Skip to content

Major New Complaint Submitted To BBC Over Climate Bias

April 25, 2016

By Paul Homewood



A major new and serious complaint has been sent to the Director General of the BBC, regarding the Corporation’s persistent bias in reporting of climate change issues. The complaint is a massive 163 pages long, and is a joint submission from ten complainants. In addition, there are several technical annexes, totalling 125 pages.

Below is the letter sent to the DG:



22nd April 2016


The Director General
180 Great Portland Street

W1W 5QZ.
Dear Director General,


Complaint of BBC prejudice in covering of climate change and warning of potential judicial review



We enclose a complaint from all of us about persistent partiality in the BBC’s coverage of climate change. From the outset, on the climate question the BBC has tended to reflect only one view – that of the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming (which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change”, a term that is used to cover a wide range of weather events). It has excluded those whose opinions, though based on factual science and sound economics and logic, differ from the “official” position. The BBC has often promoted tendentious and scientifically illiterate but “politically-correct” opinions and has kept from the airwaves those who do not agree.

We and many others alongside us have come to the opinion that the BBC’s continuing bias on the climate question – its performance is too often like a scientifically illiterate, naïve, oft times emotive green activist organisation – is unacceptable and must now be brought to an end. In future, both sides in the climate debate must be fairly heard, whether BBC staff like it or not.

Accordingly, we make the following recommendations to ensure that in future the BBC adheres to its obligation of impartiality and of accuracy in its climate-change coverage –

 1) To ensure balance, and to give senior executives at the BBC a proper understanding of the sceptical viewpoint, the Trust should arrange for Lord Monckton to co-ordinate a team of leading sceptical scientists and economists to give a day-long, high-level briefing for senior BBC executives in broadly the same job descriptions as those who attended the secret briefing in 2006. This meeting is a minimum requirement to restore even-handedness at the BBC on the climate issue by ensuring that all relevant senior BBC personnel are obliged, whether they like it or not, to respect the principle of natural justice as well as the BBC’s obligation of impartiality by hearing the other side of the case.

2) The Trust should circulate to all executives and programme-makers in the field, and to all news and current affairs personnel, a document to be prepared by us in consultation with leading scientists that will summarize in a dozen pages the sceptical side of the case. This is a minimum requirement to ensure that the BBC and all its senior personnel are made aware of the considerable body of scientific evidence, data and papers that cast doubt upon its chosen position in the climate debate, so that the BBC can find its way easily to these sources in future.

 3) Prominent “sceptical” journalists and climate scientists from the UK and US should be invited to put together a series of TV programmes giving the other side of the story on the climate. The programmes should be broadcast on the BBC during prime time. This series is a minimum requirement if balance is to be restored to the BBC’s climate-science coverage as the law requires.

 4) The Trust should require that the section on “Consensus” in the impartiality topic under the BBC’s Guidelines should be rewritten or deleted. The BBC should in future be obliged to adhere strictly to its editorial standards, particularly the obligation of impartiality, and should not be permitted to avoid doing so by distorting the usual meaning of language by “calibrating” its supposed impartiality. The BBC should be required to reflect all opinions, including those with which it disagrees, and to give a right of reply to sceptical scientists. Journalists’ own personal opinions should not be permitted to colour their reportage. This is a necessary minimum step to ensure that neither the Trust nor the BBC can in future evade the obligation of impartiality by rewriting the Guidelines to suit their political prejudices.

 5) The BBC should employ at least one climate sceptic in a senior journalistic role. David Bellamy, for instance, was taken off the air after he let slip that he was querying the extent of Man’s influence on climate. The deliberate exclusion by the BBC of all sceptics from its environment and climate reporting team is unacceptable.

6) Messrs. Renouf, Harrabin, Shukman and Heap should be reassigned from climate programmes on grounds of prejudice.

 7) The BBC should adopt a nuanced, mature, unprejudiced, non-alarmist approach to the climate question. It should accept that there is a growing body of research in the scientific literature that questions the extent of man’s likely future influence on climate, that there is near-unanimity in the economic journals that it would be cheaper to adapt to global warming later than to attempt to mitigate it now; and that, particularly on climate sensitivity, opinion in the literature is far less one-sided than the BBC has thus far let on.

