#BiasedBBC : Bought to Booker, but not to Book

Posted: May 14, 2015 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, Big Green
Tags: ,

BBC’s Climate Stance In Brazen Defiance Of The Law
Date: 07/03/15 Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph

When it comes to climate change, the BBC’s coverage is quite deliberately one-sided, argues Christopher Booker
bbc-greenpeace-medNext January will see the 10th anniversary of one of the most curious episodes in the history of the BBC. At a “secret seminar”, many of its most senior executives met with a roomful of invited outsiders to agree on a new policy that was in flagrant breach of its Charter. They agreed that, when it came to climate change, the BBC’s coverage should now be quite deliberately one-sided, in direct contravention of its statutory obligation that “controversial subjects” must be “treated with due accuracy and impartiality”. Anything that contradicted the party line, from climate science to wind farms, could be ignored.

The BBC Trust later reported that the seminar had taken this momentous decision on the advice of “the best scientific experts” present. Only years later, after the BBC had spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to suppress the identities of its “scientific experts”, did it emerge that they had been nothing of the kind. The room had been full of rabid climate activists, from pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Stop Climate Chaos.

In 2011, I wrote a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation charting in detail how this had led to hundreds of programmes that were blatantly biased.

Last week, as the wave of propaganda mounts in advance of that bid to get a new global climate treaty agreed next December, the BBC was at it again, in a 75-minute documentary called Climate Change By Numbers. Using a well-tried formula, the programme purported to be taking a fresh, objective look at the issue, this time employing three mathematicians to subject the basic science on global warming to rigorous mathematical analysis.

As usual, supported by an array of gimmicky graphics, irrelevant anecdotes and film clips from all over the world, what these presenters omitted to say was even more important than what they did. We began with a young lady mathematician explaining how we know that, since 1880, the world has unmistakably warmed. Although she cleverly skated round the increasingly controversial methods by which computers have been used to “adjust”, “infill” or “homogenise” temperature data, few people would disagree with her conclusion that the world has indeed warmed, by around 0.85 degrees. What she left out was that there has been nothing unprecedented about our recent warming. As the world has generally warmed since emerging from the Little Ice Age 200 years ago, two earlier warming phases from natural causes, between 1860 and 1880 and from 1910 to 1940, were just as great as that of the last 30 years – before CO2 levels rose as they have done recently.

But the computer models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been programmed to predict that, as CO2 rises, so global temperatures must follow. So the second segment showed us a professor using his passion for Spurs football team to assure us that those computer models are reliable. What he omitted to explain was that, in the past 17 years, the IPCC’s computer model predictions have turned out to be comprehensively wrong.

In the final segment, another professor used a long sequence about Formula One motor-racing to tell us that pouring increasing amounts of man-made CO2 into the atmosphere has already led us to ever more “extreme weather events”, floods, storms, droughts, hurricanes etc. In years to come, unless we totally change our lifestyle, these will only get even worse and more dangerous. What he failed to tell us was that, as even the IPCC concedes, such events have not become more frequent or intense at all. There have been no more floods, droughts and hurricanes than there were before the global warming scare was invented.

It was telling last week that, in answer to criticism of another even more ludicrously biased programme on another of its favourite subjects, the EU, a BBC spokesman should have insisted “impartiality is paramount for the BBC”. The fact is that they know they have a legal obligation to be impartial. They know that they are breaking the law. But they also know they can get away with it, because no one in authority will ever call them to account for doing so.

The Sunday Telegraph, 8 March 2015

  1. oldbrew says:

    Pay a TV licence fee to be brainwashed. When is the BBC propaganda department going to be cut down to size?

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    Here in the USA we have “BBC America”. I used to watch the BBC news on it, but lately have been relatively unable to find out when it is broadcast … but don’t really miss it. For some reason, about the time they went to the garish All Red All The Time motif, they also went a bit daft.

    Now even Al Jazeera America is better than they are ( though lately Al Jazeera has been on the Global Warming Cool-aid Express too… likely since their owners want to stop fracking and nukes so that OPEC oil has less competition).

    I also used to seek out the BBC on shortwave radio. Haven’t done that in a couple of decades either.

    It is a loss of “mind share”, and it is lethal to a media “outlet”. I have a dozen other news shows I watch, many via the internet. Why on earth would anyone pay a TV licence when they can just hit internet TV with a tablet… And those new sources are global, and better.

    Oh Well.

    Now about all we watch on the BBC is Star Trek TNG and Dr. Who.

    And that, also in a nutshell, is the problem that the would be propagandists have. Nobody is listening to their propaganda outlets but those already indoctrinated. Everyone else has gone off somewhere more interesting.

    I’m here on TallBlokes, not watching BBC. In a few minutes, I’ll be back at my site. Then I’ll be watching NCIS with the spouse over dinner. Then a while at WUWT (perhaps with Al Jazeera in the background as they do have good ‘on the ground’ video from W.W.III wanna bee developing in the Middle East even though their environmental coverage is crap).

