Tag: BBC Verify Team

Is 3.0 Really Greater Than 0.85?

According to the BBC, we now live in a world of misinformation and fake news, in which fake experts and denialists peddle anti-science conspiracies that endanger us all. This has led to the establishment of fact-checking, in which the so-called denialist claims are seemingly debunked by self-appointed arbiters of the truth.

A BBC-style fact-check

From Climate Scepticism

BY JOHN RIDGWAY

According to the BBC, we now live in a world of misinformation and fake news, in which fake experts and denialists peddle anti-science conspiracies that endanger us all. This has led to the establishment of fact-checking, in which the so-called denialist claims are seemingly debunked by self-appointed arbiters of the truth. To illustrate how these fact-checks often work in practice, I offer you the following fictional account of how the BBC Verify team might deal with one particularly interesting online talking point that is currently gaining traction. In keeping with fact-checking tradition, we start with a clear declaration of the ‘misinformation’ to be debunked:

One of the most recent of false narratives to appear on the internet has been the assertion that 3.0 is greater than 0.85, a view favoured by climate change deniers, seemingly based solely upon a rudimentary understanding of mathematics gained at a very early stage in their education. But is it really true that a number such as 3.0 can be said to be greater than 0.85? In the simplistic world of the fake expert, the answer would be yes, but in the world of climate change risk management, in which the vast majority of the world’s scientists are in agreement, a much more nuanced and context-driven reality emerges.

The problem with the naïve pseudo-mathematics of the climate change denier is that it often fails to understand the true importance of the numbers concerned, but it is only when this importance is taken into account that reliable statements can be made regarding magnitude. The fake experts will point out that when the units are the same, the numbers are directly comparable. But that is where the misdirection is introduced. Using the same units is only part of the issue. And nowhere is this more apparent than in the recent and rapidly spreading online conspiracy theory that 3.0 is greater than 0.85. To get to the bottom of the matter we consulted our specialist disinformation specialists team to find out where this false narrative is coming from and why it is fake news. This is what they had to say:

“This particularly damaging example of misinformation seems to have started with the publication of a study that showed how climate models have predicted that climate change will lead to a 0.85 metre rise in sea level within the next century for the South Eastern city of Jakarta.”

But is this particular 0.85 actually equal to 0.85? Well, according to our fact-checkers, the answer seems to be ‘probably’.

“According to the models, the figure of 0.85m is the most likely extent of the sea level rise, but the models contain a lot of uncertainties. Accordingly, the value of 0.85 is just a guess. Furthermore, it is based upon a premised 5oC warming relative to 1870, which is far from certain. However, it is a very worrying figure, and that is what is important.”

Yes, but how does this explain why some deniers have wrongly come to the conclusion that 3.0 is greater than this figure?

“Well, if we were dealing with an even greater level of global warming, the models would indeed predict an even greater sea level rise, possibly even 3 metres or more. In such circumstances 3.0 would certainly be greater than 0.85 because that would be an even more worrying impact of climate change. But that is not where this particular 3.0 has come from. This 3.0 is due to the fact that the city of Jakarta has already sunk by over 3 metres in the last 100 years due to subsidence (with 2.5 of that happening in the last decade). And the rate of subsidence is accelerating, so another 100 years may very well result in a further 3 metres of subsidence at the very least.”

But surely that is a lot more worrying than a 0.85 metre sea-level rise and so this 3.0 is more worrying, and hence it is surely greater than 0.85.

“Well, you might think so but you would be applying the naïve mathematics of the climate change denier. That is not how climate risk mathematics works because, according to experts, “sinking land reinforces the problem of climate change-driven sea-level rise“. For something to be a reinforcing factor it cannot, by definition, be of greater magnitude than the factor it is reinforcing. If it were, then the reinforcing would be the other way round. And since a land drop of 1 metre is equivalent to a sea-level rise of 1 metre, the only way in which the subsidiary role of subsidence can be explained is by recognising that 3.0 is actually less than 0.85, despite appearances.”

So is this all about climate change deniers yet again failing to understand how the scientific method works?

