Barry Woods, in a long and thorough post on WUWT, asks whether the BBC has broken faith with the general public in its conduct in the production of the Horizon programme presented by Keith Nurse, in which climate sceptics – and their arguments – were badly treated or ignored.
There is much that is important in Mr Woods’ post, but I don’t think the principal question he poses is quite the issue. The programme was a product of a much deeper and much older malaise. The “breaking of faith” by the BBC with audiences, its Charter and common sense – as has been admirably documented by Bishop Hill and Harmless Sky – happened several years ago, when, in a secret meeting crammed with political activists and warmists, it bizarrely decided that the science behind climate change was settled.
This decision was taken by an organisation already infected with the zealotry of the rectitudes of corporate social responsibility, and stuffed full of staff recruited through the pages of the Guardian whose tendencies were to support left-wing liberalism and ideology.
Ever since then, the BBC has pursued an open but unspoken agenda of pushing the alarmist cause, and it has led to every arm of the imperialist corporation embracing a form of bigoted zealotry unprecedented in its history. I do not believe (as some reaction to my post yesterday seemed to assume) that this means that the BBC from the top down is nakedly pursuing a ham-fisted climate alarmism strategy to make money for the pension fund. And nor are reporters like Roger Harrabin and Richard Black driven by the desire to make money for their own pension pots. But they have been given a carte blanche licence to pursue their prejudices. They are trapped in a paradigm of political activism and cannot see it, as Roger Harrabin’s post on WUWT in defence of his Met Office hide-the-decline shenanigans vividly testified.
Because of this, the deeply-worrying revelations of Peter Sissons in his autobiography about the one-sidedness of BBC climate change reporting make no sense to most of those working at the corporation. There has been, as is usual with such attacks against the BBC, a virtual wall of silence, and no effort to engage with the important issues he raises. Roger Harrabin wrote baldly to the Daily Mail in response that, “he did not recognise” the BBC that Mr Sissons was talking about. This llustrates par excellence that talking to Mr Harrabin about his climate change prejudices is like trying to explain colour to a blind man.
I believe that the consequences of this approach are manifested on a daily basis. An organisation that sets out its stall on the basis of fair and accurate reporting cannot see that it has become a travesty of those goals. Take for example, the reaction of the BBC’s College of Journalism (the self-declared “centre of excellence” in journalism skills) to the Keith Nurse Horizon programme. What does it do? Seek out a genuinely independent sceptic to give reaction and to allow the alternative case to be aired? No, precisely the opposite.
It goes instead to what it laughingly describes as an “independent” commentator – Fiona Fox. But Ms Fox, as I have chronicled on this blog, is anything but independent; she is one of the most strident advocates of the BBC alarmism worldview. And a board member of her Science Media Centre is Ceri Thomas, the editor of Today – another ardent activist. This is what Ms Fox says about the programme:
This was in some ways a gentle and simple film which managed to focus on the battles over climate change without descending into the nasty, polarised style that has for too long characterised that debate. If you haven’t seen it yet, you should do so.
Her inflammatory. crass comments have generated a torrent of counter-opinion pointing out the programme’s inaccuracies, unfairness and bias. But as I have already noted, this will be seen by those at CoJo and in the wider BBC not as a reasonable reaction, but simply as more evidence that the sceptic community is a bunch of nasty, raving nutters: water off a duck’s back. Nothing but a major earthquake will change this rigid zealotry; the BBC is trapped in a massive delusion of its own making.
obsession with climate change I find rather boring. Most people think it is happening
Quite correct. Climate change has happened continuously since the Earth was formed, hence Ice Ages and other periods where the British Isles were quite tropical. This obviously is Global Cooling and Global Warming.
The questions are :
How much is caused by man, and what else is causing or contributing to current change?
How fast is it currently changing?
What direction is it currently going?
What will be the eventual results of the current changes?
This is where the BBC have closed minds and will not allow discussion. I don’t know the answers to these questions as I’m not a scientist but what I would like to see if a frank, open and mature debate conducted on the BBC rather than make snidey. dirty little documentaries that attack people who have actually seen other, independent, research results.
The possible answers to the first question are either: Man is completely responsible for climate change – particularly those evil people in the oil industry. And our minds are closed on the subject. (BBC view) or there is very little evidence to suggest that man’s activities have a major effect on climate change, probably sun spots are the major cause but more investigation is needed. (Skeptics view).
The possible answers to the second question are: Most of the Eastern part of the UK will be under water by 2030 (it could be even earlier – I have erred on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt). The world will be completely destroyed by 2100 (BBC view) or change is not happening significantly faster than before and that this current change has been ongoing for some thousands of years. (Sceptics view)
The possible answers to the third question are: Hotter and hotter (BBC view) or no significant change but the world may soon be going on a slight cooling phase (this is one of the skeptic answers, others think it may continue to warm slightly. This is why they are calling for frank and open research and debate.)