    In the end, MSNBC and the BBC propaganda efforts are less than useful since nobody watches them who will care, and the alternatives are better.

  3. Stephen Richards says:

    they were at it again last night. The Sky at Night, one of their more interesting and accurate programs, descended into stupidity with the very lovely Lucy Green talking to a half-wit climate scientist about Venus and why the earth is not like it BUT by 2100 the earth could have warmed 10°C. This after Lucy Green had stated that the most important GHG WAS H²O gas. They make me spit. They deliberately skate past their charter to bombard brits with utter scientific propangda.
    Let’s hope your new culture secretary will cut them done to size.

  4. Richard111 says:

    Yes, I saw it too! Here is an example of blatant bias from so called scientists on the Sky at Night program on BBC TV last night. Inside a well appointed physics laboratory an experiment had been set up. Very visual!
    It consisted of two glass jars supported in the air with clamps and the jar seals fitted with thermometers. One jar had plain air and the other had extra CO2. A HEAT LAMP was directed at each jar! The temperature rise in each jar was displayed on a laptop screen. The temperature in the jar with the extra CO2 rose faster than the temperature of the jar with just plain air.
    This, it was claimed, by the lady astro-physicist conducting the experiment;


    Now CO2 will indeed absorb heat energy from a heat lamp AND FROM THE SUN, especially over the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands (which peak at around 800C and 400C). When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon the energy will effect some electron band and cause a change in the VIBRATION level of the CO2 molecule. During subsequent collisions with surrounding air molecules some of this energy will effect the KINETIC speed of the air molecules which will register as an increase in temperature. Normally, warmed air expands and rises, but this air is in a sealed jar! You could call it a GREENHOUSE jar! Of course the HEAT IS TRAPPED! (many unprintable words shouted at the TV at this point)

    Out in the real world CO2 in the atmosphere does indeed absorb energy from the sun through the other TRANSPARENT (do not absorb/emit over bands being discussed) air molecules and warm up the air. Those photons absorbed from the sun by the CO2 NEVER reached the surface so the surface failed to warm as much as it could without the CO2 in the air. A cooling effect. In fact this is the same effect as pollutants from smoky chimneys and volcano eruptions. Yes, really, although no where near as noticeable. These fancy experiments with CO2 and bottles and jars, whatever, are always conducted in sunlight, never in the dark.

    I must stop but I’m still fuming so one last point; the M-B equation. The M-B equation is used to calculate emission per SQUARE METRE from a solid body. The radiation is leaving the solid body from THE SURFACE. There will be heat capacity in a solid body allowing time constants to be calculated.


    Just think about it. A square metre column of air masses roughly 10,300 kilograms on the surface. Contained within that column of air will be roughly 6 kilograms of CO2 gas molecules spread throughout that column, and throughout the adiabatic temperature range within the air column which is of course defined by the gravity level of this planet we live on. So in effect that 6 kilogram mass of CO2 molecules has a temperature range of 288K at the surface to some 173K up in the stratosphere and people claim to use the M-B equation to calculate how much heat reaches the surface from CO2 in the air!!!!!

    Bottles and jars, yes…. explains everything that is wrong with this world.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Q: Who needs a CO2 experiment when you can just measure what is going on in the real world?

    A: Because the real world doesn’t give the ‘right’ answer.

    Even the BBC knows about ‘the pause’:
    ‘Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.’

    Wrong theory anyone?

  6. […] that contradicted the party line, from climate science to wind farms, could be ignored. – Click here to read the full article […]

  7. Richard111 says:

    I gave up at this sentence….

    “”These ideas include the impact of pollution such as soot particles that have reflected back some of the Sun’s heat into space.””

  8. oldbrew says:

    Richard: how about ‘dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming’ – Wikipedia


  9. Richard111 says:

    I wish they would make their minds up. This is getting into unfamiliar realms for me. Water does not absorb too much energy at low sun angles but does radiate more energy to space than ice. You would need a lot of warm sea water to prevent ice reforming around the pole during winter given the present tilt angle of the Earth. I suspect the Asian_brown_cloud is not a well defined annual event.

  10. Richard111 says:

    On watching China TV I note some agitation over smog levels. I expect the Asian_brown_cloud to reduce in a few years. They have the technology. All they need is the incentive.

  11. hunter says:

    Fanatics and extremists, like intellectual cowards, are above the law.

  12. dscott says:

    As context to your article:

    Science is often flawed. It’s time we embraced that.


    “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

  13. oldbrew says:

    Christopher Monckton declares war on the ‘unspeakable’ BBC here 🙂

    Monckton: ‘John Whittingdale [the newly-appointed Cabinet Minister responsible for the BBC’s many sins, who has little time for the organization] will not bother to set up another enquiry. He is the sort to take swift, decisive and – to the BBC – deadly action. By this time you may be wondering whether he and I are in cahoots. You might think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.’