BBC Climate Change Bias

WorthingGooner, Going Postal
28Gate Cartoons by Josh

Following my previous piece on the Business of Climate Change I thought you might be interested to know a little more about the BBCs Climate Change Bias, just how it came about and how BBC staff have been involved.

Are you aware that back in January 2006 the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin organised a secret seminar for 28 senior staff? The BBC, for many years, denied it ever happened and even went to court to fight Freedom of Information requests, but slowly the truth has crept out thanks to the likes of James Delingpole, Paul Homewood, Roger Tallbloke and Christopher Booker and eventually the list of attendees was found on the Wayback Machine. The purpose of this seminar was to convince the program makers, producers and “powers that be” that they should fully support Man Made Global Warming and not allow any dissenting voices to be heard. What is surprising is that the seminar was paid for by the then Blair Government through a £67,000 grant from the Department for International Development (DFID). The external attendees where almost exclusively Climate Change fanatics (one dissenter is reported to have spoken) and since that day the BBC have not entertained Climate Change non-believers. You can find a list of attendees here – Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006. Some 5 years after the seminar Roger Harrabin is reported as saying  ‘A senior scientist present told us the debate on climate change was ‘over’ and urged us to stop reporting the views of climate sceptics’. It is understood that he was referring to Lord May who was chief speaker at the seminar and was a former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Labour Government.

The result of all this is that now we are continually fed a Climate Change agenda, helped by the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, that the BBC presents as fact. Hardly anybody is allowed on air to present the alternative view. If the BBC is challenged by a viewer, listener or web site reader making an official complaint, the standard response is to dismiss the complaint out of hand. This is often enough to kill off valid complaints, as few complainers persist to the next level, the Executive Complaints Unit. However, many of those that do, have their complaints upheld. The BBC appears to try to hide the result of successful complaints. For example, the BBC likes to amend web site articles months, if not years, later to reflect adverse rulings. In that way people who read the misleading item at the time it was originally published never know that it was wrong. Items that went out on live radio or television are often corrected by an entry on its complaints web site. Did you know that such a site existed (BBC Complaints)? I only learned about it recently. By putting the results of these upheld complaints on an unadvertised web site the BBC is effectively burying them. Newspapers have to print corrections and retractions in a prominent place, not so the BBC. There is a well know saying, “a lie is half way around the world by the time truth has got its boots on”.

I wonder just how much the BBC do get away with regarding its Climate Change lies. In a recent article on Paul Homewood’s website BBC Uphold My African Penguin Complaint Paul reveals that in the last two years he has been involved in 8 climate change complaints that have been upheld. He is just one of many activist fighting the climate change lies put about by the BBC.

I always understood that the BBC was under an obligation to treat controversial subjects accurately and impartiality and in my research for this article I came across the following.

The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.’

Regulatory obligations on the UK public services, under the BBC Charter 2006

The BBC is also supposed to have a duty of impartiality, it is in its charter. Impartiality is supposed to apply across the board and the BBC is not meant to show any bias by giving equal time to the various protagonists. In politics this means giving the main parties equal exposure and in Brexit it means equal time for Leave and Remain. The BBC, being left leaning, struggles to uphold its obvious bias outside of General Elections or Referendum but at least makes a pretence of impartiality. For example it does usually have one Leaver on QT. However when it gets to Climate Change only True Believers are entertained. The BBC rattles out, as an explanation, the phrase “It’s settled Science”. But is it and even if it was true, it is clearly in breach of the BBCs Regulatory Obligations. How do the BBC justify this? Well here is an extract sent to a viewer who complained about the biased content of a BBC program.

BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines, issued to all editorial staff, state that “we must ensure we avoid bias or an imbalance of views on controversial subjects” and, given the weight of scientific opinion, the challenge for us is to strike the right balance between mainstream science and sceptics since to give them equal weight would imply that the argument is evenly balanced.”

So they admit that their output is deliberately unbalanced despite their guidelines and obligations saying they must be balanced. Any complaint about BBC breaching it charter would need to go first to OFCOM who regulate the BBC.

