No response.

Another inaccuracy in the same piece:

"As we reported earlier, temperatures of 35C are expected, after the country set its hottest day on record on Wednesday with 35.3C (96F) recorded in Gogerddan, which lies about three miles northeast of Aberystwyth."

The Welsh temperature record is 37.1C, so that's nowhere near. I think they meant to say the hottest August day on record.

Your view works fine if you assume that nothing has been fundamentally altered by the continuing rise in CO2 and CH4 levels. If, however, you think that some form of tipping point might have been reached then, as the adverts for financial products say, ‘past performance may not be a guide to future performance’.

Let’s not overlook the fact that the increase in wild fires is also a positive feedback since they pump even more CO2 into the atmosphere as well as destroying a carbon sink.

I understand what you are saying Peter and understand those points. The point though in this case was that I was thinking when Brian made his post, is the idea that I thought it would be unlikely for the BBC to edit their story. They still might but I doubt it. Loss of face might be an issue? The hook they hung their story on was an implied (alarming?) linear increase in temperature year by year until net zero is reached.  This was the issue I think Brian and Darren picked up as misleading. Next year may well be cooler or even wetter in the summer. But not smoothly upwards linear.

I’ve come across similar misleading things before and a reluctance to change them or perhaps just ignoring them. One was a photo of an edible fig plant that wasn’t a fig and the other an article on drought-resistant and hardy plants where they used an image of a beautiful red pelargonium as an example of a hardy, drought-resistant geranium plant. In both cases, I assume the picture researcher had found what he or she thought was the right image and used them.  You can contact the author(s) but no they won’t change them. Unless it’s an image of say a particular person. It would cost more in £ than leave it and hope few people notice, and in any case no one likes to be told they are wrong, me included! 

https://x.com/metoffice/status/2100563048981315839 

https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/warnings-and-advice/uk-warnings#?date=2026-10-23  

The old 5 minute weather forecasts on Radio 4 have been squeezed repeatedly in recent years down to 1-2 minutes but it now looks as though the BBC in their infinite wisdom (probably to save money) have dispensed with them pretty much altogether, On PM last Friday the presenter said they will be read by the presenter "at regular points during the programme" which presumably means a very cuts down 5-10 second headline only.

Personally I think it's a bit of a shame if it does disappear like that and people without internet access are going to be less well informed in the future imo

"It's five to six, and now over to Jim Bacon (or whoever) at the London Weather Centre".

But I find the present radio forecasts of little use and I don't generally bother with them. They're just a quick gabble in the few seconds which the producer of the previous news programme decides to spare, with the weather presenter under threat of being cut off if they over-run by even a millisecond. Indeed, I wonder if the presenters themselves are sorry to say goodbye to the present system; it must be very frustrating for them with lots of information at their fingertips, to be forced to reduce it to a couple of sentences.

Perhaps we should reconcile ourselves to the idea that everyone has a TV these days. At least there's more than 30 seconds  allocated , and relevant charts can be displayed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cwyvrz09mnd6o