I am sure that for many people the answer to this question is obvious, and I suspect the answer depends on how strongly you believe in climate change. But consider this.
On the 25th August 2021 the BBC ran a story on their website reported on a UN claim that Madagascar was "on the brink of climate change-induced famine".
Well, it turns out that not everyone agrees. Because on the 2nd December 2021 the BBC reported that another group of scientists had cast doubt on the UN claim.
The issue I have with these two reports is that they do not appear to have been given the same prominence or weight on the BBC site. While the first gets its own webpage, the second seems only to get a small note on the BBC climate page list of recent updates (unless I have missed something), and certainly does not link to a full webpage article (although it does link to the original article). So having created a sensational climate change headline, the BBC then seems to have (partially) buried the opposing viewpoint, or rejection of it, which just happens to go against the prevailing narrative that most environmental disasters are now due to climate change.
Personally, I strongly support the BBC and see it as an important part of the
British media, one that is essential in protecting political diversity
and democracy in the UK. I just wish it would be more objective and critical, rather
than trying to be sensationalist, populist, mainstream and worst of all, "impartial".
For reference, the actual climate change in Madagascar is shown below (see also Post 77).
Fig. 77.6: The mean temperature anomaly (MTA) for Madagascar. The best fit is applied to the monthly mean data from 1932 to 2011 and has a negative gradient of -0.15 ± 0.07 °C per century.
No comments:
Post a Comment