, following his recent outspokenness against the BBC’s work on a planned day of Planet Relief propagandagrammes (see below), writes on the BBC Editors Blog that the BBC has No line on climate change:
BBC News certainly does not have a line on climate change, however the weight of our coverage reflects the fact that there is an increasingly strong (although not overwhelming) weight of scientific opinion in favour of the proposition that climate change is happening and is being largely caused by man.
Well Peter, that’s a big ‘and’ that you’ve slipped in at the end there, and is, I’d venture, one of the central points of contention in the climate change debate – i.e. the extent to which climate change is caused by man vs. other influences on the earth’s atmosphere – an area that, so far, the BBC doesn’t seem terribly keen to explore thoroughly.
Further to this, supposing that we accept that climate change is largely caused by human activity, the other significant area of debate that the BBC as a whole doesn’t explore adequately is the question of what to do about it.
The BBC ‘line’, if you’ll indulge me with such a notion, seems to be all about reducing carbon output (unilaterally) in the UK and the developed world, primarily through curtailing flying and private car use, whilst ignoring what’s happening elsewhere on the planet (for example, the 500 new fossil fuel power stations planned and under construction in China).
Moreover, the BBC ‘line’ seems, at best, to ignore reliable carbon-free nuclear power generation (though expensive, unsightly, unreliable windmills and suchlike get a big BBC thumbs up) and other technological solutions, such as hydrogen powered vehicles and carbon-sequestration techniques.
BBC news programmes and our website of course reflect alternative views but we do not balance these views mathematically as that is not our judgement about where the argument has now reached.
It is highly debatable just how well BBC news programmes and BBC Views Online do reflect alternative views. Alternative views, to use your term, get the occasional passing reference on minority interest programmes such as Newsnight or a brief mention on News 24 from occasional guests such as Nigel Calder, but in the main, these views might as well not exist at the BBC for the minimal airtime they receive.
BBC Views Online in particular rushes to report man-made climate change news prominently, whilst slowly, ever so minimally, if at all, reporting news to the contrary, hence we have people such as Dr. David Whitehouse, a former BBC science correspondent (and believer in man-made climate change), warning: “look on the BBC and Al Gore with scepticism. A scientist’s first allegiance should not be to computer models or political spin but to the data: that shows the science is not settled”.
For many years the BBC has treated EU-sceptics (euro-sceptics as you term them) as if they were deranged flat-earthers braying at the moon (rather than a large portion of the UK population). Those with alternative views on the twin issues of 1) the causes of climate change; and 2) what to do about climate change, seem to be even less well regarded at the BBC.
That is definitely not the same as us propagating a view ourselves about climate change.
Uh-huh. I think we could argue about that too.
It’s not our job to do that.
Indeed. And that’s why this site is here, free-of-charge, unlike the BBC.
In the Edinburgh session the possibility of the BBC doing a “consciousness-raising” event about the subject, possibly called Planet Relief, was raised.
There has been no decision yet about whether there might be such an event, nor what its editorial purpose might be. However it is clear that all BBC programming about climate change – whether about the science itself or the potential policy response by governments – needs to meet the BBC’s standards of impartiality.
Sounds like a spot of back-pedalling Peter. According to The Grauniad there’s been eighteen months worth of development work already. Have they got you on the rack now that they’ve you back from the freedom of Edinburgh?
I was pleased that you and Peter Barron both spoke out against this latest nonsense that the BBC has been quietly planning to inflict on our unwitting nation, but I cannot help but feel that your concern has more to do with protecting the BBC from itself than from genuinely seeking to return the BBC to a state of impartiality on the causes of climate change and the steps we should take in response.
In closing, let’s have the last word on the BBC ‘line’ on man-made climate change straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak:
“People who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that [global warming] is the consequence of our own behaviour. I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago”,
Jeremy Paxman, Media Guardian, Jan 31st, 2007.
Update, 6pm: Come on Peter, I submitted my own very reasonable comment on your BBC blog post around 12.15pm (you know, the one with the Paxman quote and a link back to the discussion here), and yet it seems to have been skipped over for some reason in favour of apparently later comments. What gives? Have I caused offense? Please feel free to comment here on my blog post if you prefer. Thank you.
Update, midnight: I’ve just checked again and, as if by magic, my comment has appeared in the right place, bumping the previous no. 57 up to no. 58. Thank you Peter. Much obliged.
‘BBC News certainly does not have a line on climate change,’
Wow
Either:-
(i)I don’t understand what a line is.
(ii) Mr Horrocks doesn’t understand what a line is.
(iii) Mr Horrocks doesn’t watch the BBC.
(iv) Mr Horrocks had his fingers crossed when he wrote this.
(v) Mr Horrocks is so ignorant of science he honestly believes that we’re all doomed and that the very idea that we might not be is beneath contempt.
or
(vi) Mr Horrocks is on crack.
