The BBC’s climate change page is aptly named. There is a torrent, a blizzard, a hurricane of the stuff – with helpful links to almost every piece of claptrap alarmist propaganda that the corporation has ever published.
The Conservative MEP Roger Helmer is not happy about this and he wrote to DG Mark Thompson to tell him so. Of course, Mr Thompson was too busy to answer directly matters he regarded so trivial, especially, no doubt, as Mr Helmer is a hated eurosceptic and totally unimportant in the BBC worldview, so he delegated the task. And here’s the surprise. The woman he chose for the task is Liz Howell, who – it seems – has just been appointed to the post of Head of BBC Weather. Quite what the qualifications are for this elevated, role, I don’t know.
So I googled her. I expected a Met office lackey, but no; – I could find no trace of any such mention of related qualifications. She has also risen virtually without trace, her previous post being only a new media editor. Despite this apparent significant lack of relevant scientific training, she nonetheless has been swift to put one of our elected representatives in his place. This is the opening paragraph of her reply to Mr Helmer’s complaint:
Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Climate Change page on the BBC’s Weather website. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that in terms of impartiality, the BBC has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.
There, straightaway, re-iterated, in 35 words, we have all the arrogance, the partisan politics, the nonsense and the lies contained in he BBC’s stance on this topic. Miss Howell betrays that she hasn’t got a clue about or interest in scientific methodology, and also that she will pig-headedly stick to the carefully-concocted major lie that there is a “consensus” on the topic. She also confirms, creepily, that the BBC has “come to a view” on this topic. Of course, she doesn’t say how; evidently, transparency does not come into such corporation deliberation.
Ms Howell further demonstrates – as this reply will have been approved by His Highness Mr T himself – that this attitude has been engineered, is condoned and has been approved at the very apex of the corporation.
Ms Howell goes on to provide an excuse for why there might not many climate sceptic stories on her propaganda page (I could find none today) – apparently her “aggregation index” means that any such material – being “transient” – would only be there for a few weeks.
Finally, she condescendingly tells Mr Helmer as a sop that his worries might not be in vain. She states:
…it might be possible to add something to the permanent links on the page which gives a clear sense of the divisions that exist on this issue.
And pigs, I suggest, might fly. Test one might be at least a mention of yesterday’s report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation that energy bills have risen by hundreds of pounds a year because of ludicrous warmist stealth taxes. It’s reported by the Daily Mail here and here; but there’s not a peep about the Foundation or the report on the BBC website.
h/t a Cambridge friend – thank you. Mr Helmer’s letter and its reply are not available, as far as I can find, online. I have a copy but have not posted it in full for reasons of space. The key points are above – there is nothing that qualifies Ms Howell’s position.
no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.
….and there you have it folks, the ‘impartiality is in our bones’ , that they boast about.
I was slightly surprised by this piece, because I thought the msm had on the whole pulled back from mmgw allarmism, having realised they’d been sold a bit of a pup, but apparently the socialist true believers at bbc towers are still on message.
Climate skepticism, or should I say ‘the truth’, has never been so widely available, and is being taken on board by more and more members of the public every day, especially now that we are being crippled by green taxes to fund this lunacy.
To reach this position at the BBC you would need no qualifications, you would just have to have attended the relevant brain-washing courses at Common Purpose.
OT , the chief druid finally finds out how to reach out to the masses – its easy, just criticise the coalition and the bbc will be your disciples !
Any views on the points raised here (where are the quotes featured published? Must have missed them if in the links) from those who dip in to gather very selective cherries whilst standing on the shoulders of straw men?
This seems and extraordinary set of actions and statements from a supposedly professional impartial media organisation in theory staffed by those best qualified for the task.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001181/Hidden-green-tax-fuel-bills-How-200-stealth-charge-slipped-gas-electricity-bill.html
Whatever the debate (or, it seems, not, in some genetically impartial quarterers) on (A)GW such that various decisions are being made, I am more than a little intrigued as to why there seems to be a need for hiding and stealth.
If the public is to be part of this, their support needs to be based on good, honest information.
If not, sharp practice and propaganda historically seldom offers a healthy outcome.
Oh dear
On the Today progamme this morning, 8.35-840am, St James of Smug interviews a lady whose father, according to her, was administered antipsychotic drugs when the family didn’t want this and the patient had dementia rather than psychosis.
However, the two drugs she mentioned, zopiclone and lorazepam, are NOT antipsychotic drugs. They are sleep-inducing, anti-anxiety drugs called benzodiazepines, like valium.
Why can’t the BBC check these facts with someone who knows? The other person on was a spokesman from the Alzheimer’s society, who not surprisingly, supported the lady being interviewed.
