From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Two more complaints are winging their way to the BBC!!

The first concerns the Scottish climate story.

My complaint states:

Two unsubstantiated claims are made:

1) “Researchers have been comparing temperature and rainfall records from the period between 1960-1989 to the three decades from 1990 to 2019.
In some parts of Scotland, temperatures in February rose from a high of 16.9C to 19.4C”
This is plainly absurd, as average February temperatures in Scotland are about 3C!
This claim apparently comes from the researchers, but it is the BBC’s job to challenge such obvious falsehoods, not broadcast them.

2) “A series of storms have delivered unprecedented weather to Scotland in recent years.
Storm Arwen in 2021 brought 100 mph north-easterly winds which flattened entire forests and left many without electricity for days.”

100 mph winds in Scotland are not unprecedented, or even unusual. The record wind speed according to the Met Office is 142 mph, at Fraserburgh in February 1989.
The Braer storm in 1993 brought 125 mph winds, and the Burns Day storm in 1990 had winds of 100 mph in Berwickshire.
I can provide the Met Office links to all these storms.

The second concerns the wind curtailment story:

My complaint reads:

You claim “Wasted wind power will add £40 to the average UK household’s electricity bill in 2023, according to a think tank. Carbon Tracker researches the impact of climate change on financial markets. It said since the start of 2023, wind curtailment payments cost £590m, adding £40 to the average consumer bill”

As domestic users only consume about a third of total electricity generation, the cost to them would be about £196m. There are about 27 million households, so the average would be £7 a year, not £40

In both cases, the BBC have merely cut and pasted press releases, as all the media seems to have done.

The BBC will no doubt blame the source and deny all responsibility, as they always do.

However, that does not excuse them from printing false information.

It also highlights the lack of any real editorial control in matters of climate/energy. These are both schoolboy errors, which any sub-editor would have picked up straightaway.