“Certainly. And it is a classic case of facts being taken out of context to prove a point. It may be a fact that in disciplines such as civil engineering 3.0 is always greater than 0.85, but that doesn’t mean that the same can be said in climate science, where a huge scientific consensus exists to tell us that sea-level rise due to climate change is the greatest threat faced by coastal cities. Insisting on retaining the narrow (and quite frankly irrelevant) mathematical sense in which 3.0 is greater than 0.85, is tantamount to denying the scientific consensus, and is just typical of the logical flaws employed by the denier. To the layperson, such arguments may appear convincing but to anyone steeped in climate science the claim that 3.0 is greater than 0.85 just doesn’t make any sense because that would mean that subsidence is a greater problem than climate change-driven sea-level rise, which according to nearly every scientist in the world isn’t true. That is why, when the BBC reported on this problem it was keen to stress that subsidence only represents a ‘bigger immediate problem’. In the long term, subsidence is still only reinforcing the problem.”

Are there any other numbers that climate change deniers are pushing as being greater than 0.85?

“Yes. Shanghai and New Orleans had both subsided by more than 2 metres in the 20th century, leading climate change deniers to falsely conclude that such cities are more at risk from simply sinking into the sea over the next hundred years than they are from being overwhelmed by a posited 0.85 metre sea-level rise. They also argue that since Shanghai has obviously adapted to its historical 2 metre subsidence without too much fuss and bother, it should also be able to adapt to a 0.85 metres sea-level rise. Once again, these arguments only make superficial sense due to an insistence on sticking to the inappropriate belief that 2.0 is greater than 0.85, thereby denying the consensus within climate science that climate change-driven sea-level rise poses the greatest risk. In fact, there are a host of numbers that have been falsely deemed to be greater than 0.85 based on the likelihood that the majority of coastal cities in the world will, under their own weight, subside by a figure significantly greater than the magnitude of sea-level rise predicted by climate models (albeit, only greater in that consensus-denying mathematical sense beloved of denialists).”

So there you have it. The science is clear. Climate change will lead to inundation of coastal cities due to sea-level rise unless we immediately abandon fossil fuels. Any suggestion that coastal cities are going to sink anyway, leading to far greater inundations than are predicted by climate models, is a false narrative spread by climate change deniers employing mathematical trickery that fails to take into account the existence of a scientific consensus.

The science is settled. Numbers are just denialist talking points. Consider yourself debunked.

Further Reading:

You may wish to read this for an account of ‘climate reductionism’ and the problems facing Jakarta. The false narrative that subsidence is merely a reinforcing factor is clearly impeding Jakarta from dealing with its flooding problems.

For the standard, approved narrative, in which the scale of the subsidence problem is downplayed and framed as a reinforcing rather than principal factor, you may wish to read what ClimateCheck has to say on the matter.

Reality Kicks In

Today on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme, a remarkable interview took place between the presenter, Simon Jack (“SJ”), and Sir Dieter Helm (“DH”). During the interview Sir Dieter said many of the things that have been said repeatedly by climate sceptics.

From Climate Scepticism

By MARK HODGSON

The truth will out

Today on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme, a remarkable interview took place between the presenter, Simon Jack (“SJ”), and Sir Dieter Helm (“DH”). During the interview Sir Dieter said many of the things that have been said repeatedly by climate sceptics. One can only assume that he – unlike most, if not all, sceptics – was allowed on to say what he did, because he says we (by which he means society globally – more on that below) need to “decarbonise” in order to “deal with” climate change.

The interview followed an extensive section commencing with a clip of then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announcing his government’s plans to decarbonise electricity generation by 2035, followed by the good news that offshore wind has (according to the BBC) been “a staggering success story” and that “prices have fallen by 75% in the last decade.” “It’s cheap and it’s clean”, we were told (where are the BBC Verify Team and the climate misinformation specialists when you need them?).

There followed an interview with Conservative MP Sir Bernard Jenkin, apparently a believer in net zero, but not a supporter of putting the pylons to take the power from offshore wind farms to where it is needed, via his constituency. That was followed by an interview with EDF’s Director of Offshore & Ireland, Ryanne Burges, in which she claimed that offshore wind is competitive and that “renewables is [sic] the cheapest form of energy that we have at this point in time.”

Simon Jack proceeded from that interview to the next by asking “So are we at an impasse now between what’s possible, what’s affordable and what’s acceptable to the people? That’s the question I put to Sir Dieter Helm, Professor of Economic Policy at the University of Oxford, and I said to him [sic] whether we’re having an honest debate, as I put to Ryanne there, about the costs and trade-offs required to get to net zero.

