BBC Blames Singapore Turbulence Incident on Climate Change
A British passenger has died from a heart attack following a bout of very severe air turbulence on a Singapore Airlines flight from London to Singapore which had to divert to Bangkok. Over 30 people were injured mainly, it seems, because they were not wearing their seatbelts at the time of the terrifying and dangerous incident.
Aviation is always at risk of unexpected turbulence. Nevertheless, the BBC has the story and, unsurprisingly, according to its website the cause of all our woes – climate change – is the smoking gun:
Briton Andrew Davis described “awful screaming and what sounded like a thud” in the first few seconds of the incident.
“The thing I remember the most is seeing objects and things flying through the air.
“I was covered in coffee. It was incredibly severe turbulence,” he told BBC 5 Live.
Another passenger said the aircraft suddenly started “tilting up” and “shaking”.
“I started bracing for what was happening, and very suddenly there was a very dramatic drop so everyone seated and not wearing a seatbelt was launched immediately into the ceiling,” 28-year-old student Dzafran Azmir told Reuters.
“Some people hit their heads on the baggage cabins overhead and dented it, they hit the places where lights and masks are and broke straight through it,” he added.
Thai authorities have despatched ambulances and emergency teams to Suvarnabhumi Airport.
Singapore’s Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat said the Government would provide assistance to the passengers and their families.
“I am deeply saddened to learn about the incident on board Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 from London Heathrow to Singapore,” he posted in a statement on Facebook.
The BBC News report provides a link to another BBC page called ‘Flight turbulence increasing as planet heats up‘ and, lest anyone miss the point, the report ends:
Research has shown that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.
No link is provided to that ‘research’ since nebulous references to ‘research’ are a prime weapon in climate alarmism.
Radio 4’s World at One bulletin today on the incident also featured the claim that “research” suggests turbulence has increased due to climate change.
Readers of this site were directed a year ago by Chris Morrison, the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor, to another smoking gun: the Reading University Professor responsible for deliberately exaggerating the effects of climate change, whose claims were roundly debunked by Chris on the spot.
The BBC’s report is worth reading in full if only to see what indolent journalism looks like.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The only solution to the malignity of the BBC is to make it accountable to its consumers via subscription funding rather than the license fee. Pending that, the license fee should be boycotted and any inspectors that come calling should be invited to foxtrot oscar.
Yes, but getting everyone to boycott a license fee based on this one issue as you probably realise would be very difficult. Just ask all of your friends and family if they think climate change misinformation is something they worry about and use that as a kind of poll of general public opinion. I have done this and I observe that 90% of the people I know think that there is a serious climate problem. —-Such is the power or propaganda by our state broadcaster and the other mainstream channels.
Well said. No establishment government will ever remove the BBC propaganda tax, they are all joined at the hip. Only the public can bring this rotten, corrupt, nefarious organisation to its knees by never, ever paying their TV propaganda tax. Best not to engage in conversation with a TV licence official who calls In 15 years of not paying I have only had two officers call and when they introduced themselves I have heard them out then quietly closed the door. My monthly reminder letters go into the compost bin and the money I save pays for my centre Right challenger party membership DS and TCW donations.
It was probably 1983 when I was in a plane flying over Java, could have been Sumatra, that bounced around alarmingly, people thrown all over the place. I also remember Tony Blair’s daughter making the headlines when her plane, flying over the same area got, badly bounced. It’s always happened.
Conspiracy theorist
Literally Hitler
Hitler, wasn’t that caused by Climate change? ask the BBC, if the climate wasn’t changing he would have been a very nice man.
It was climate change that saved Russia from Napoleon & Hitler.