8) The BBC should abide by the Singapore Statement on Scientific Integrity in selecting scientists to appear on programmes.

 9) The BBC should eschew basing its stories on predictions whose medium-term versions have already proven to be wild exaggerations. Instead, it should base its stories on what is actually happening in the climate.

 10) The Trust should forbid the BBC to ascribe individual extreme-weather events to manmade global warming, and should forbid it to allow scientists to make such allegations, unless scientists willing to support the IPCC’s position that individual extreme-weather events cannot be ascribed to global warming are also interviewed.

 11) The Trust should require the BBC to disclose in each programme about the climate its own and its journalists’ financial or other conflicts of interest, such as the fraction of the journalistic and editorial pension funds that are invested in “green” energy.

12) The BBC’s website should contain regular updates on the actual climate data – e.g. practically no global warming over the past decade or two; Antarctic ice extent at or near its satellite-era maximum for many recent years; hurricane activity at or near a satellite-era low; land area under drought declining for 30 years.

 13) The BBC should be required to provide meaningful rights of reply to well qualified persons who dissent from the agenda it now promotes.

 14) The BBC should forthwith take active steps to give no further ground for the perception that it is institutionally wedded to manmade climate change as though it were canonical truth.

Our complaint should not have had to be made at all. It is an indication of the depth to which the BBC and the Trust have sunk that we have had to make it, and to put forward recommendations to ensure that the BBC’s bias on climate is ended.

The BBC has failed so far to respond to Henney’s complaint dated 15/2/2016 (and is just repeating the flawed programme by Attenborough in Australia). We should be grateful if the BBC would reply within 60 working days, failing which the matter will pass to the Trust for determination. To comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, we make it clear at the outset that unless our complaint is responded to in what we regard as a satisfactory and timely fashion, we may have to apply for judicial review of either the BBC or the Trust or both. However, we should rather resolve this matter without recourse to the courts. We hope, therefore, that the BBC and the Trust will take our complaint seriously and give us a reasonably prompt, full and considered reply. We would be pleased to discuss the matters with you.

Yours sincerely,

Piers Corbyn

Richard Courtney

David T C Davies MP

Philip Foster

Roger Helmer MEP
Alex Henney
Paul Homewood

Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

John Whitfield

Rupert Wyndham,


Below is Chapter 1 of the complaint, which summarises each specific complaint.


Chapter 1


The obligations of the BBC and of the Trust

Chapter 2 sets out the obligations enshrined in the BBC’s Charter to serve the public interest. Editorial Guidelines agreed with the BBC Trust oblige the BBC to be “impartial”, including in its treatment of “controversial subjects”. The Guidelines also say – 

  • “Across our output as a whole, we must be inclusive, reflecting a breadth and diversity of opinion. We must be fair and open-minded when examining the evidence and weighing material facts. We must give due weight to the many and diverse areas of an argument.” 
  • When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact 
  • “Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal prejudices of our journalists or news and current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any other area.”

A section Regarding Consensus says “There are some issues which may seem to be without controversy, appearing to be backed by a broad or even unanimous consensus of opinion. Nevertheless, they may present a significant risk to the BBC’s impartiality. In such cases, we should continue to report where the consensus lies and give it due weight. However, even if it may be neither necessary nor appropriate to seek out voices of opposition, our reporting should resist the temptation to use language and tone which appear to accept consensus or received wisdom as fact or self-evident.” The BBC too often uses this section as a reason for keeping off the air those who do not accept BBC’s views on the climate.

We will show that BBC producers and reporters repeatedly breach the Guidelines. It is frequently all too obvious what the personal views of BBC employees are, and, on the climate question, almost the only views the BBC allows on the air are on one side of the case.

The fallacious claim of “consensus”

Chapter 3 shows by reference to five surveys of scientists and the opinions of a number of knowledgeable scientists including a group of nearly 300 physicists opposing a warmist pronouncement by the American Physical Society, that the BBC’s assertion there is a “consensus” among scientists about anthropogenic global warming is fallacious. In particular a widely quoted study that 97% of climate scientists is a methodological abuse. The BBC’s reliance on the clause in the Editorial Guidelines permitting it to abandon impartiality on “consensus” topics as the basis for excluding sceptics from the airwaves is misplaced.

