regions.

    But, I suspect that might be a while off. In the meantime, we’ll be okay.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Good post.

      Two things –

      Holocene is long in the tooth. We are due.

      Cooling could be abrupt. We found hairy elephants frozen in place with fresh undigested plants in stomach.

Leave a Reply to Kent Clizbe Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.