{"id":301588,"date":"2024-02-12T17:17:19","date_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:17:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301588"},"modified":"2024-02-12T17:17:22","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:17:22","slug":"more-misinformation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301588","title":{"rendered":"More misinformation\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026about misinformation<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Climate Scepticism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0MARK HODGSON<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A few days ago both the Guardian and the BBC (the usual suspects, in other words) published articles on their websites about a recent Report<\/a> by the Environment and Climate Change Committee of the House of Lords (its first Report of the 2023\/24 session). Perhaps surprisingly, the Guardian<\/a> went with the less sensationalist headline: \u201cMake used electric cars cheaper and tackle battery fears, peers tell ministers \u2013 Grants needed towards buying EVs as well as a battery health testing standard to reassure consumers<\/em>\u201d. The BBC<\/a>, by contrast, decided to focus on the \u201cmisinformation\u201d angle: \u201cElectric cars: Lords urge action on \u2018misinformation\u2019 in press<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Guardian article played it with a reasonably straight bat, highlighting some main points from the Report, such as (these are the views of the Committee, as reported by the Guardian \u2013 they are not my views):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The need for Ministerial intervention to boost the secondhand EV market, and to allay \u201cuncertainty and concerns\u201d<\/em> over the health and longevity of EV batteries;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measures should be taken to reduce the disparity between the upfront costs of ICE vehicles and EVs (by the use of \u201ctargeted grants\u201d);<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The subsidies could be \u201ctapered away\u201d when EV prices finally reach compatibility with the price of ICE cars;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Planning regulations should be reviewed to \u201cturbo-charge\u201d the rollout of charging infrastructure;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VAT rates should be cut for public charging to help those without access to off-street parking; and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Investment should made into UK battery recycling facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A brief mention was made of supposed misinformation in the media:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lords said: \u201cBy emphasising the costs while failing to stress the benefits and robustly counter misinformation, the government is not building public confidence.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe concern the government expressed to us about the scale of misinformation has not been matched by commensurate urgency in tackling it. Faced with conflicting claims and alarmist headlines, consumers need a go-to source of comprehensive, clear and balanced information.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The BBC, by contrast, homed in on the suggestion of misinformation, not just in its headline, but in the body of the article, including (to make sure that readers get the message) in its opening sentence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government must do more to counter \u201cmisinformation\u201d on electric vehicles published in parts of the UK press, a Lords enquiry has said.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third paragraph stressed it too:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lords Climate Change Committee urged the government to build consumer confidence and push back against what it called mistruths on range and cost.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then the bulk of the article also emphasised this angle:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baroness Parminter, chair of the committee, told the BBC that both government officials and other witnesses to the enquiry had reported reading disinformation on the subject in national newspapers.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe have seen a concerted effort to scare people\u2026 we have seen articles saying that cars are catching fire \u2013 but had evidence that the fire risk is absolutely the same as [petrol and diesel] cars,\u201d she said.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lords committee did not single out any newspaper in particular.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Testifying before the committee, Richard Bruce, Director of Transport Decarbonisation at the Department for Transport, conceded there was a problem.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said: \u201cI do think there has been an impact from a concerted campaign of misinformation over the last 14 months or so that has been pushing consistent myths about EVs that people absorb and which is reflected in their appetite [for purchasing EVs].<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere is an anti-EV story in the papers almost every day. Sometimes there are many stories, almost all of which are based on misconceptions and mistruths, unfortunately.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Baroness Parminter said the government needed to step in and provide reliable information to consumers.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Misinformation \u2013 nasty stuff. And then the Times<\/a> went and ignored the misinformation angle and concentrated on the lack of EV sales instead, with a very different headline: \u201cPrivate buyers slam brakes on electric vehicles<\/em>\u201d. The focus of the Times piece was very much on the fact that EV sales are now slowing rather than accelerating, especially among private (as opposed to fleet) buyers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Homewood responded quickly with a piece<\/a> seeking to point out that much of the negativity in the media about EVs would more properly be labelled facts rather than misinformation. Commenting on Baroness Parminter\u2019s claims about media misinformation, he asked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now I wonder what all this information might be?