The BBC insists that a “consensus” exists where there is none. The Trust must now insist that the BBC, whatever the views of its environmental journalists and producers, should fairly reflect all sides of the climate debate, and not merely the usually ill-informed view point of BBC staff.

The good news about the climate that the BBC seldom if ever reports

Chapter 4 summarises key scientific facts about the climate that the BBC seldom mentions.
1) The atmosphere has scarcely warmed for almost two decades:


2) Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2 both over the long term of thousands of years and over the short term of months which raises the question whether CO2 can be the driver of climate change
 3) Hot-running Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models have produced flawed predictions of global warming –


 4) The IPCC relies heavily on climate models both to assess the “attribution” of the anthropogenic effect (which is done by modelling the climate with and without additional CO2), and also to “predict” future temperature depending on the level of CO2. But in its Third Assessment Report (AR3) of 2002 the IPCC admitted that –

“Climate models cannot (and will never be able to) model the climate accurately because of the non-linear and chaotic nature of the physics of the climate.”

 5) In reality the data are not available; we do not understand key elements of climate behaviour; and computers are not powerful enough. It is impossible to model the climate, the more so when the driver is taken incorrectly as CO2 and the sun is ignored as the IPCC does.

 6) Warming of the oceans is negligible: the increase in temperature measured by ARGO buoys has been so slow that to warm 1C would take 430 years:


7) The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of 2013 concluded – “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” It also mentioned lack of evidence for extreme flooding, hail, thunderstones, hurricanes and drought.”
8) Sea level is barely rising, and is not rising at an accelerating rate.
9) Notwithstanding Al Gore’s predictions that the Arctic ice cap had a 75% chance of disappearing in the summertime of 2014, the sea ice is still there. In the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been at or near a satellite-era maximum, a fact to which the BBC has seldom if ever drawn attention.


10) In 2013 the IPCC retracted a number of its previous scare stories including those of increasing hurricanes, increasing malaria, and glaciers in the Himalayas melting by 2035.
In Chapter 5 we consider the forecast temperature rise. In choosing four scenarios for the future temperature, the IPCC chose one (RCP 8.5) that was impossibly high so acts as a scare scenario; two that were impossibly low; and one that was more or less business as usual (RCP 6.0) from an emissions perspective.
We then estimate climate sensitivity – the temperature increase from a doubling of CO2. There are two main estimates of climate sensitivity, Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) which is the increase when the atmosphere and oceans have equilibriated after hundreds, if not thousands of years, and Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS). This is the increase in temperature from raising the level of CO2 by 1% p.a. for 70 years when it will have doubled. In practical terms this is a more useful metric.

Traditionally the IPCC relied on estimates derived from computer models which assumed that there was significant positive feedback from water vapour, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and from clouds. Consequently, supposedly when the atmospheric temperature increased due to CO2, the atmosphere would then absorb more water which would further raise the temperature. This effect supposedly more or less tripled the increase in temperature from about 1Co to 3Co and was the basis for concern about global warming. But as more empirical results have been estimated, so the estimates of sensitivity have been declining. And empirical studies have not found an increase in water vapour, nor have they found evidence of positive feedback.




In AR5 the IPCC carefully avoids giving an estimate of climate sensitivity and “disguises” the empirical estimates by averaging them out with the higher modelled estimates. Also, while estimates of the cooling efficiency of aerosol pollution were cut, the new evidence was not incorporated in the climate models. Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok showed in “A sensitive Matter: How the IPCC buried evidence showing good news about global warming” how the IPCC disguised many factors pointing to low climate sensitivity hence low warming.


Then Lewis and Curry published “The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptakes”2 which estimated the ECS and TCR as slightly lower than Lewis and Crok. The best estimates are medians (50% probability points) with ranges to the nearest 0.05C° were as follows –


Lewis and Crok estimate that for RCP 6.0 the likely increase in temperature from 2012 to 2081-2000 is 1.2 Co, which compares with the IPCC’s estimate of 2.0 Co. This means that on a business as usual basis, on balance the temperature should not in this century increase more than the 2 Co above pre-industrial levels which the IPCC sets as a target.
Michael Kelly, FRS, Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge University, has recently published “Trends in Extreme Weather Events since 1900 – An Enduring Conundrum for Wise Policy Advice”. The abstract to the paper comments “A survey of official weather sites and the scientific literature provides strong evidence that the first half of the 20th century had more extreme weather than the second half, when anthropogenic global warming is claimed to have been mainly responsible for observed climate change.”
If there were significant positive feedbacks and climate sensitivity were as high as the IPCC claims, then the atmosphere would long ago have become unstable – which did not happen.
The IPCC was dishonest in its latest assessment of possible temperature increase.