“BBC News certainly does not have a line on climate change, however the weight of our coverage reflects the fact that there is an increasingly strong (although not overwhelming) weight of scientific opinion in favour of the proposition that climate change is happening and is being largely caused by man.”
This is actually a very fair line to take. The problem is, it isn’t taken. The proposition of anthropogenic global warming is reported as a fact. There is not even any mention of any other possibility, even if just to attack it. Any contradictory evidence or statements are ignored. Either the man doesn’t listen to his own output, or this is just a blatant lie.
And there’s this:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/house_of_correction/
The BBC ‘line’… seems to be all about reducing carbon output (unilaterally) in the UK and the developed world
& when not pouring scorn on Bush for his failure to impose Kyoto on the USA, the BBC are keen to portray the UK (government) as bad guys, for example criticising the likely failure to meet the government’s own target for emission reductions. This approach fails to inform the audience that –
1) The UK is making reductions in order that other EU counties can increase emissions (e.g. Portugal +27%, Greece +25%)
2) Only the UK is set to make reductions beyond its EU Kyoto target.
3) Without the UK’s excess reductions, the EU would fail to meet its Kyoto obligations.
“Windmills get a big thumbs up from the BBC” – er… like this BBC Costing The Earth programme which says:
“Michael Jefferson Policies Chairman of the World Renewable Energy Network and former Chief Economist with Shell believes the industry is encouraged to exaggerate not only wind speeds but the amount of potential wind energy a farm can supply. He worries there are many badly sited poorly performing wind farms in England.”
Hardly a “big thumbs up”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/costingtheearth.shtml
And the BBC “ignores what’s happening on the rest of the planet” – like this article about coal fired power stations in China?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6111528.stm
The huge Elephant in the Room which is consistently ignored by all the media when discussing Climate Change theories is the simple fact that many of the problems are directly related to World Population growth.
However, rather than accept that some brake has to be imposed on the World’s headcount, we are simply waiting for Nature to do it for us. Even without CC, pressure on land resources throughout the world is forcing housing development in unsuitable locations (flood plains etc.), replacing too many forests with food and industrial crops, and living in communities whose population densities are an open invitation to epidemic disease.
I appreciate that there are strong religious and ethical objections to population control but surely it needs to be discussed with at least the passion currently employed on the great GW/CC debate?
“living in communities whose population densities are an open invitation to epidemic disease”
Like the Netherlands? Development is the issue, not population. Likewise, the percentage of land covered by forest has increased in those parts of the world that use intensive farming methods.
Nick Reynolds (BBC) you are grasping at straws dear, Andrew said but in the main, these views might as well not exist at the BBC for the minimal airtime they receive..
Yes they exist, but are indeed MINIMAL. I expect that I could also find the odd article that was friendly to Israel, thankful to Capitalism and gave credit to President Bush for taking difficult and unpopular decisions but they would be MINIMAL and trotted out on special occasions to demonstrate your “even handedness” in just the way that you have here.
Oh, pull the other one, Horrocks.
… we do not balance these views mathematically as that is not our judgement about where the argument has now reached.
That would be a line, then, wouldn’t it?
I don’t doubt his intentions. Well, I do, but let’s be fair: this simply proves again the impossibility of impartial news broadcasting. Judgements have to be made about how issues are covered. That’s the one the BBC has taken on this; fine, but don’t pretend it’s fair, impartial, objective, or anything else, because plenty of people, many of them better informed about the issue than BBC News drones, disagree.
The Beeb says constantly that “Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001”.
E.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269919.stm
Which is true, but what the BBC does not like saying nearly so much is that Bush was following the line taken by the unanimous (95-0) vote of the Senate when Clinton was president.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/08/no_line.html#commentsanchor
Man , most of the comments so far are on the lines of ‘yer aving a giraffe’ (Copyright pounce B-BBC 2007), to “here are some more facts that you lot keep forgetting or won’t report even when other major media do” to the BBC has a line on many things such as Bush America, Iraq etc and we all know which line it is!
Glorious!
They even added mine!
So much for the scientific consensus on golbal warming
http://www.uncommondescent.com/global-warming/fewer-than-half-of-climate-scientists-endorse-anthropogenic-global-warming/ will the BBC report this
“”Windmills get a big thumbs up from the BBC” – er… like this BBC Costing The Earth programme which says:
“Michael Jefferson Policies Chairman of the World Renewable Energy Network and former Chief Economist with Shell believes the industry is encouraged to exaggerate not only wind speeds but the amount of potential wind energy a farm can supply. He worries there are many badly sited poorly performing wind farms in England.”
Hardly a “big thumbs up”.”
I listened to this. I was actually quite impressed (ok so the presenter made some dubious statements like saying that the EU renewables obligation would only increase electricity prices by 50% but I think this is attributable to ignorance and having done an arts degree rather than bias). Good show.