DH: No, I think the debate is, er, has been to date pretty dishonest. I mean, you know, the idea that well it’s, you know, all going to be cheap, er, there are going to be no costs and all benefits, you know, it’s all, er, up-side is a delusion, you know, we are er nearly 80% fossil fuel-based in this country and if people genuinely want to decarbonise the whole system, er in 25 or 28 years, and decarbonise the entirety of the electricity system in, what, 12 years, or in Labour’s case, about 6 or 7, then it, we should have a debate about what that involves, how that will actually change our landscape, er what the costs will be, and what implications follow for the intermittency and for the networks, etc., and whose going to pay those bills. And what happens is you run down a route encouraged by lots of lobbyists and others, er, for er very reasonable reasons, you run down a route without thinking through the consequences and what’s required – and Nick Winser’s report is very good on this – is a proper spatial plan. We have to know how it all fits together, what in totality is required, and how that’s co-ordinated. Otherwise you end up with people being told it’s not going to cost them anything and then discovering that switching from a higly carbonised economy overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels, on a fast track to one that isn’t, is actually going to be costly. And at the first whiff of cost, like the first whiff of gunpowder at a battle, er the edifice starts to crumble, or at least starts to be politically questioned, and that’s exactly what’s going on now. And it was all very predictable, and the spatial planning, the summation of what’s required, a proper plan to get from here to there, and honesty about the cost, would do a lot to help us address climate change, er as opposed to getting just de-railed, which is what the risk now is.

SJ: And just a final thought, on our sort of trajectory towards net zero, the Government is very keen to stress that we’ve cut emissions by forty-something per cent, and at the same time our economy has doubled in size, it shows that those two things are compatible. What do you make of progress to date? And obviously the UK has been lauded as a leader in offshore wind, and sort of getting emissions down most of any G7 country, are we at some kind of inflexion point about, in our progress towards that, is our progress going to be linear from here?

DH: Well, the important thing to always bear in mind is the word global in the words “global warming”. It doesn’t matter where the emissions are cut, and it doesn’t matter where the emissions are caused, we have to get er these emissions down. And, you know, the UK has two great things to contribute to the globe on climate change. Offshore wind – because we’ve got one of the best locations in the world for it – and, er, carbon capture and storage because we’ve got a network of depleted wells offshore in the North Sea. What we’ve actually done is fast-tracked, er, the reduction of emissions, which is not surprising for an economy which has also for the last twenty, thirty, forty years been fast-tracking the closure of its manufacturing industry. You know, we are 80% services. If emissions can’t be got down in a service economy like ours it will be extraordinarily difficult anywhere else in the world. But simply importing all that stuff, rather than producing it at home, doesn’t do much for climate change. And the question is one which I think isn’t understood in the UK, er an politicians mislead us. You know, it’s not the case that if we get to net zero in the UK we’ll stop causing climate change. You have to stop all those imports and think about all those foreign holidays, etc. Erm, you know, what we have to do is address global warming and that means that we have to think how is the best, what’s the best thing we can do with the money we’re gonna have to spend to get down global emissions of er carbon, and the sad fact is, er, for those who believe, you know, we can unilaterally do this, is that er, you know, elsewhere offers lots of opportunities as well. And we should always measure our carbon consumption, stop kidding ourselves that if we import something instead of producing it at home, somehow that makes us virtuous. Well, it doesn’t, and again what one requires is realism to get on the serious path to global decarbonisation.

Summary

Sir Dieter’s words speak for themselves, but I hope I fairly paraphrase his message as follows:

1. We’ve had a pretty dishonest debate to date. It’s not all upside. There are real costs, in terms of damaging the countryside, problems with intermittency of supply, and serious financial implications – who is going to pay for it?

2. We have lacked a proper plan. Now that the detail is having to be worked out, and the costs (financial and otherwise) are becoming apparent, the edifice is beginning to crumble.

3. Destroying our manufacturing base and exporting our emissions, by having our products made elsewhere, isn’t virtuous at all, it’s self-deceiving. This is about global emissions, and exporting emissions isn’t the same as reducing them.

4. We’re now effectively a service economy. Cutting emissions here is easier than in a manufacturing economy. It’s going to be very difficult to achieve elsewhere.

5. We can’t deal with climate change unilaterally. Others have to cut their emissions. The politicians have misled us.

6. If we’re serious about this, then you can forget your foreign holidays and your imported products.

Let’s hope at least some well-placed politicians were listening.