The BBC’s approach to climate issues


Chapter 6 gives an account of how BBC journalists uncritically accepted believing scientists’ opinions on climate, and developed unhealthily close and even financial relationships with the Tyndall Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
DEFRA and the Tyndall Centre provided financial support for a briefing meeting organised by Roger Harrabin, a BBC environmental reporter who was on the Tyndall Centre Advisory Board, for 30 senior BBC executives in January 2006. The BBC lied in claiming that the meeting was to introduce to BBC people “some of the best scientific experts”. Only four or five could claim to be climate scientists; the remainder were climate activists; a few had green vested interests; and there were a miscellany of people from other organisations who had some peripheral interest in climate matters. The BBC made not the slightest attempt or even pretext at balance in organising this meeting. The BBC then spent considerable sums attempting to hide the attendance list. This meeting led to new Editorial Guidelines unlawfully permitting BBC journalists to circumvent its obligation of impartiality on the climate issue. Jeremy Paxman, Peter Sissons and Michael Buerk, all senior BBC reporters, objected to the BBC’s bias on climate matters.


Prejudiced and inaccurate programming







Chapter 7 provides evidence of a decade of biased and factually incorrect programmes based on analysis of 23 BBC programmes and responses to climate events:-
1) The BBC uncritically promoted An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore, summer 2006. BBC reporter Richard Black described it as “perhaps the most terrifying movie of all time”, and hailed Al Gore’s simulation of sea level rising by 20ft due to melting of the West Antarctic ice cap. A British judge found nine errors of fact; all of Gore’s scares had disappeared from IPCC AR5 in 2013.
 2) The BBC’s coverage of the Stern Review of the economics of climate change launched in 2006 was misinformed. It was adulatory. If it had been doing its job it would have at least questioned the very low discount rate. There are many scientific and economic errors in what is in effect a political document
3) The BBC’s response to the publication of IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. On publication of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers BBC News intoned “No more doubt, climate change is happening and we are to blame”. When the IPCC published all 3000 pages the BBC published a summary highlighting the more alarming projections. When the climate establishment says “jump”, the BBC replies “how high?”. AR4 was subsequently heavily criticised and AR5 backed down from many of its claims. The BBC did not report these
4) David Shukman’s report on Tuvalu 2008 claimed that as a consequence of alleged sea level rise resulting from global warming there was a record of “king” tides; salt water was seeping into the interior; and the islanders were now building their houses on stilts. In fact there was no record of sea water rise around Tuvalu; seepage of sea water was due to excessive extraction of aggregates along the coast; the stilt building technique was a longstanding method of construction. “In short, the Shukman reports were a travesty of objective journalism”. (They were also expensive involving two trips)
 5) Climate wars, September 2008. There were three programmes. The BBC endorsed the “hockey stick” which eliminated the Medieval Warming Period and showed a rapid rise in temperature in the 1980s and 1990s. By the time of the programme it had been thoroughly discredited, yet one of the presenters drove round London with a poster version of the hockey stick on the A-frame on the back of a glazier’s truck
 6) Climategate, autumn 2009. The BBC’s response to the leaked e-mails was one of shocked denial. It leaped to the defence of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the IPCC establishment, insisting that the emails had been ‘stolen’ or ‘hacked’ and that they revealed nothing of any importance. One or two programmes, such as Newsnight, allowed ‘sceptics’ to utter brief criticisms, but these were immediately ‘balanced’ – if not offset – by defenders of the Climatic Research Unit
7) Science under attack, January 2011 was fronted by Professor Paul Nurse, a Nobel prize winning geneticist, who set up sceptic Professor Fred Singer, and naively accepted incorrect figures for emissions. Although Nurse constantly posed through the programme as the champion of objective science, he all too frequently showed that he knew little about climate science and was signed up to the “consensus”