Bottom of the class BBC.
We`re on the same page here Mr Ship!
Did you note her correction-she said
” I`ve been told to point out that (the drugs you name) are not strictly antipsychotic-actually they`re not (at all).
In that one sentece you see the BBC as it is-the weasel not strictly, and the “strictly” word getting dumped as the producers waved a lawsuit at the dopey cow from behind the glass.
Jim was similarly confused about some crap about doctors needing full bladders and a hard chair to confirm some psychologists “research” from Amsterdam.
The BBC seems to be institutionally befuddled this early in the morning…fancy letting Blair in to see you a Middle east insurance policy when he`s only just been released back into the community!
Crimewatch?…
Makes you wonder what other facts the BBC don’t bother checking in pursuit of their agenda.
Surely they would have run this past one of their “Science Correspondents” first ?
Aah, the mythical “consensus”.
Sorry, I meant that zopiclone acts like a benzodiazepine, but is not technically classed as a benzodiazepine.
http://www.truth-or-consequences.com/bad_government/climategate/climategate.html
Author unknown but an interesting take on “Climate Channge”.
This is a piece written by an Australian sceptic, Prof Ian Plimer. His ‘facts’ need evidential substantiation, but he’s on the right track.
Try asking for the justification for the BBC breaking the law, and they won’t tell you.
Apparently some scientists have told them to do this.
But The Simon Singh legal scrap had the BBC and all the rational atheists doing all manner of events to “support scientific free speech” when the enemy was said to be alternative medicine.
Yet when it comes to global warming, the BBC and the rational athiests don`t see the same cause do they…because they are virtuous and could not be wrong-so no more questions O.K?
Surely not…hypocrisy,ignorance,bullying and reflex woolly crap science at the BBC?…NO!
cj,
This “rational atheist” doesn’t believe in man-made Global Warming 😀
Still waiting for one leftie comedian or commentator to say the same. More that their jobs are worth!
Surely this is an open opportunity to FOI the the BBC on who exactly made that decision and on what evidence ?
Well, that’s it then. The science is settled, the debate over.
Seig Heil. Ve iss der new direction! You VILL comply. Or be tattooed…
…or blown up by the press of a big red button 🙂
Roger gives an excellent presentation at http://www.rogerhelmer.com/greenclimatepolicies.asp with a transcript too.
The BBC charter, by law, says…
6.The independence of the BBC
(1)The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
(2)Paragraph (1) is subject to any provision made by or under this Charter or any Framework Agreement or otherwise by law.
…so, BY LAW, they must be “independent in all matters” and therefore not take ‘a view’ on Climate Change. BY LAW, they must not therefore be a political advocacy agency.
Their charter Agreement also says…
44. Accuracy and impartiality
(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.
…which puts ‘accuracy’ together with but before ‘impartiality’. The two are currently in conflict, and as accuracy is objective fact and impartiality human decision, to bring these back into harmony, only impartiality can change – from partial (i.e. ‘biased’, or ‘a view’) to impartial.
The Agreement seems to contain a get-out clause…
“and the rules must, in particular, indicate that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.”
…but this only applies to impartiality. It gives no get-out for accuracy.
My suggestion is that complaints should be raised to the BBC on the grounds that they are blatantly contravening their requirement for accuracy by their deliberate decision to not be impartial, and that their Charter, a lawful obligation, is being held in contempt by not being ‘independent in all matters’, again through their deliberate and purposeful decision to not be impartial.
You’re correct about the onus on the BBC, but they have an excuse: they claim that “the science is settled” and so the impartiality requirement no longer applies. It’s a fact to them, and they don’t need to be impartial about facts (They are, of course, but that’s another argument altogether). The BBC can report that the sky is blue without fear of charges of bias, and they’re convinced the same applies to AGW/ACC.
I understand your point, but they cannot divorce themselves from their legal obligation to be “independent in all matters”. By simply accepting the AGW view, they have become partial and violated that requirement – broken the law. It’s written in their legal Charter in black and white. Perhaps they need primary school lessons in reading and comprehension.
Your analogy should be that if they believe there is a consensus that the sky is green, they can report it as fact. It’s plain to see though that the sky is blue, sometimes red, or shades in between, or even black (at night), as that is the observable evidence (accuracy) and not belief of a view (partiality).
As the law has evidently been broken, it might be an idea to report it to the police. If a crime has been reported, they are duty bound to investigate it. If any atempt is then made to subvert the normal police enquiries, that would bode even worse for Mr Thompson and the BBC.