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that EVs cost \u00a310k more than an equivalent petrol?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EV manufacturers own data which says you only get a fraction of the mileage that their blurb claims?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that it costs more per mile than a petrol car if you have to use a public charger, even after paying fuel duty?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact the second hand prices for EVs have fallen through the floor, making buying a new EV even less attractive?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that, regardless of the number of public chargers installed, drivers without offstreet parking will face the prospect of queuing to use a charger?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are these all facts that the good Baroness would like to suppress?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With so many different takes on the Committee Report, I thought it would be useful to take a look at what it did <\/strong>say, at least with regard to \u201cmisinformation\u201d and communication strategies. We can probably most realistically see where the Committee is coming from just by looking at the title it used to front up the Report: \u201cEV strategy: rapid recharge needed<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Including the usual endpieces, appendices, summaries etc, the whole thing runs to 128 pages, so I will concentrate on only one aspect of the Report \u2013 the one focussed on by the BBC and by Paul Homewood, namely the question of \u201cmisinformation\u201d. It is probably useful to start by asking what the Committee hoped to achieve by holding its Inquiry. Appendix 3, page 128 might be the best place to start. Here the Committee notes that \u201c[t]he transition to Electric Vehicles (EVs) is central to the Government\u2019s efforts to meet its target of reaching net zero by 2050, legislated in June 2019<\/em>\u201d and states that its aims are therefore:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To understand how the Government will achieve its upcoming 2030 and 2035 deadlines for the phase out dates for non-zero emission vehicles, with a focus on passenger cars, as well as exploring the main obstacles and barriers to meeting these targets.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To understand the costs, alongside the benefits, associated with the 2030 phase out date, and to understand Government progress towards decarbonising car usage by this earlier date<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To assist those supplying evidence, 34 questions were posed under six separate headings (\u201cGovernment approaches<\/em>\u201d; \u201cEV market and acquiring an EV<\/em>\u201d; \u201cExperience of using an EV<\/em>\u201d; \u201cEnd of life disposal of EVs<\/em>\u201d; \u201cNational and regional issues<\/em>\u201d; and \u201cInternational perspectives<\/em>\u201d). So far, so sensible, and no complaints from me. The \u201cmisinformation\u201d aspect picked up on so assiduously by the BBC might have stemmed from a couple of questions, namely question number 4:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given that the Government should apply a behavioural lens to policy\u2014 which involves people making changes to their everyday lives, such as what they purchase and use\u2014is there a role for clearer communication of the case for EVs from the Government? If so, who should take the lead on delivering that?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And question number 5:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is your view on the accuracy of the information in the public domain relating to EVs and their usage?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For my purposes, the most directly relevant section of the Report is Chapter 2, headed \u201cStrategic Approach and Public Messaging<\/em>\u201d. This runs from paragraph 10 to paragraph paragraph 31, so that is what I will talk about here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This section of the report begins by fussing over \u201cmixed messaging\u201d and \u2018a lack of clear and consistent messaging from the Government, which \u201cprovided a vacuum for inaccurate press reporting to fill the void.\u201d<\/em>\u2018 There then follow concerns expressed by people who seem to have a vested interest in promoting EV sales and the related infrastructure, such as Dr Chris Pateman-Jones, CEO of Connected Kerb EV Charging Solutions, who is worried about the pushing back of dates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There follows a lot of heat and noise, but not a lot of light is cast on the issue of \u201cmisinformation\u201d. We are told that alarming headlines in the media about the risk of EV fires are unjustified. The sole justification for concern about such headlines (which may be exaggerated, but which are not without a kernel of truth) is that \u201c\u2026as the Association of British Insurers told us, the fire risk of EVs does not exceed that of traditional ICE vehicles.<\/em>\u201d Possibly true, but valid concerns remain about the intensity of the fires when they do occur, and the difficulty of putting them out. That isn\u2019t mentioned in the Report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Committee allows that there are some legitimate concerns about EVs \u201csuch as those suggesting some EV brands mislead customers about the range of their cars.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having conceded as much, the Report then subjects us to an array of witnesses complaining about misinformation, without actually citing any examples \u2013 Ford Motor Company \u201csuggested<\/em>\u201d in written evidence the \u201capparent emergence<\/em>\u201d of a \u201cvocal anti-EV campaign<\/em>\u201d, though if their written submission contained examples, the Committee doesn\u2019t share them with us. Apparently, however, they think this \u201cis due to the Government\u2019s approach being insufficiently consumer-centric.