BBC pre-Paris spin: What is Climate Change?

The BBC has a new article asking ‘What is Climate Change?’ There is much to criticise, although ‘sceptics’ do at least get a mention in regard to ‘the pause’, which is briefly mentioned in a paragraph far down the article. Have a look and post your thoughts below.

Heading the article there is a video about COP 21 which consists of a 1 minute pep-talk on how the UN Green blob intends to disrupt the world’s economies.

Note the BBC signature – black smoke being emitted from the water cooling towers.

In their article, the BBC tell us that:

Solar energy radiating back out to space from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases and re-emitted in all directions. The energy that radiates back down to the planet heats both the lower atmosphere and the surface.

However, there is no explanation of how a colder, higher region of the atmosphere heats a warmer lower region of it or the surface with a radiative flux, in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics. Nor is there any explanation of how this ‘back radiation’ heats the ocean, when physics tells us that longwave radiation can’t penetrate the surface to any depth beyond a few nanometres – much less than the thickness of a human hair.

The BBC go on to tell us that:

Scientists believe we are adding to the natural greenhouse effect with gases released from industry and agriculture (known as emissions), trapping more energy and increasing the temperature. This is commonly referred to as global warming or climate change.

But they don’t tell us which scientists are prepared to make such an unscientific statement – in fact there are no citation references to any science anywhere in the article. The statement implicitly excludes any natural effects changing the climate.

The BBC then shoot their own argument in the foot by telling us that:

The most important of these greenhouse gases in terms of its contribution to warming is water vapour, but concentrations show little change and it persists in the atmosphere for only a few days.

The modellers are unable to concoct any significant warming without a water vapour feedback, so since “water vapour … concentrations show little change”, we can disregard COP 21 as an expensive irrelevance attempting to overhype a non-problem.

There are plenty of other things in this article which can be pulled apart, such as their allusion to ‘tipping points’, so please add your criticisms below and I’ll hack them into a complaint to the BBC for propagandising the population which pays for their biased output.