I agree with you about their wrongness on Warmism. I’m just saying that they think it’s the same as saying the sky is blue, so there’s no impartiality rule in their minds. The BBC bosses said some time ago that they no longer had to have any time for “opponents of the consensus”. No charge of bias on this issue will have an effect on them until that changes.
A criminal investigation by the police might raise a few heartbeats and cause some sweating however.
Simon,
If only ! The very best we could hope for is a finger-wagging from that Rottweiler Chris Patten !
I know. One can live in hope. It will need a concerted effort to raise and keep on the pressure through the media such that a groundswell of ‘outrage’ eventually forces their hand. Articles from the likes of James Delingpole and Christopher Booker would be a good place to start. The Telegraph and Daily Mail seem to be two papers that are not on the AGW side of the fence. Direct complaints to the BBC (as I have done today), and letters to MPs are always good, and also to the broadcasting watchdog. I think my next letter might however be to the DPP, cc’ing my MP (our dear Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley). As noted here somewhere, Roger Helmer, a Conservative MEP is also very much on the anti-AGW side (I think we need a better term than “sceptic”, however accurate and properly scientific it is).
Simon,
Yes, quite , and well done. Although the Telegraph does have the absolutely barking Geoffrey Lean !
Don’t remember seeing your name here before, but please stick around and let us know how you get on.
I have written my complaint to Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport, whose department (should) oversee the BBC. Cc’d it to my MP, Andrew Lansley with a request to ensure Mr Hunt receives it and responds.
I’m also taking soundings next week from a friend who is a senior officer in the Cambridgeshire Police, and also seeing if I can find some further legal opinion.
As David P said, they often close ranks, but enough pressure from enough sources may just force their hand by way of public embarassment.
I’ll post the DCMS letter in a separate comment.
Let’s see what the reaction is.
Simon,
Please keep us posted.
‘A criminal investigation by the police might raise a few heartbeats’
Wot, like this…
BBCBreaking BBC Breaking News It’s understood a Conservative MP has been arrested on suspicion of sexual assault – BBC’s Home Affairs corr Danny Shaw
Took me a short while to realise that Mr. Shaw was not the one being fingered, mind. I only twigged when the likelihood of a BBC anything being a Tory seemed slim.
My site,
Big story for the BBC with whichit will run and run. Useful for distracting from other matters.
Have had a reply from the DMCS…
Dear Mr Conway-Smith
Thank you for your email of 13 June to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, about BBC content and impartiality. I have been asked to reply on his behalf.
Responsibility for what is broadcast on television and radio rests with the broadcasters and the organisations which regulate broadcasting – the Office of Communications (OFCOM), the BBC Trust and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C). They are independent of the Government.
The BBC’s governing instruments, the Royal Charter and Agreement, place broad obligations on the Corporation in respect of its television and radio services, objectives, programme content and standards. Within this framework detailed decisions on programme content and scheduling are matters for the BBC, reflecting its editorial independence. It is a long-standing principle that the Government does not interfere in programme matters, either on arrangements for scheduling or on content. It is important to maintain the principle of freedom of expression which political interference could undermine.
You will be aware that the BBC has obligations on impartiality under the terms of its Charter and Agreement. It is the responsibility of the BBC Trust to ensure the BBC meets these obligations.
The Government believes it is important that the Corporation is aware of the concerns of viewers and listeners, and in the first instance concerns may be raised with BBC Information (email via the website, http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/contact/comment; or telephone 03700 100 222, or write to BBC Information, PO Box 1922, Glasgow G2 3WT), or by writing directly to the programme area concerned.
If unsatisfied with the response, there is an option to complain to the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). The unit examines complaints independently. Its address is Editorial Complaints Unit, BBC, Media Centre, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ.
I hope this information is of help to you.
Yours sincerely
Natalie Penge
Broadcasting Correspondence Officer
Ministerial Support Team
Department for Culture, Media and Sport |2-4 Cockspur Street |London |SW1Y 5DH
…in other words “nothing to do with us guv!”.
One could read into the DCMS’ reply that they don’t mind the BBC breaking their Charter (on this subject). What a surprise! Still, it adds weight to the overall conspiracy.
Now for the BBC Trust.
p.s. My police contact also said not a criminal matter, which is fair. Shame though!
Mr Black has returned to give us the benefit of the BBC’s impartial viewpoint.
“…it could be the most important environmental summit ever; and here’s why.
In all kinds of areas – glacier melt, Arctic ice melt, ocean acidification, Amazon drying, amphibian extinction, pollination, and many more – there’s a serious chance that “tipping points” of no return will have been passed by the time 2032 comes along.
So if you’re serious about stopping all this and putting society on a genuinely sustainable track, this is the big one.”