The possible answers to the last question are: Milder winters, colder winters, wetter summers, dryer summers, melting icecaps, holes in the ozone layer, not enough CO2 for crops, too much CO2, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis, move of the Gulf Stream, lack of water, too much water (BBC view – and strangely everything all happening at the same time) or more open research needed to see what effect any changes may have and also to find the cause(s). For instance, the Ice at the South Pole is increasing, the Gulf Stream has not changed course which had been delighting the Warmist Industry (Skeptical view).
The AGW Climate Change thesis can be summed up as
Warm colder summers and Cold warm winters.
edward bowman<img src=”http://cdn.js-kit.com/images/icon10-external-url.png”/> said
“obsession with climate change I find rather boring. Most people think it is happening”
Oh dear Ed finds it boring. Instead of going off to follow something that interests him, he’s first out of the trap to tell us it is boring him. Then the mother of all arguments- “most people think it is” Q.E.D.
Oh dear. Is that it?
London,
If most people “think it is happening”, it must be true !
Climate change is real and its natural and its cyclic, we have far more pressing problems than a 0.5 notional rise in global average temps even if such a thing actually exists. Dishonesty and fraud and lies and propaganda and cynical exploitation must be challenged.
Bad science, cynical manipulation coupled with political fraud allied to crippling ignorance and its costing the earth, no really the CAGW fraud is doing dmage to our civilisation that if not checked now could be terminal.
BTW Most people? I dont think so, yes the CAGW propaganda lies have taken hold but the conflation of a natural cyclic event with a theorised anthropogenic effect has been the basis of the fraud, the cynical exploitation of a natural occurence to use a vehicle for a poltical end.
Most people believed Cholera was spread by bad smells and the Royal society agreed, the notion that it was caused by toxins created by a bacterial infection was laughed at and those who theorised a connection with polluted water were derided.
‘There has been, as is usual with such attacks against the BBC, a virtual wall of silence, and no effort to engage with the important issues’
Any comment from the BBC employee(s) and/or groupies that inhabit this blog on the substantive, factual issues raised here?
Or are we to be treated to a few weak, sad, petty point scoring, faux outrage, distraction and whinges trying to conflate the odd extreme post with the 99.99% that make valid points?
Most likely it will be greeted with the massive silence that is the only response the hive can manage in such instances.
And when it extends downward, as it does, daily, to editorial production at a so-called genetically impartial, supposedly professional, patently partial ‘news’ broadcaster, it is simply… ‘unique’.
Not in a good way.
To be honest I watch as little BBC as possible. The whole thing is just a shadow of its former self. It has been given far too much of our money and is just a left wing anti Tory mouthpiece with its own agenda.
It is way beyond understanding why the Tories cannot see that the BBC is its main enemy.
As the public votes for the Tories, the BBC are in effect opposing the traditions and mores of the people who finance their lavish life style. If for no reason then that, the Tories should when in power, defend the people against the BBC.
It is one of the mysteries of the Universe as to why the Conservatives support the BBC, an organisation which is trying to destroy everything Conservatives are meant to stand for.
Conservatives are in denial about the BBC.
They pretend they can see nothing wrong. They claim not to notice the relentless “Coalition Cuts” narrative, the pimping for Labour, By denying there is a problem, they are relieved of any responsibility to do anything about it.
The government need only stop the flow of recruitment advertising funds from the BBC to the Guardian, and they would start to take down two left-wing only birds with one stone.
There are no dissenting voices to be heard anywhere on the BBC This monolithic viewpoint is an infringement of its charter obligations to be evenhanded and to report news without bias.
Video – BBC College of Journalism discussion on science reporting with Fiona Fox, Prof Colin Blakemore and the BBC’s David Shukman. Nurse’s Horizon gets approval, unsurprisingly.
Shukman admits he didn’t know some IPCC literature came from pressure groups and wasn’t peer reviewed (i.e. he didn’t do his job, relying instead on the press releases). He also says that recent controversies have led editors to be more cynical when it comes to science stories, especially those relating to climate. Can’t say I’ve noticed that myself, and given what still gets through it makes one wonder just how absurd some of the claims must be if even BBC editors are spiking them. Shukman goes on to express concern that not reporting extreme claims creates doubt and uncertainty about the science, which suggests his personal preference is still towards alarmist reporting.
Shukman’s bit starts @ 14.30, and the segment I refer to above begins @ approx 20.40.
Whenever I see Shukman appear on screen I immediately press the mute button on the TV remote. Shukman is nothing more than a propagandist for the AGW lobby. I sometimes wonder if he actually fully understands the contents of the lobbyist press releases he obviously just parrots.
Journalistic integrity is a concept that is patently unknown to the likes of Shukman.
To be clear, are we talking about David Shukman who went to Eton College and has an MA in Geography from Durham University ?
Not that you need to be privileged or have a science degree to work for the BBC and comment on Global Warming !
Fiona Fox, former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party according to Wikipedia. ( And I am sure she would have challenged it if not true ). So not an extremist then.
Lobbywatch profile of Fiona Fox.
Amusingly, Lobbywatch was the brainchild of arch-warmist George Monbiot. Fox’s support for GM foods – long opposed by Moonbat – is the reason she’s a target.