The BBC shows it’s Climate Change Bias not just by what it misrepresents in its reports but also by what it fails to report. It has ignored several controversies involving IPCC reports. In particular it failed to report how several chapters in IPCC reports had replaced text written by leading experts in their field with text written by scientists who had no expertise in the particular subject but who toed the IPCC line. Chapters regarding potential spread of Malaria carrying Mosquitoes and Hurricanes were among those replaced because the experts view did not meet with the IPCC accepted view. But perhaps one of the worst cases ignoring things was that of the Michael Mann infamous “hockey stick” temperature graph. This graph was heavily relied on by the IPCC to promote global warming but two Canadian Scientists thoroughly debunked it. They published papers demonstrating that the ‘hockey stick’ was no more than a statistical artefact. They showed how it had been created by a computer algorithm which manipulated data which was itself highly questionable, to produce results which bore no relation to reality. The Graph was an attempt to change climate history, it purported to show a flat line of no temperature increase suddenly leaping up in recent years. However conventional graphs showed all sort of rises and falls over the same period and no dramatic jump at the end (see figure). While this controversy raged in the Blogosphere it was completely ignored by the BBC.

In 2006 the BBC commissioned David Attenborough to present a two part documentary called “The Truth about Climate Change”. In the first part Attenborough made several claims to support his theory that Climate Change was man made. Attenborough cited various familiar examples. There was the previous year’s Hurricane Katrina, leading him to claim that the 2005 hurricane season had been the worst ever recorded. There was the abnormal drought of 2005 in the Amazon, signifying what he claimed was a fast approaching threat to the survival of the world’s largest rainforest. There had been the freakish 2003 European heatwave, described by Attenborough as “the worst for 60 years” and responsible for “27,000 deaths”, but which was now likely to recur much more often. He pointed to the record melting of Arctic ice, threatening the future survival of the world’s polar bears, which he claimed had already been reduced in numbers by a quarter. This he linked also to the melting of the huge Greenland icecap, threatening a catastrophic rise in sea levels.

Had the BBC or Attenborough bothered to do a bit of proper research they would have found that just about every claim they made was rubbish. Hurricanes had been much worse in the 1940s and 1950’s and that Hurricane Katrina had been made as bad as it was by failure to maintain the New Orleans levees. The 2005 Amazon drought had been followed in 2006 by heavy rain and flooding. The 2003 European heatwave was far from unprecedented a similar one had occurred 60 years before and the number of deaths stated were far fewer than the number that regularly occur in winter due to the cold. As for Arctic Ice, evidence showed that summer melts in the 1930 had been far worse and that rather than Polar Bear numbers declining their numbers had increased by 300% since the 1960s. Finally the Greenland icecap had reduced in area by about 7/1000 but this had been counter balanced by it considerably thickening. When facts get in the way of BBCs Climate Change agenda they are ignored.

Today Climate Change seems to have become part of just about every BBC Radio and TV program. It’s not just the News programs such as Today and NewsNight but the Bias is beginning to creep into other programming strings such as entertainment and even religion. Thought for the Day, Blue Peter, the Archers, Farming Today, Country File and even the Promenade Concerts have included Climate Change.

WorthingGooner, Going Postal

The BBC also demonstrated it Bias when it’s Richard Black promoted a new report from Michael Mann of the Hockey Stick fame. It was universally accepted that the only continent on earth that had not warmed was Antarctica. Mann’s report purportedly showed the Antarctic was in fact warming. Because of the size and remoteness of Antarctica there are very few weather stations and Mann’s team had written a computer model that used a technique called “sparse data infill” to make up for this. This effectively made up data where none existed. When scientists investigated this they found that what had happened was that two thermometers hundreds of miles apart had returned wildly different results. One of the thermometers had been buried under several feet of snow and, effectively being insulated, it was returning high readings and the computer program had done the rest infilling points with spurious temperatures. When this error was discovered it was not reported by the BBC.

The BBC is a huge supporter of Wind Power and shows it’s bias again by what it does not report. You will not find the BBC telling you about the unreliability of supply from a Wind Farm. Have you ever heard the BBC report that electricity from wind turbines is so intermittent that they need conventional generating backup. They also fail to mention the true cost of power from wind turbines only giving the basic cost of generation, ignoring all the subsidies and cost of necessary backup. Once again this would not support the BBC’s Climate Change agenda.