Is there anything that will stop him? Anything legal, that is.
“…it could be the most important environmental summit ever; and here’s why.
It certainly will be
“..Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/29/its-all-over-kyoto-protocol-loses-four-big-nations/
China and India can build power stations at will. Funny that Black does not mention this little fact.
“So how about telling me and everyone else what you want to see out of Rio Revisited – and what you think it should be called, officially or otherwise?” says Black.
I can think of some but being a good Christian will refrain from spelling it out.
Lack of Science qualifications is a prerequisite for any Beeboid to be involved in scientific matters. Unlike economics, finance , business, military matters etc, where the BBC employ the finest minds in the land….er…
I love the bit the BBC “has come to the view “, as if it is after years of agonising consideration. These people are dangerous jokers !
David Gregory excepted.
David,
Yes, true. But even he sometimes tries to defend the indefensible. However, at least he pops in here now and again and has something to say, unlike the Scotties and Dezzies who are basically just entertainment value.
What a wonderful opportunity for Mr Helmer to reply asking the BBC what other areas a similar view has been reached on such as the EU, Israel etc.
For the attention of Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt, MP. Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport.
I wish to register a formal complaint that the BBC has, with the full sanction of their Director General, Mark Thompson, broken the terms of their Charter, and therefore the law.
In a response to a complaint to the BBC by the MEP Roger Helmer, now publicly available via Internet blogs, The Director General has given deliberate and positive approval for the BBC to be partial on the subject of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The complaint to him was redirected to the BBC’s new head of Weather, Ms Liz Howell, and her reply states…
“Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Climate Change page on the BBC’s Weather website. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that in terms of impartiality, the BBC has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.”
This statement directly contravenes the BBC’s Charter, specifically…
6.The independence of the BBC
(1)The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.
(2)Paragraph (1) is subject to any provision made by or under this Charter or any Framework Agreement or otherwise by law.
…i.e. that it shall be ‘independent on ALL matters’ (my highlight) by law. This provides for NO exceptions, so to have taken a ‘view’ on Climate Change is to be partial and therefore not independent.
Further, the charter Agreement says…
44. Accuracy and impartiality
(1) The BBC must do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.
…which puts ‘accuracy’ together with but before ‘impartiality’. The two are currently in conflict, and as accuracy is objective fact and impartiality human decision, to bring these back into harmony, only impartiality can change – from partial (i.e. ‘biased’, or ‘a view’) to impartial , to let the facts speak for themselves (as is the scientific method).
The charter Agreement seems to contain a get-out clause…
“and the rules must, in particular, indicate that due impartiality does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.”
…but this only applies to impartiality. It gives no get-out for accuracy.
The BBC, by being partial and very pro-AGW, have been the purveyors of inaccuracies by presenting many news items as ‘facts’, portraying them to be received as irrefutable scientific truth, but where many are mere anecdotes without substantiation or evidence, and coincidences presented as attribution (to AGW), i.e. cause. As any scientist will say, anecdote, coincidence and attribution do *not* make for or prove causation.
Simply, the Charter and Agreement do not allow the BBC to take an editorial decision , ‘a view’, that violates and contravenes them, and they are both legally and duty bound to adhere to them.
In order for the BBC to comply with their Charter, I demand that they be instructed to cease breaking the law and reverse their policy on Climate Change such that they are visible and demonstrably impartial, and also completely accurate, and just not partially accurate by cherry-picking ‘AGW friendly’ news items.
This ‘correction’ must be public and properly acknowledged by the Director General, with a directive to all editorial staff and program makers, with a firm commitment to “impartiality and accuracy”, giving full and equal access to and unbiased coverage of those who do not agree with the AGW hypothesis, which at its core says that human emissions of CO2 causes the global temperature to rise, a hypothesis that has never been proven – which is a fact. Consensus does not equal fact.
If this does not happen, I must take the view that this law-breaking is being approved of.
Good luck, but unfortunately Hunt is a Warmist.
Which puts him in an even more difficult position. If he refuses to act, then he faces a similar charge, that of conspiracy. Even if this itself doesn’t stick, the media who are now on the case can pick it up and run with it increasing said embarassment. I would love to hear Jeremy Paxman, John Humphrys or Andrew Marr quiz Hunt to explain why he was allowing the BBC to break the law, and keep repeating the question until they are so embarassed, they have to finally tell the truth. Either way, he loses.
But then again, the BBC won’t allow a BBC journalist to accuse the BBC of breaking the law will they? Time for the Daily Mail to pick it up.
Simon,
Excellent. I hope you get an interesting reply and are able to post it here.
I’ll post whatever I receive back, unless I’m dragged off to a cell however 🙂