8) Meet the climate sceptics, February 2011. The BBC attempted to stitch up Monckton by misrepresenting him, but he stopped it by going to the High Court, where, in the judge’s words, he “substantially won” the action.
9) The Alaskan village set to disappear under water in a decade, July 2013. The programme claimed that the Alaskan village of Kivalina is likely to be under water in a decade because of “Retreating ice, slowly rising sea levels and increased coastal erosion…In reality in 2012 the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported: ‘Ice extent in the Bering Sea was much greater than average, reaching the second-highest levels for January in the satellite record.’ Furthermore, except for a brief surge for a few months in late 2013, sea level has been dropping in Prudhoe Bay as well as in Nome
10) The BBC’s response to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report 2013 involved a pre-briefing for key editors with senior members of the IPCC. As usual there was no critical view of the IPCC’s report, which was naively accepted as though written on tablets of stone. Nor are we aware that there was a report of the good news resulting from the IPCC backing down from some of its alarmist claims of AR4
11) The wet winter of 2013/14. The BBC made much of the widespread and severe flooding in December and early January 2013 in Britain. It did not report, however, that the rainfall trend in England and Wales had shown an increase of just 2 inches per year, or 5%, in 247 years, nor that the period of November 1929 to January 1930 was wetter than the winter of 2013/14
12) A BBC interview with Lord Nigel Lawson, February 2014 invited him to discuss the wet weather with Professor Brian Hoskins of Imperial College. Subsequently “The BBC was overwhelmed by a well-organised deluge of complaints — many of them, inevitably, from those with a commercial interest in renewable energy, as well as from the Green Party — arguing that, since I was not myself a scientist, I should never have been allowed to appear.” Initially the BBC responded robustly but then caved in and the head of the Editorial Complaints Unit apologised to a Green party politician – craven behaviour
13) Climate Change: Inconvenient Facts, April 2015. The alleged purpose of this programme was to explain three “anomalies” which do not fit with the “consensus” CO2 story, viz the temperature plateau; the increase of Antarctic sea ice; and increased crop growth owing to increased CO2. The panel were all believers in the official story-line and their examination of these questions was scientifically superficial and prejudiced. For example, we were told there is “Not actually a huge amount to explain [about the temperature plateau] in the sense that global warming has continued beneath the surface of the oceans…”
In fact, the ARGO bathythermographs, which take temperature and salinity profiles of the upper mile and a quarter of the ocean, show a small warming from below that is not suggestive of warming from above. The warming rate is very small, equivalent to 1 degree every 430 years. And the surface of the ocean has not warmed throughout the 11 years of the ARGO record.

14)  Radio 4 Climate Change series: this three part series put on by Roger Harrabin begins with a pretence of balance by interviewing luke-warmist science writer Matt Ridley, but then offsetting his views. Then follows interviews with five professors who variously argue for the high – and unrealistic – IPCC emission/temperature scenario (RCP 8.5); the collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet; the permafrost melting; coral reefs disappearing; one professor claims “computer models are very confident in predicting warming”, yet another excuses the failure of models and claims that it is easier to forecast the distant future than the medium term future – which is counter intuitive! The professors perhaps illustrate the shortcomings of “post-modern” climate (so called) science. The second programme was an inept discussion of how to provide energy without adding to CO2 emissions. The third speculated on the possibility of a “deal” at the Paris conference. In the event there was no binding agreement on reducing CO2 emissions and they will increase as China, Japan, Poland and other countries continue to build coal plants.



Chapter 8 sets out David Attenborough’s serial errors about the climate over a decade –