Even if half the Lobbywatch link is true, she is a pretty dodgy character. Denying the Genocide in Rwanda is somewhat extreme !
Despite having no previous background in science or science communication, Fox has been afforded, since her appointment in December 2001, the status of expert. She has, for example, been included in a working party on peer review set up by Sense About Science, and in a steering group on improving communication over science policy and risk set up by the Office of Science and Technology. In 2003 Fox delivered a lecture at Green College, Oxford, on the challenge of adapting science to the mass media.
And the left-wing tried to belittle Dellingpole’s science knowledge because he’s “not an expert”. This is breathtaking hypocricy by the Warmist-Alarmists.
I think we need, in our country, an organisation to counter Common Purpose and all the other Marxist bodies that have been set up to subvert our civilisation. There needs to be a movement that uses the same methods as the socialists to embed people who are pro-libertarian, into key functions. The bbc would be a suitable starting point for such a fight back by normal people. The problem is, who is willing, able, and financially strong enough to arrange such a thing?
If there was such an organisation the BBC would fearlessly investigate it; unlike Common Purpose of course…
‘And nor are reporters like Roger Harrabin and Richard Black driven by the desire to make money for their own pension pots’.
No fair to be said they probably don’t however if they make one penny out of their reporting of a one sided story fed to them by groups who stand to make lots more money then they are tainted by association as any MP they caught out would be !
Edward sorry but everyone should know climate changes everyday has done and always will so no problem then!, mind if your talking about the A.G.W that freaks like Hansen /gore /moodybot/ the BBC /the Grundian are pushing and their religion that is trying to force us to stop using cars or flying, force everyone to become vegie ! pay impossible taxes to subsidise their plans and suspend democracy as it’s no good for us apparently but this is only for the lower orders not them as they need it all to rule us and make us better subjects! but possibly worst of all they are now using children to front their campaigns of idealogical terror WTF? is wrong with these people? !
Then Edward you are mistaken
Well spotted Grant although it’s hardly a surprise that those chosen as “impartial” or “independent” commentators by the BBC have a spiritual home in the regime which created places like Vorkuta ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkuta_Gulag ).
BTW, although it’s not in the Today running schedule listed here http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm – of course, the item is so important it might have constituted what passes for “news” at the BBC – Richard Black in panic mode told us that (due to drought impliedly brought on by climate change) the Amazon rain forests are turning into a generator rather than absorber of CO2. This is yet another example of a CAGW shyster being given the freedom to pollute the airwaves with tendentious crap (in the future tense – the preferred BBC mode of reporting news – and giving no concrete time horizon – when is this disaster to happen? next week? next year? next millemium?)). AFAIAA the Amazonian forests remain massive absorbers of CO2 and there is no unequivocal scientific basis for suggesting that those forests are shortly to die and, magically, produce CO2 (unless Richard Black sets them alight).
It is strange that the more extreme and weird you are, the more access you have to the BBC !
On the Today programme yesterday, they discussed a letter from a republican pressure group to discuss legal action to end “the BBC’s pro-royal bias”. I look forawrd to the time when they discuss a similar letter from a lobby group protesting about pro-muslim bias or pro AGW bias.
http://tinyurl.com/6ewucqg
Their supporters include the likes of Yasmin, Tony benn, Jo Brand and Caroline Lucas so I can’t understand why the BC would give them airtime over other issues with greater support. /Sarc off
Couldn’t have been a very long programme if they were discussing “the BBC’s pro-royal bias”. 😉 Even their main Royal reporter Jenny Bond is openly hostile to everything connected to the Royal Family.
BBC = Bullshit, Bias and Cant.
I think there’s a typo in that last word.
Quite right.
Hand in hand goes with this, is the attempt to destroy the Christian foundations of the UK.
Protestant faith requires hard work, honesty and contribution to the common weal. It is the one of the reasons why northern European countries and the Anglo-sphere were so successful- Protestant work ethic. One way to undermine Christianity is to set up a ‘cradle to grave’ Benefit system. This undermines the work ethic as well as the faith that underpins the West. Sweden is the most obvious example, but it is evident right across the West.
The BBC has not broken faith with the general public.
Most of the public wants lots of trashy TV and pop music radio. The BBC gives it to them.
BBC ‘news’ about global warming is completely irrelevant to these people.
Until their energy bills drop through the letter box and/or there’s a power cut when Eastenders is on…
Well said, Robin. If this was about any other industry, the Beeboids would be the first ones to point out the cronyism and vested interests of the producers. Imagine if this had been about the wonders of petroleum instead.
Very good point about the wonders of oil based products, if the BBC were truly impartial we would be seeing a documentary on the wonderous nature of oil, everything we have, our entire civilisation is oil based, from the biro to the latest MRI scanner to the laptop to the food we eat, its all due to the essential substance called oil.
Yet we actually know almost nothing about oil from the gloopy black or sticky sweet brown substance pumped from deep in the earth and how it is used to create the millions of products we need.