Why on earth is the BBC wasting money and resources on "the largest ever study of people's experience of climate change in seven countries"?

BBC Media Action (the new name for the BBC World Service Trust) has today launched, Climate Asia, "the largest ever study of people's experience of climate change in seven countries - Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan and Vietnam."

Ahead of the launch, senior research manager at Climate Asia, Sonia Whitehead has written a summary of the research project in the warmist Guardian, titled "The first rule of climate change research: don't mention climate change".

And what did the scores of BBC researchers find out, when they talked to 35,500 people in seven countries, without mentioning "climate change"?

Senior research manager Whitehead relates some core findings:

It was clear that people were noticing changes in weather and resources. They said things like, in Vietnam "I now don't need to wear a jumper until November", in India "I have to walk further to get water", and in Nepal "maize is not as fat as it used to be" and in China "goats are now grazing further up the mountain".

The Climate Asia website gives us some more fascinating "results" of this ground breaking research:

83%

of people feel changes in climate are affecting their ability to be healthy

 

40%

of people in the region feel the number of extreme weather events has increased over the last 10 years

 

46%

do not feel well informed about these issues

 

The purpose with the research is this, according to the information published in the Climate Asia portal:

 

This unique data provides information for governments, donors, the media, NGOs and everyone who wants to support people to adapt to the changing environment.

 

Even the BBC "researchers" themselves do not appear to be too convinced about the reliability of their research:

 

No Warranties
The Data is believed to be correct at the time of posting.  BBC Media Action cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the Data or any information on or provided in connection with the Site, or any other information accessed through this Site.  BBC Media Action and any of its officers, trustees, agents, employees, and sub-contractors, are not responsible for any errors or omissions or for results obtained from the use of this information and disclaims any representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranty of fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement, to the fullest extent permissible under any applicable laws.
BBC Media Action does not warrant that the functions contained at this Site will be uninterrupted or error free, that defects will be corrected, or that this Site or the server that makes it available are free of viruses or other harmful components.

 

The entire undertaking raises at least on basic question:

 

Why is the BBC wasting huge sums of money on this kind of empty and useless research, which is totally unrelated to its task of producing high quality programmes?

"climate change is a threat every bit as serious as a nuclear holocaust"

If you as an academic do not have anything of particular importance and interest to say, there is always the possibility to turn to global warming/climate change doomsday scaremongering in order to get attention - and future funding.

That is exactly what associate professor Tim Stephens, Director, Sydney Center for International Law at University of Sydney, has done:


 There is the prospect for food riots, internal instability, civil disorder, and internal and transboundary migration. In most cases climate change is not a destabilising factor in and of itself, but is rather a “threat multiplier”, exacerbating underlying problems.
In the medium term, the prospect of a “climate war” can be discounted. But in the longer term the prospects of major disruption and destabilisation leading to “failed states” is a virtual certainty. In this strategic vision of the future, climate change is an entropic force, pulling societies and institutions apart, rather than a catalyst for traditional inter-state conflict.

--
Strategic analysts think climate change is a threat every bit as serious as a nuclear holocaust. The Doomsday Clock, maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago, symbolises just how close the world remains to global disaster. It was moved forward to 11.55pm in January this year. This was in part in recognition of the lack of global political action to address climate change.
--
However the discussion of climate change and security has largely been confined to governments, militaries and think tanks, and has not permeated public debate in any significant way. Mainstream discussion of climate change has tended to fixate on quotidian issues – such as the modest impact of Australia’s carbon price on the cost of living – rather than higher order questions including the very capacity of Australia to survive into the next century as a nation state.
--

There is still a limited capacity in our institutions to make hard-nosed strategic assessments about the impact of climate change in Australia and the Asia Pacific Region. And while the Australian government has begun the task of reducing Australia’s emissions through the Clean Energy Future emissions trading scheme, these are but baby steps towards the decarbonisation of the Australian economy.
--

Above all the Australian government appears fearful of having a frank discussion about climate change and security. While there would be no merit in invoking images of invading hordes from the North, or a modern-day Brisbane line, it is time for a conversation about how Australia can be kept secure from the impacts of climate change in the Asian century.


Read the entire article here


It is maybe interesting to note that Dr. Stephens writes that there "would be no merit in invoking images of invading hordes from the North", while at the same time referring to climate change as "a threat every bit as serious as a nuclear holocaust".

Nobody denies, that natural catastrophes can have security implications, but the kind of empty, overblown language Dr. Stephens uses should not be taken seriously. That is why neither Australia, nor the rest of the world, needs the kind of "conversion" the scaremongering professor is suggesting.