A gleeful, self-satisfied Mr Punch was often heard to remark: “That’s the way to do it.” Today we examine how Mark Poynting, one of the BBC’s top doom-mongering Net Zero activists, uses the trusted ‘scientists say’ message to turn a centennial sea level rise of around 30 cm into prose stating: “The world could see hugely damaging sea-level rises of several metres or more over the coming centuries”. Added fear is inserted into the mix with the warning that the disappearing act will occur, “even if the ambitious target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is met, scientists have warned”.

Poynting and the BBC are essentially telling a worldwide audience that coastal land and beyond across the world could be overwhelmed with several metres of sea rise if the global temperature is three-tenths of a degree centigrade higher. This message properly belongs on a doomsday sandwich board walker, not least because the rise in temperature is almost within the margin of error of constantly-adjusted and unnaturally-heated global temperature datasets.

Extrapolating computer modelled data rigged with improbable ‘pathways’ that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change more or less dismiss as ‘low confidence’ – that’s the way to do it.

The BBC story is based on the recent compilation and interpretation of material from a group led by Geography Professor Chris Stokes. This provides just the sort of findings that are catnip to the BBC. At one point the authors seem to think that humans can control the amount of ice on both Greenland and Antarctica, arguing that the global mean temperature should be reduced with further work “urgently required to more precisely determine a ‘safe limit’ for ice sheets“. Given the catastrophic consequences of a rapid collapse of one or more ice sheets, the authors state, “we conclude that adopting the precautionary principle is imperative and that a global mean temperature cooler than present is required to keep ice sheets broadly in equilibrium”.

That’s the way to do it. Poynting could have informed his gaslit readers that overall ice loss in Antarctica is minimal with suggestions of an annual 100 gigatonnes reduction equivalent to 0.00041% of the total mass – well within the margin of error. At current rates of melting on a continent that has seen no overall warming for at least 70 years, it would take around 300,000 years for all the ice to disappear. And this assumes no intervening glaciations, a new ice age, or just more accurate measurements. Instead he reports the comments of the Stokes crew that the “major concern is that melting could accelerate further beyond ‘tipping points’ due to warming caused by humans”. That’s the way to do it – talk about ‘tipping points’ that never occur and then cover yourself by adding “though it’s not clear exactly how these mechanisms work and where the thresholds sit”.

Instead of “not exactly clear”, try, “haven’t got a clue”. But it is “precautionary” to remove hydrocarbons from modern use and drive humanity back to the dark ages – just in case the model inventions do occur.

Keep reading

On March 28, President Mohamed Irfaan Ali of the South American country of Guyana became an instant hero to many as he refused to take lectures on climate change from a BBC reporter during an interview. In a two-minute video clip that went viral on X (formerly Twitter) and other social media, President Ali turned the tables on the BBC’s Stephen Sackur when the reporter accused Guyana of worsening the “climate crisis” by allowing the exploitation of its newly found oil and gas reserves.

“Over the next decade or two, it’s expected that there will be $150 billion worth of oil and gas extracted off your coast,” Sackur told the president. “It’s an extraordinary figure. But think of it in practical terms. That means – according to many experts – two billion tons of carbon emissions will come from your seabed from those reserves and released into the atmosphere.” Guyana’s head of state quickly rebutted: “Let me stop you right there. Did you know that Guyana has a forest that is the size of England and Scotland combined, a forest that stores 19.5 gigatons of carbon, a forest that we have kept alive?”

When the reporter asked President Ali whether the rainforest gave him the “right” to release the carbon, the Guyanese leader retorted: “Does that give you the right to lecture us on climate change? I’m going to lecture you on climate change.” Being lectured by the BBC on climate change is not a new development; it’s what the state-supported media service often does, and in hectoring tones. But is the BBC correct in its proclamations about what the “climate science” says?

Keep reading