But I could have told you all that five years ago. What’s taken you so long? Why wasn’t this programme made while the wind power debate was still on-going, rather than years after the case has been settled? Does the BBC just not have a clue about engineering, and honestly didn’t know that those UK Wind Energy Association press released might not be wholly accurate? On issues like this I will not jump to pronounce bias – ignorance is far more likely – but either way, you’re not spending the license payer’s money well.
MDC –
Precisely. The knee-jerk reaction of the BBC was to support wind power WITHOUT QUESTION. Even now, an obscure programme on Radio 4 is hardly a refutation – just search for “wind power” on the BBC site and judge for yourself whether the coverage is for or against.
I was interested in the process alluded to in this paragraph:
“BBC News certainly does not have a line on climate change, however the weight of our coverage reflects the fact that there is an increasingly strong (although not overwhelming) weight of scientific opinion in favour of the proposition that climate change is happening and is being largely caused by man.”
OK, let’s apply this process to other areas. There is very hard evidence, perfectly obvious evidence, that the vast majority of terrorist violence in the world has an Islamic origin. So, why doesn’t the weight of the BBC coverage reflect this? Why are terrorists (sorry, militants or ‘activists’) reported as ‘plumbers’ or ‘Indian doctors’? The evidence that Islam is the direct cause of world-wide terrorism is far, far more convincing than that for anthropormorphic global warming, but the BBC coverage doesn’t reflect this.
And as for the “Mongolian yurts”, how metropolitan and bourgeois is that? If they wanted to REALLY reflect what such a green lifestyle would mean in the British Isles, they would have put them in a cottage in the Scottish Highlands in January, without central heating or double glazing and running water if they were lucky.
The “Mongolian yurts” were chosen because they are utterly remote from anyone’s experience, no sane person in Britain has spent a winter living in a yurt, so what the viewer saw was meaningless, except in terms of some vague “it’s a sort of prison” guilty feeling, which was precisely the programme’s intention.
Paulus – no because it is nonsense. As he is not a climatologist (he is into endocrine surgery), I’m not sure how qualified he is to anaylse these papers.
Korova, all he had to do was (i) enter the same search terms into Web of Science as Oreskes did in her well-known meta-analysis (which the greenies are always quoting), and (ii) look at the papers that came up.
(i) is simple. As for (ii), it’s not particularly hard to look at a climate research paper to see what it basically thinks about MMGW. Besides, Oreskes was a history professor, and the greens didn’t think that this disqualified her from doing it.
Well I got my comment up, with the Paxman quote as well!
I have noticed when they get a storm of comments to the Editors blog that do not follow the BBC line, they seem to try to keep them back so they can mix in the few on message ones. Paranoid…me?
“Windmills get a big thumbs up from the BBC” – er… like this BBC Costing The Earth programme
Is there a link to something online about this?
I have one major concern with climate issues, and that is the enviROI of proposed solutions. I don’t mind, and can even applaud doing something ‘for the planet’ though it may not make great sense financially (on a personal level… blowing public funds is another story if there are better uses environmentally), but for my kids’ sake I get very unhappy if whatever it is may not even make sense on a carbon reduction basis from instigation through operation to ‘retirement’.
Hence if, for instance, the massive weight of support in the media for such as offshore wind farms may be less than balanced, I’m keen to know more. With facts and true expert opinion. Not PR from subsidised-body/contractor/operator spokespersons.
blithering bunny – it’s not particularly hard to look at a climate research paper to see what it basically thinks about MMGW.
Well, you’d think. Actually, out of 528 aricles, Schulte claims that only 7 explicitly reject the consensus. In fact, only 3 conclusively reject the consensus. Many of the other papers claim that it may/may not be a possibility, but only a tiny minority (less than 1% in fact) explicitly reject the consensus. Either Schulte didn’t read the papers properly, or he mis-represented them. Either way, it’s a non-story. It is rather like Peiser’s effort to discredited Oreskes work. He claimed that 34 papers rejected the consensus before down-grading it to only 1.
Click to access ep38peiser.pdf
Perhaps that is why the BBC won’t run with it.
I’ve seen some evidence that Newsnight may be taking a more impartial line on Green issues than they usually do in an article on the Greenie website “Spinwatch”.
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4304/8/
The above post attacks the BBC Newsnight coverage of the climate change protestors at Heathrow. I cannot previously recall seeing the Green lobby complain about the BBC.
[The Moderator: this is the same meta-analysis that was linked to and discussed above. Please read earlier posts before commenting!]
This is wandering a bit, but since you quote Oreskes, her survey’s been updated:
“Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.”
http://tinyurl.com/2f8qxr
“Actually, out of 528 articles, Schulte claims that only 7 explicitly reject the consensus. In fact, only 3 conclusively reject the consensus.”
How do you know that? Have you seen the details of the study?
You can find out more about the articles here:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/clim/neutral/discuss/289.html
Funny how these crap lefty GW responses always come back to some irrelevant Tim Lambert blog post.