BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough’s Africa

So says… *rubs eyes in disbelief* The Guardian’s Leo Hickman (h/t George R).

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough’s Africa

  1. Richard D says:

    Parade – sorry to rain on, but George R picked up on this in the ‘Roger the Dodger’ thread.

    However…. no harm in highlighting this one on its own thread – as you indicate – almost unbelieveable that the Guardian picked this up and ran with it. Do you believe that the Guardianistas may actually be getting around to opening their eyes………….Nah, sorry – can’t stretch that far.


  2. +james says:

    I think David Attenborough got confused between climate and weather,


    • Richard Pinder says:

      This is not a piece of comedy that would be appreciated by Marcus Brigstocke, but then Ben Miller went to Cambridge University to study for a Ph.D. in Quantum Physics and Brigstocke studied Drama at Bristol.

      The BBC prefers Brigstocke’s views on Climate Change.


      • stewart says:

        Brilliant, was that on BBC?
        If so how did it get past compliance commissariat?


      • Richard D says:

        Yup – but, of course, now that we have ‘extreme weather events’ being equated to ‘climate change’…….

        Funny how the CAGW ‘alarmists’ can’t seem to nail down what exactly it is they are using as evidence (or otherwise) of their fantasies these days.


        • Richard Pinder says:

          I think the senior Met Office staff must only employ scientists with signs of dementia now, just to be safe.


  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    The fruits of that BBC gathering we now call 28-Gate. Why didn’t they use the latest data or ask the Warmist scientists for the latest info? Because they wouldn’t have gotten the story they wanted to tell. It’s both funny and sad that the Guardianista is a fully paid-up Warmist anyway, and is just disappointed that they didn’t use the latest data, which – of course! – would prove that it’s all real.

    Alternatively, maybe it just got a lot warmer in the zoo where Attenborough filmed some of the key scenes, and they went with that, having to dig up something to back it up only after being pressed on it.


  4. Alan says:

    Remarkable how quickly the BBC responded to ‘one of their own’ when he requested information:

    ‘I went back to the BBC press office and asked it whether the production team, or Attenborough himself, had double-checked and verified this claim before broadcast.

    A few hours later, once it had spoken to the programme’s production team, it sent me this statement:….’


    • DB says:

      Excellent point – the same people who refuse to engage in discussion over the list of attendees at the BBC’s 2006 climate seminar.


    • Guest Who says:

      A veritable smorgasbord of juicy fare abounds.
      Why didn’t they use the latest data or ask the Warmist scientists for the latest info? Because they wouldn’t have gotten the story they wanted to tell.
      Funny that ‘truth well told’ comes, more credibly from an ad agency, than all the pious BS we get served up, at a mere £145.50, by the world’s most likely to have an exclusion clause broadcaster.


  5. London Calling says:

    The last line shows how unverifiable NGO activist claims enter the echo-chamber of the media:

    “And how did the BBC’s researchers even come across such an obscure fact (4 degree rise in Africa’s temperature) ? You get the sense they simply Googled “Africa temperature rise” and went for the first thing they found.”

    It takes one to know one, doesn’t it?


  6. Guest Who says:

    I don’t know who @JenniferPoole is but she has entered the Lions’ Den and is kicking serious Felis Deludis Pomposia butt.

    I suspect she’ll be modded out soon.


    • Demon says:

      Comments are all closed. It must have been a good one.


    • Richard D says:

      Gone completely….. ‘server error’.

      Now you have us completely intrigued.

      What the hell did we miss ?


      • Guest Who says:

        In the interests of clarity dear readers, Demon is correct that my YouTube linked clip has indeed had comments disabled.
        The Graun piece remains free and clear, though the modding does seem to be gathering apace.
        I also note an addendum by the author as some from the science community get into ‘what I meant to say’ mode that the Graun system is evolving in complement, vs. the BBC’s more favoured ‘evolutionary’ approach that can spare blushes.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          The very first comment elicited a response from the Guardianista proving me right about him. And I love the comments scolding him for giving fodder to “denialists”. Don’t tell the truth, man, be more “constructive”.


      • Guest Who says:

        Me and my clips.
        Good job I know how not to embed now eh?
        Just a 10′ burst from Jurrassic Park, where the hunter gets hunted by the Velociraptor matriarch and utters the words I lauded Ms. Poole with.
        It ‘did’ work, honest.
        Either the link triggered a copyright issue or a lot of folk clicked on it.
        My bad:(


  7. David Brims says:

    The ‘Risen Christ’ Sir David Attenborough loves the environment so much, he wants to wipe out half of humanity to preserve it, as you do.

    Like most people, I don’t have a problem with full scale genocide on a industrial scale, so long as its for a good cause, like saving the dung beetle, etc etc.


  8. scoobywho says:

    Quote: “I also noticed some people on Twitter asking the same question. So the following morning I called the BBC”

    …on the Guardian/BBC hotline one would imagine.

    Quote: “Personally, I find it bizarre – and frustrating – that an otherwise exemplary series, which took years to film, has been tainted – in my mind, at least – by such a sloppy piece of research. Why rely primarily on a seven-year-old report published an NGO? Why not just directly ask climatologists who would have the latest available data to hand? And how did the BBC’s researchers even come across such an obscure fact? You get the sense they simply Googled “Africa temperature rise” and went for the first thing they found.”

    I doubt they went for the first thing they found. When I googled it the first thing I found was something that said it was highly variable but in one area over 100 years up to 2000 it was half a degree. They probably went to great lengths to find the most alarming figure they could.
    One document that comes up which contains excerpts from the ipcc report says it will take until 2050 to reach 3 degres


    • London Calling says:

      I believe Google now uses an algorhythm that anticipates what interests you, so different people get different search result,. tailored to their needs.

      Perhaps they used an Al Gore-rhythm


  9. uncle bup says:

    ‘For anyone looking for a reason to justify the BBC licence fee, look no further that the unit’s output.’
    Leo Hickman

    Yawn – the tired old Radio4isworththelicencefeealone argument.

    Fine – if you think the BBC’s Natural History Unit is worth £145.50 a year then you pay it.

    I just can’t understand why you expect me to pay it.

    Oh, I get it. It’s for my own good isn’t it. Of course.


    • Guest Who says:

      ‘the BBC’s Natural History Unit is worth £145.50 a year’
      No source of information is worth a red cent if what it provides is inaccurate to suit dogma over fact.


  10. johnnythefish says:

    This is yet more proof that the BBC has stopped listening to the scientists – or at least those who used to tell them only the stuff they wanted to hear – and are now the official broadcasters for fanatical environmentalism.

    Still there, Leveson?


  11. George R says:

    “BBC On Back Foot Over David Attenborough Africa Climate Change Claim”