BBC Accused Of Serious Errors And Misleading Statements In David Attenborough’s Climate Show

Posted: April 26, 2019 by oldbrew in bbcbias, climate, Critique

This needs plenty of publicity. The one-eyed BBC approach to anything climate-related is not good enough for a body that is supposed to be impartial in such matters, and that’s putting it mildly. Do they know or care what percentage of their licence payers disagree with their biased reports and attitude?


By Paul Homewood

The GWPF has now formally submitted its complaint to the BBC about David Attenborough’s Climate Change – The Facts:


The BBC programme, presented by Sir David Attenborough, went far beyond its remit to present the facts of climate change, instead broadcasting a highly politicised manifesto in favour of renewable energy and unjustified alarm.
The programme highlighted suggestions that storms, floods, heatwaves and sea level rise are all rapidly getting worse as a result of climate change.

However, the best available data, published in the last few years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA, contradicts the BBC’s alarmist exaggeration of empirical evidence.
In its 5th Assessment Report (2013), the IPCC concluded:

In its more recent Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, published in 2018, these findings were reconfirmed. It stated that

Regarding floods, the IPCC’s Special Report concluded:

There is also no observational…

View original post 179 more words

  1. stpaulchuck says:

    Oh shock and surprise – NOT. Attenborough has been a radical humanity hater for decades. He signed onto The Population Bomb ‘all in’.

  2. Phil Salmon says:

    This is sweet – Kate Hopkins shuts up a climate stalker, calling him “posh boy”:

  3. Phil Salmon says:

    David Attenborough said in 2013 about a famine in Ethiopia, “it’s balmy to send food to starving countries … they have too many people”

  4. tom0mason says:

    Facts and evidence comes a poor second to the BBC staff’s requirement to emote and emotionalize everything broadcast.

    Reith summarized the BBC’s purpose in three words: inform, educate, entertain. And to a large extent he believed public service broadcasting should use that purpose in that order.
    These words remains but only as a part of the organization’s neglected mission statement — the sentiment and meaning of those words, since Reith’s death, have been lost on the BBC management and staff to this day. Today’s the requirement is to emote, then emote and entertain!

  5. stpaulchuck says:

    tom0mason , the Beeb has been taken over by the LGBT crowd of misfits wallowing in socialism and ‘social activism’ with a crusade on to put their fellow types in your face at every turn as well as pimp for every misbegotten social lunacy like AGW. The 3% intend to force you to join their parade of fools. If you don’t believe me, watch the interviews and off camera opinion pieces.

    Just look at Doctor Who. The entire production and writing staff are in your face off the main track types who have spent the last decade or so forcing any and every sort of oddball into the mix for no gain to the show’s story line. Now we’ve got Doctor Who-ette running about. There are a lot of other shows going the same way. Here in America we’ve got Modern Family, a twisted tale of misfits that only Hollywood or Fire Island could like.

    IMAO, the BBC and America’s PBS should be cast to the dogs. Let them be 100% commercial and see if they can stand on their own. If so, then good for them. Otherwise, stop forcibly taking my money to make tripe. [/rant]

  6. stpaulchuck,

    In this thread Katie Hopkins demolishes a climate alarmist by asking why such alarmists are ‘posh’.

    In similar vein, I ask you why are discussions by climate realists always disrupted by right-wing Americans attempting to promote their unpleasant political views?

    Please note that I am one example of many left-wing socialists who oppose climate alarmism. So, for example, this thread is a discussion about the BBC’s promotion of climate alarmism as demonstrated by the BBC program tiled, ‘Climate Change-The Facts’, and I cite my complaint to the BBC that completely debunked the ridiculous BBC program called ‘Climate Change By Numbers’. My complaint provided fully referenced information from impeccable sources in the scientific literature to refute falsehoods in that program, and the BBC repeatedly failed to reply to that complaint. The BBC Commission refused to address the matter because they said their duty was to consider appeals against BBC responses to complaints and there was no BBC response for them to consider.

    Considerations of such complaints as those from the GWFP and from me are hindered and disrupted by promotions of the irrelevant and unpleasant political views that right-wing Americans espouse. So, I repeat my question so you cannot claim you missed it,
    Why are discussions by climate realists always disrupted by right-wing Americans attempting to promote their unpleasant political views?


  7. David A says:

    Richard asks
    “Why are discussions by climate realists always disrupted by right-wing Americans attempting to promote their unpleasant political views?”
    I do not understand how you fail to realize that CAGW is not a science, but a political agenda for statism – ( ever greater central government power) and that government power grab is global, greater world government and weakened sovereign national government. Did you never read ” “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” ?

    BTW, who is the climate realist that is shut down by “unpleasant right wing political views”? AFAICT you did not give any examples other then your own straw man assertion that those views are “unpleasant” and do not belong in a scientific discussion.

    While I agree that it would be nice to separate the two, discuss the science only in one collum, and the political aspects in another, I am afraid that us quite impossible when those in political power argue that ” the science is settled” now accept my tax on the very air you breath, my international government control and tax on your business, my laws defining the food you eat, the house you cool and heat for your comfort and health, my laws greatly increasing the cost of every product you purchase, my international laws over ruling your national sovereignty.

    So Richard the ” unpleasant” views of those “right wing” radicals may disturb you, but they make exactly ZERO demands on your pocket book, on how you heat your home in the winter, on the cost you pay to do so ( accept to decrease said cost) and they impose exactly ZERO restrictions on your diet, or your national government, as long as it does not attempt force on them. They make no attempt to force you to accept millions of
    of dark age religion fanatics that support jurisprudence legalised religious political rule, separate class of citizens based on sex and religion, legalised rape and FGM.

    Power over others is the basis of all crime, from thievery, to assault, to rape, to murder, to aggressive wars, to democide – ” death by government” – over 140 million killed by their own government in the 20th century. So while the ” right wing” conservative is “unpleasant” to you, the very political statist CAGW movement is terrifying to any rational person who has studied the history of Government Power over others.

    And finally Richard, I fail to see where you give examples of right wing Americans demonstrating your assertion.

  8. David A,

    I replied to refute the attempt by stpaulchuck to derail this discussion of BBC bias in reporting climate change with his unpleasant and irrelevant right-wing American rant that provided a school of red-herrings concerning LGBT, misfits wallowing in socialism, Dr Who, anti-feminist assertions and etc..

    But your attempt to assist that the derailing of this thread asks me, where I “give examples”. Well, I am sorry that you cannot read but there is little I can do to correct that.

    As for your silly assertions concerning politics and the AGW-scare, I am certain that I both know and understand far, far more about that than you do. For example, on this blog read this
    It explains how and why I predicted the scare would occur before it did and why the right-wing Margaret Thatcher created it.

    Now, perhaps this thread can return to its subject without further attempts to side-track it such as you have provided.