1) The truth about climate change, May 2006. Attenborough reeled off a series of disasters (including reducing numbers of polar bears which were and are in fact increasing) alleged to result from climate change, but have no proven link. Hurricanes were supposedly increasing – they are not. Supposed record melting of the Antarctic ice cap, which has been increasing; and melting of the Greenland ice cap, which had actually thickened by 2 feet over the previous 12 years
 2) The snows of Kilimanjaro. In 2013 the BBC was forced to admit that an assertion he made that some parts of Africa had warmed by 3.5oC in the last 20 years was false
3) Climate Change: A Horizon Guide, March 2015. The programme declared at the outset that “Today climate change seems to be everywhere”. The programme treated viewers to nine scares, none of which hold much water and some of which were factually incorrect (e.g. Attenborough stated that “The Southern Hemisphere’s most dramatic warming has happened in the Antarctic. Now warming temperatures mean less sea ice”. Neither of these claims is factually correct)
 4) The third of the programmes which Attenborough presented about the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) on 13/1/2016 claimed “Around 30% of the CO2 we produce is absorbed by the ocean. As a result we are seeing an increase in the temperature and acidity of our seas. Both are killing the inhabitants of the reef.” There is absolutely no basis for these claims. The temperature trend of GBR over the period 1940-2012 is an increase of 0.12Co/century, which is negligible. The phrase “ocean acidity” is a term selected to scare. Oceans have a pH of 7.9-8.2 (i.e. they are alkaline) and because of the limestone in the seas there is no prospect that ocean pH could drop below 8 for any length of time. Records from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over the last 100 years show no sign of reduced alkalinity
The programme interviewed an academic who has a record of failed predictions starting in 2000 of destruction of the Reef.


 Chapter 9 discusses Climate change by numbers, March 2015.

Three people who were respectively a lecturer in the mathematics of cities, a professor of risk and information management, and a professor for the public understanding of risk were asked to discuss three numbers. They were (1) 0.85 degrees, the amount of warming the planet has undergone since 1880; (2) 95%, the degree of certainty climate scientists have that at least half the recent warming is man-made; and (3) one trillion tonnes, which is the amount of fossil fuel we can use before we (supposedly) warm the world by 2Co. The 0.85oC is far from unprecedented (in the 40 years 1693-1733 the temperature in central England, a reasonable proxy for global temperature, rose at a rate equivalent to well over 4 C° per century); the 95% is flagrantly inconsistent with the published papers on climate change in the reviewed journals. In any event there is no shred of a statistical basis on which anyone can claim “95% confidence” in this fashion; the 2oC-above-pre-industrial temperature target (in fact just 1 C° above today’s temperature) was plucked from the air by a member of an East German research institute, who has subsequently admitted it had no scientific justification or basis. Two of the mathematicians admitted in subsequent correspondence that they did not know much, if anything, about climate science, and that they had relied upon unnamed BBC advisers for the climate science they had used.
The BBC subsequently refused a freedom-of-information request for the identity of these climate advisers, on the ground that it was entitled to rely on an exemption for matters related to “journalism”.



Biased and inaccurate news reporting

In chapter 10 we have compiled a list of 13 news reports within the last year or so where the BBC has misled or misinformed people, because either its staff do not know their subject, or do not bother to check their facts and so bias their reports. Several of the claims breached BBC Guidelines.

The inaccuracies and bias range widely from straightforward inflation of the speed of a cyclone to exaggerating the risks of extreme weather; to several claims that episodes were due to “climate change” when there was no basis for such a claim; to using grossly misleading images of coal power plants to suggest black (insinuation “dirty”) smoke is coming from cooling towers when in fact they emit pure water droplets from condensing steam; to using misleading graphics about the impact of “global warming” on crop yields; and even to claiming that sea-level rise had uncovered Japanese war dead when in fact they had been uncovered by someone digging for coral.

Over the past decade the BBC has frequently and consistently reported in its news reporting propositions which have been factually wrong, and misrepresented, and spun the reality of the climate.

The BBC’s responses to complaints

Over the years, we have made a number of complaints to the BBC. They have been brushed off with a mixture of ignorance, superficial sophistry and disdain which we spell out in chapter 11. Complaining to the BBC and thereafter, if it gets that far, to the BBC Trust, is essentially an exercise in futility. The process is so laboured and dilatory that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it has been deliberately and carefully structured to discourage questioning of either programme form or content. Furthermore, the BBC is not above playing bureaucratic games to avoid responding to complaints by timing them out (notwithstanding the inordinate time it can take the BBC to respond).

Groupthink on climate science

Chapter 12 points out that there are two main reasons why climate (so called) science is beset by groupthink in a way that say cosmology and biochemistry are not. First, the level of scientific rigour in climate “science” and the competence of those involved is unfortunately too often low. Second, climate studies are highly politicized with the consequence that money hangs on being politically correct and, as with many political issues, passions can run high and are too often vitriolic. Political discussion is not often known for its rigour. But a fundamental problem of the BBC that facilitates its endorsement of group think is that it is both scientifically amateur and prejudiced.