The safe flex limit built into aircraft wings is truly remarkable. Back in my VC10 days in the early 70s I recall the flex limit was 15 feet. Because of modern composites, current passenger aircraft like the Dreamliner are stressed to 25 feet vertical movement at the wingtip. CAT (clear air turbulence) due to ‘wind shear’ can be a real problem, whilst Cumulonimbus reaching over 60,000ft to their top-out ‘anvil’ can be picked up on radar at night or seen during the day. Nevertheless, avoiding them is a different matter. It’s a case of trying to avoid the biggest and most active ones by taking a detour if necessary. Temperate climates rarely cause a problem. Tropical transit such as Singapore etc, not so.
I travelled by plane frequently between 1977 and 1999, turbulence was usual to some degree on almost every flight, and I noticed no increase in its incidence or severity.
Vague references to reports isn’t the result of laziness. It’s a very deliberate part of the climate change psyop strategy.
The whole thing is nebulous, from the unspecific references to climate, to the concept of “global temperature” that is unmeasurable and meaningless, to the total absence of concrete predictions against which to verify one’s hypotheses, which is the very basis of science.
Nothing to do with laziness.
The “apocalypse” is all the fault of Trump or our own “criminal governments” for not saving the planet hard enough. Despite the fact the emissions fell in the United States because of switches to Natural Gas, and in the UK because we exported manufacturing abroad. But according to all the silly activists like BBC it is NEVER China’s fault. They even try to say that it is our fault that China’s emissions are high because we buy all the stuff they manufacture. And also that we became prosperous in the first place long before everyone else by burning coal so it is us who have to suffer now to make up for that. —–Eco Socialism.
I am still waiting from the Climate Stasisists to inform what the ‘global temperature’ and what ‘the’ climate should be.
When a major channel sinks to generating news by Pavlovian reflexes, it’s time to have it put down.
I remember some twenty years ago the Farming Today programme on BBC Radio did a report on coastal erosion in East Anglia (where I live). A farmer who farmed land at a cliff top was explaining why from time to time a bit more of his land fell into the sea, just like it has done for several millennia. There was a female voice, clearly over-dubbed after the interview, which kept interpolating “caused by Global Warming” immediately after farmer enumerated each mishap. This happened about five times. The interpolation came so soon after each remark that it was not feasible that the interviewer would have had time to digest what the remark said before uttering the GW. However, perhaps all BBC reporters are conditioned with a Pavlovian reflex to a whole handbook of phrases (see the late John Brignell’s Warmlist) which trigger them to say “caused by Global Warming” and salivate or glue themselves to roads.
Confirmation bias is endemic at BBC, and all other mainstream channels, except possibly GB News and Fox, which is why the left hate those channels and would have them shut down
In the car again, got the radio on and it’s the BBC Media Show. They were banging on about oFcom’s take down of GBN, Kirsty Wark said, why do people like echo chambers. I thought to myself, look in the mirror love!
I’m on holiday in Crete and BBC was only English channel. I stupidly watched their “news” and was disgusted how they changed reporting on the very unfortunate incident into an opportunity to push their climate change narrative.
I put in a complaint and got a case number. Later we watched the same bit of news and they had softened the message. Perhaps enough had complained by then or editors had realised they had gone too far!
I think that maybe there are not enough of us sceptics watching BBC to put in complaints whenever they breach their charter.
Yes but OFCOM are quick enough to hammer GB News, yet BBC refuse to question any aspect of the climate change official narrative or the energy solutions that are supposed to solve the manufactured crisis and OFCOM leave them alone.
I ask this question to the BBC and all the other mainstream News Channels, Politicians, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil type groups etc.—-How are 8 billion people to exist without 85% of their energy supply? Or do you even care? Fossil Fuels provide 85% of the worlds energy and anything that the UK does with absurd Net Zero Policies that will only lower living standards and impoverish people will make not the slightest difference to global climate. So why do it? Because Climate Policies are not about the climate, and never have been. When everything that happens is because of your theory you are not indulging in science. You are indulging in political activism. The BBC ofcourse are the main Climate Change activists of all the News Channels and they can report on nothing without bringing into the story some dubious links for every single thing that occurs to human caused climate change. They are like the proverbial hammer that sees everything as a nail. Yet it is UK citizens who fund this activist channel with the license fee and incredibly 70% of people get their News from the BBC, so this turbulence story will now be in the… Read more »
Or you can just cull 7 of the 8 billion. Granted that’s an awful lot of CO2 to add to the mix in one go, and no doubt some far-right deniers will object, but if it stops turbulence in aeroplanes, it’s worth it, right?