<\/em>\u201d Several witnesses (Lauren Pamma, Programme Director at the Green Finance Institute; Mike Hawes, Chief Executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT); and Richard Bruce, Director of Transport Decarbonisation at the Department for Transport) told the Committee that media coverage of EVs was inaccurate and portrayed EVs in a disproportionately negative light. In questions and answers (the online report provides a link to them) Richard Bruce said (in the answer gleefully quoted by the BBC):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I do think there has been an impact from a concerted campaign of misinformation over the last 14 months or so that has been pushing consistent myths about EVs that people absorb and which is reflected in their appetite [for purchasing EVs]. There is an anti-EV story in the papers almost every day. Sometimes there are many stories, almost all of which are based on misconceptions and mistruths, unfortunately<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maybe, maybe not, but he didn\u2019t enlighten us in his answer under questioning by the Committee as to what those supposed mistruths are. Nor did the Committee ask. But they happily printed the allegation in their Report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then we are told about areas of confusion and legitimate concern on the part of consumers \u2013 the misconception that ownership of petrol and diesel cars will be banned, not just the sale of new vehicles; concerns about critical minerals and their mining; limited understanding about recycling and end-of-life; and risks and health and safety. Unfortunately, other than labelling the first one as a misconception, the Committee doesn\u2019t enlighten us as to which they think are legitimate concerns, nor do they explain why they lump legitimate concerns in with misinformation and misconception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next the Committee worries that consumers lack \u201cclear and accurate information on the full life-cycle emissions of an EV to have confidence that they are purchasing genuinely environmentally-friendly products<\/em>\u201d. <\/em>Amusingly, this is particularly important \u201cfollowing earlier policies that erroneously encouraged the uptake of diesel vehicles under the assumption that they were less damaging to the environment.<\/em>\u201d I wonder if that constituted misinformation at the time?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are told:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The International Council on Clean Transportation<\/a> reported in 2021 that full life-cycle emissions for battery electric vehicles in Europe (including the UK) are approximately 66\u201369 per cent lower than their petrol equivalents and that this is likely to improve with further improvements in battery technology and manufacturing.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

No doubt it does, and I am no position to question its findings, but I do observe that it is an organisation dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport, which partners with many similar such organisations. A look at its website suggests that it is massively enthusiastic about EVs. Admittedly I didn\u2019t look very hard, but I couldn\u2019t find any reference to e.g. rare earths and pollution associated with extracting the minerals needed for EV batteries. So far as I am concerned, any report on \u201cclean\u201d transportation should look at all aspects associated with the manufacture and use of vehicles, not just greenhouse gas emissions (after all, whatever the propagandists would have us believe, CO2 is not \u201cdirty\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the Report overlooks this truth here, it cottons on to the bigger point (that there is more to \u201cpollution\u201d than greenhouse gas emissions) in paragraph 18, saying that \u201c[a]side from the drop in carbon emissions, many witnesses highlighted benefits EVs offer to public health including improved air quality and reduced noise.<\/em>\u201d Then we are told: \u201cAccording to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, road transport is the main source of air pollution from nitrous oxides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter<\/em>\u201d. A footnote at this point takes us to a short online DEFRA document<\/a> (\u201cWhat are the causes of air Pollution<\/em>\u201d). The problem here is that while a number of the pollutants are undoubtedly attributable to road transport (especially vehicles of the ICE variety), we are also told that \u201c[r]oad transport gives rise to primary particles from engine emissions, tyre and brake wear and other non-exhaust emissions.<\/em>\u201d As Jit pointed out in No Smoke Without Tyres<\/a> the particulates associated with tyres of heavier vehicles (often EVs) might be a substantial problem. However, the Report doesn\u2019t mention this, for some reason.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then we learn that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many witnesses called for an accessible and honest source of information on the EV transition: bringing together government and industry sources, addressing consumer questions, advertising current Government incentives, tackling misinformation and raising awareness about the benefits of EVs with the public.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Follow the footnote, and the witnesses in question turn out to be EV proponents, by and large (e.g. Carbon Copy; the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations; Connected Kerb; Electrifying.com). They are, of course, entitled to submit their views, but the Committee isn\u2019t obliged to accept and regurgitate them unquestioningly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not surprisingly, perhaps, the SMMT argues that more information is needed about the costs<\/strong> as well as the benefits of EVs, and that early adopters usually enjoy the benefits of off-street parking and home-charging, as well as having deeper pockets to pay for more expensive EVs. They argue that \u201cmore information and support is likely to be needed for those drivers for whom the benefit of making the transition is more marginal<\/em>\u201d. That sounds like a euphemism for the need to throw money at people who can\u2019t afford expensive EVs and who will have to charge them at (expensive) commercial charging points. Credit to the Committee for inserting the point in the Report, but it\u2019s worth noting that such a critical point merited only single short paragraph in their Lordships\u2019 and Ladyships\u2019 view.