In 2008 the World Meteorological Organisation put out a press release. This stated that since 1998 global temperatures had not risen and that in 2008 they were likely to be below their average of the previous 20 years. The BBC’s Roger Harrabin mentioned this in his blog to the outrage of climate zealots. One was activist Jo Abbess of the Campaign Against Climate Change (honorary president George Monbiot). She emailed Harrabin, demanding that he ‘correct’ his item. Harrabin replied that there were indeed respected climate scientists who now questioned whether ‘warming will continue as predicted’. This only angered Ms Abbess still further. It was ‘highly irresponsible’, she wrote back, ‘to play into the hands of the sceptics’, or even to ‘hint that the world is cooling down’. Harrabin stood his ground. Even in the general media, he pointed out, there were ‘sceptics’ reporting that temperatures had failed to rise since 1998, and that to ignore this might give the impression that ‘the debate is being censored’. This further enraged Ms Abbess. She replied that it was not a matter for ‘debate’ and that he had no right to quote the sceptics ‘whose voice is heard everywhere, on every channel, deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth’. She threatened that unless he changed his blog entry she would have to conclude that he was ‘insufficiently educated’ to recognise when he had been ‘psychologically manipulated’ and she would have to expose him to the world by publishing his emails on the internet. The BBC’s Harrabin gave in and changed his blog to modify the offending report, referring to slightly cooler temperatures. The revised blog was published with the same date and time as the original hiding that it had been updated.

Yet another example of the BBCs Bias is its reporting on the Climate Change Bill, first announced in the 2007 Queens Speech. The BBC support the bill but downplayed it horrendous cost. The bill costed the measures it contained at £205 Billion with benefits of £110 Billion accruing. Ironically the bill received it final reading a year later on the first snowy October evening for 74 years. Only 3 MPs voted against the bill, one of whom, Peter Lilley, was so disgusted with the BBCs reporting of the financial implications of the bill that he requested that the BBC allow him to write a piece on its Website. The BBC eventually agreed one month after the Bill became the Climate Change Act. When the then Government finally produced a cost for the Act its was revised to £768 Billion or £30,000 for every household in the country.

In late 2009 we had what became referred to as Climategate, when 3000 e-mails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were leaked onto the internet. These documents showed how scientists in the CRU had been openly discussing how to manipulate data to show global warming, conspiring to withhold documents that showed anything  anti climate change and using their influence to stop criticism being published in scientific journals. Perhaps the most damaging discovery was that the CRU had been manipulating tree ring data that it had been using to produce temperature record. When the tree ring data inconveniently showed a dip in temperatures they had been replaced by thermometer readings so that the graph produced the desired hockey stick shape. What was the BBCs reaction? They were not interested in the documents contents preferring to concentrate on claiming that the documents had been stolen and that the contained nothing of importance.

More recently there have been constant interviews with the Extinction Rebellion mob, with every presenter taking the corporate line that Climate Change is happening. All they allow to be discussed is the methods being used and the disruption caused. I have not heard a single voice on the BBC being allowed to argue against ER on the Climate Changes facts or their crazy impossible demands.

Then of course we have the latest Attenborough rubbish program which pumped out yet more propaganda. I will not attempt to point out all the rubbish claimed but instead suggest you follow this link to Not a Lot of People Know That where at the time of writing, there are two articles repudiating most of the programs claims.

These are just a few examples of the BBCs Climate Change Bias, I could detail many other events that I have come across, but you would get bored. But one last point, its hardly surprising that the BBC has a Climate Change Bias, in the last 40 or so years it has often exhibited bias, whether it was Apartheid in South Africa in the 1960s, Europe in the 1970s, the Euro in the 1990s, Salmonella in eggs, the millennium bug, or more recently Fracking and the referendum the BBC has always pushed it’s favoured side of the argument. When the BBC makes up it mind, the rules are simple, they are right and everyone who queries their views is wrong.
 

© WorthingGooner 2019
 

Audio file