Funny ——–I think we would find that despite the cull the turbulence would still be there for the remaining one billion. And ofcourse that is the problem with most of the claims made by alarmists. None if it can actually be tested. We don’t have some other planet we can experiment on. So nothing they say can be falsified, and since that is the case it cannot be classed as “science”.
Reading this came close on the heels of hearing from someone about her experience of terrific turbulence on a flight from Jamaica to London (the plane was roughly over the Bermuda Triangle at the time). Having flown to and from Jamaica many times in my teens in the 1960s (I was at school in the UK) and never having experienced turbulence I was surprised. However I certainly didn’t put it down to climate change but, rather, wondered if it might have been caused by ‘their’ mucking around with our weather, ie geo-engineering. It may well all be perfectly natural or it may be geo-engineered but it sure as hell isn’t global warming!!
A Boeing, was it?
Boeing, Boeing, gone.
It’s all getting very silly…….reminded me that at my freshers week in 1971 a big sign was put up by the students union ‘silliness makes sense!’
Man stubs toe on bed, cause climate change.
Woman spills tea on shirt, cause climate change
Dog eats stolen biscuit, cause climate change
Child falls over and cries, cause climate change
Stop funding the BBC, that too will inevitibly be because of climate change
If I’d been on that plane the thought of sudden, unforecast turbulence would have come a long way second to my immediate fear that the pilot was having a ‘medical emergency’.
Research has shown that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.
Considering that the future hasn’t happened yet, how can it be researched?
Their chief of research is Mystic Meg. She does all climate change research.
No, it’s all based on models of what might (what we’d like) to happen. Research has shown GIGO
Using Flightradar data I plotted the descent of SQ321, which seems to have been relatively linear from ~37000 ft, at a rate of 2000 fpm, bottoming out at ~31000 ft. This lasted 3 mins, and it would be equivalent to a relatively high rate of descent prior to a landing – but not exceptional. I don’t imagine the cockpit was a shambles – seatbelts on and all that. Surprised, maybe, but not blind panic. In the back? All depends on wearing seat belts…
The BBC should be asked to prove their ridiculous assertion
No-one has blamed Boeing yet……
As long as it wasn’t the Tea round.
“Tasseology has shown that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.”
That’s better.
The Climate Lie Industry dissembles by linguistic torsions to try to hide they have no supporting evidence.
”BBC page called ‘Flight turbulence increasing as planet heats up‘ and, lest anyone miss the point, the report ends:”
Shifting from continuous present tense to simple future tense; claiming something is happening, but actually isn’t, but might.
This makes their claim unfalsifiable and ludicrous and evasive – not ‘will’ happen, ‘more likely’ happen.
Supporting certainty with uncertainty.
It’s also worth pondering what more likely actually means. According to the article, it’s impossible to detect so-called clear air turbulence unless a plane happens to be caught in it. Hence, nobody has any information about how frequent this phenomenon actually happens and because of this, it’s impossible to determine if there’s some trend in the frequency of it happening.
“Research has shown that climate change will make severe turbulence more likely in the future.”
Climate is the retrospective averaging of measurable meteorological events (not just temperature) over long periods of time.
If these averages change showing a long term trend, then that is climate change.
Therefore climate change is a derivation not a datum, an effect not a cause: it is a result of change in weather, therefore cannot be a cause of change of weather.
To say that climate change will cause, is causing, something is like saying wet pavements cause rain.
This is the level of illiteracy of these idiots.