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also of interest is the list of matters relating to EVs where drivers\/potential owners require reassurance (in order, starting with the greatest concern): that the batteries will last; that charging will be convenient; that charging will be quick enough; that range would always be sufficient for any necessary journey; that EVs are as green as reported; that EVs will have decent resale value; the driving experience. Based on my limited experience, I think that only the last point is easily met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly cost is hugely significant in persuading the public to buy (or lease) EVs, as the Report briefly concedes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zapmap, an app which helps EV drivers search for available chargepoints, suggested that financial incentives and disincentives are more effective than environmental benefits in influencing the majority\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this point, for some reason, the Report repeats the claim by Richard Bruce about \u201ca very concerted campaign of mistruths and myths.<\/em>\u201d Again, no examples are supplied to back up this (repeated) claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, the claim by Anthony Browne that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

we have concerns about a certain amount of misinformation that is going on, and we will carry on playing the role, as Governments always try to do, of countering the misinformation and working with industry to do so. There is now quite a big industry, such as the charging operators, which has an incentive to ensure the successful take-up of electric vehicles, and we will work with them to try to diminish the misinformation<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

is repeated. But again, follow the footnote, and under questioning he was not asked to provide examples of the alleged information, and so the claim is slipped into the Report several times without the alleged misinformation ever being identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As if that isn\u2019t enough, this sub-section of the Report concludes with four summary paragraphs (in bold print for emphasis) which make the same claim yet <\/strong>again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So much for the Report\u2019s claims of misinformation, so eagerly seized upon in the BBC report. It\u2019s a little ironic then that a recent BBC website article<\/a> headed \u201cRather than fearmongering putting people off e-bikes, reasonable cautions and supportive infrastructure would allow cities to reap the many benefits of e-bikes while protecting lives\u201d <\/em>then gives us this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third-party batteries are risky because \u201cthe way to ensure that these bikes are as safe as possible is to make sure that the battery, the motor and the charger were all designed to work together\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even if an e-bike kit is safe at the point of sale, later modifications can create incompatibilities. Mr Slone explains, \u201cIt could be a perfectly safe battery pack, but if it\u2019s a mismatched charger that perfectly safe battery pack can become a very significant safety hazard and can go into what\u2019s called thermal runaway.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thermal runaway is a kind of explosive chain reaction where a cell inside a lithium-ion battery overheats, which then spreads to the many other cells in the battery\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026To give people a chance of escape, any means of delaying the spread of a fire or toxic gas can help. \u201cEven if someone doesn\u2019t have a dedicated storage cabinet, if they have a room that\u2019s enclosed with doors that\u2019s away from where they sleep, that might be safer than leaving it in kind of a common area,\u201d says Mr Slone. It can also help to keep e-bikes away from flammable materials.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The London Fire Brigade has advised riders to let their batteries cool down before recharging, charge on flat hard surfaces, avoid extreme temperatures, and keep fire alarms in good condition\u2026.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026Another frequently dispensed piece of advice is to never leave a charging battery unattended, especially overnight.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a delivery cyclist working a 14-hour shift, \u201cthe most natural thing in the world would be to come home at the end of your shift, plug your bike in\u2026right there at the door, and go to bed,\u201d Mr Slone notes. But it can have tragic consequences\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s all right, though, because the article ends with this reassurance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than fearmongering putting people off e-bikes, reasonable cautions and supportive infrastructure would allow cities to reap the many benefits of e-bikes while protecting lives<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s tricky, this misinformation malarkey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A few days ago both the Guardian and the BBC (the usual suspects, in other words) published articles on their websites about a recent\u00a0Report\u00a0by the Environment and Climate Change Committee of the House of Lords (its first Report of the 2023\/24 session).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":301592,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"A few days ago both the Guardian and the BBC (the usual suspects, in other words) published articles on their websites about a recent\u00a0Report\u00a0by the Environment and Climate Change Committee of the House of Lords (its first Report of the 2023\/24 session).","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818389,691819224,691821977,691819825,691826889],"class_list":{"0":"post-301588","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-bbc","9":"tag-climate-change-committee","10":"tag-electric-vehicles-evs","11":"tag-guardian","12":"tag-house-of-lords","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Interaction-Toolkit.png?fit=1920%2C900&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1gsk","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":204940,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=204940","url_meta":{"origin":301588,"position":0},"title":"The Sands of Time \u2013 Part Two","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/06\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In\u00a0The Sands of Time\u00a0I concluded that \u201chysterical claims about climate change, rising sea levels and erosion, do little justice to a complex subject, and ignore an awful lot of inconvenient history.\u201d In fairness, while I hold to that view, there is no doubt that just as the UK\u2019s coastline has\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0pexels-photo-753619.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0pexels-photo-753619.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0pexels-photo-753619.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0pexels-photo-753619.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0pexels-photo-753619.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223653,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=223653","url_meta":{"origin":301588,"position":1},"title":"British House of Lords: \u201cCovid was a crisis, the climate is a crisis. We can learn some very important messages around the communications\u201d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"What was that saying again? \u201cFool me once\u2026\u201d","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-589.png?fit=800%2C400&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-589.png?fit=800%2C400&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-589.png?fit=800%2C400&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/image-589.png?fit=800%2C400&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203563,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=203563","url_meta":{"origin":301588,"position":2},"title":"BBC accused of institutional alarmism as new report reveals long list of climate misinformation","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"09\/06\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Serial offenders in climate reporting at the BBC get called out. Their own charter demands impartiality, but that got buried years ago on this topic at least, along with many of the subsequent complaints from the public.\u00a0\u2013 \u2013 \u2013 The report, compiled by climate researcher Paul Homewood, reveals that the\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0Screenshot-2022-06-09-170144.png?fit=838%2C471&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0Screenshot-2022-06-09-170144.png?fit=838%2C471&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0Screenshot-2022-06-09-170144.png?fit=838%2C471&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0Screenshot-2022-06-09-170144.png?fit=838%2C471&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259246,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259246","url_meta":{"origin":301588,"position":3},"title":"Talk for\u00a0Tom A Nelson podcast, 24 May\u00a02023","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"I appreciate that Australia\u2019s not the centre of world affairs, but keep in mind that more than 60 Australian scientists helped write the latest IPCC report.","rel":"","context":"In \"Australia\"","block_context":{"text":"Australia","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=australia"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Screenshot-2023-05-26-182426.png?fit=895%2C506&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Screenshot-2023-05-26-182426.png?fit=895%2C506&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Screenshot-2023-05-26-182426.png?fit=895%2C506&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/0Screenshot-2023-05-26-182426.png?fit=895%2C506&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293860,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=293860","url_meta":{"origin":301588,"position":4},"title":"BBC Claims Climate Change is Behind Increased Lightning Deaths in Bangladesh \u2013 But It\u2019s Utter Nonsense","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Will 2024 bring any respite from the BBC\u2019s relentless climate propaganda? It doesn\u2019t look like it. As if to set the tone for the next twelve months, on New Year\u2019s Eve it published a real gem. The central claim its article makes contains a very big but easily debunked falsehood.","rel":"","context":"In \"Bangladesh\"","block_context":{"text":"Bangladesh","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bangladesh"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00importedImage129466_header.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00importedImage129466_header.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00importedImage129466_header.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00importedImage129466_header.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/00importedImage129466_header.jpeg?fit=1200%2C673&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223639,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=223639","url_meta":{"origin":301588,"position":5},"title":"Use Covid lessons to curb climate change, Lords tell government","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"13\/10\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Government must \u2018lead\u2019 on home insulation, diet and travel reports BBC News \u2013 because\u2026net zero. Lives must in effect be micro-managed in the supposed climate crisis.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/00road-map-of-United-kingdom.webp?fit=795%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/00road-map-of-United-kingdom.webp?fit=795%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/00road-map-of-United-kingdom.webp?fit=795%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/00road-map-of-United-kingdom.webp?fit=795%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301588","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=301588"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301588\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":301596,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301588\/revisions\/301596"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/301592"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=301588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=301588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=301588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}