Because of the wide range of vested interests profiting by the climate scare, it is difficult to get facts and views aired that dissent from the consensus groupthink, which is where the BBC should come in. Given its charter and its resources, the BBC should do better – much better – than mere ill-informed scare-mongering. The BBC should not be promoting errors which a little research would easily reveal as such.


The Trust’s Review of the impartiality and accuracy of BBC science coverage

On 17 June 2007 the Sunday Times carried a piece “BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’” based on a year-long investigation commissioned by the BBC. The study found that the BBC “was particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.”
Chapter 13 analyses the Review undertaken for the Trust in 2011 which, as far as the section on climate science was concerned, was a biased and glib exercise. The Trust’s chosen whitewash merchant Professor Steve Jones, who is a geneticist, ignored dissenting submissions however soundly based, and concluded all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. He revealed his own prejudice when he described people who did not sign up to the “consensus” with the term “deniers”, insinuating that climate sceptics were like Holocaust deniers, and concluding that they should not be given airtime. He wrote a worthless document as far as climate science was concerned; he was ignorant of basic facts about the climate. He should never have been chosen for the job; his choice breached the guidance of the Singapore Statement on Scientific Integrity, see below.



In Chapter 14 we argue that when it comes to the climate the BBC does not understand the meaning of the word “science”. Science is based on empirical evidence, evidence moreover that has been independently verified. The BBC furthermore does not understand the implications of politicised science such as that related to the climate, which is undertaken within a political framework – with all this implies. The BBC does not appear to understand that many of those promoting “climate change” have a direct financial interest in it whether as scientists seeking grants; politicians on the make; politicians pandering to the green voters; the Met Office wanting bigger computers and budgets and power; and renewables developers seeking subsidies. The BBC has naively lapped it up.
For a decade the BBC has promoted the extremist side of the climate story line in a most biased way, uncritically retailing – and subsequently not correcting – material that has shown to be false, omitting or at best dismissing contrary evidence; and minimising airtime for sceptics (and misrepresenting some of them). Its misfeasance is a continuing contravention of its obligation of impartiality. Notwithstanding the series of egregious errors which the IPCC has made over the past two decades or so, the BBC has never either corrected past errors or questioned current dubious propositions. Although many of the scares and exaggerations it has promoted have subsequently shown to be baseless, the BBC has 1) never come back and admitted “we made a mistake”, nor 2) has it learned from past mistakes to be more critical in evaluating current scares that are being promoted.
The BBC has been scientifically inept, uncritical and unquestioning of the alleged “consensus”. Much of what has been included in its programmes and news has been factually wrong. Errors could have been avoided or corrected if the BBC employed competent and knowledgeable researchers whose prime interest was truth and accuracy rather than warmist propaganda dressed up as science. Indeed the programmes Climate Change by Numbers and The Horizon Guide to Climate Change were both intellectually bankrupt, as have been many earlier programmes, such as Science under attack and Meet the sceptics. The BBC should not promote errors, nor refuse to correct those errors.


BBC and the Trust producers often invite scientists who know little or nothing about climate science to provide a gloss of credibility, regularly breaching Article 10 of the 2010 Singapore Declaration on Scientific Integrity –
“Researchers should limit professional comments to their recognized expertise when engaged in public discussions about the application and importance of research findings and clearly distinguish professional comments from opinions based on personal views.”
These include Professor May PRS; Professor Nurse PRS; Dr. H. Czerski; Professor Stewart; David Attenborough; Ms. Fry, Professor Fenton; Professor Spielgelhalter; and Professor Jones.
The BBC has continuously breached its Charter and Guidelines for a decade in its handling of climate issues. The Trust has provided cover for the BBC, has tolerated these persistent breaches and has, in some identifiable instances, actively connived at them and glossed over them, which is contrary not only to its legal obligations but also, and even more fundamentally, to basic dictates of intellectual honesty and integrity.





BBC Trust-Complete File [168652]


BBCTrust-Annexes [4536]

  1. BLACK PEARL permalink
    April 25, 2016 11:40 am

    This is excellent
    Would like to see this picked up by major news networks
    … But I bet they dont mention it once .. !
    Got my Popcorn ready

  2. Jackington permalink
    April 25, 2016 11:40 am

    Good luck with this Paul but I fear the list of signatories’ lack of scientific clout will make it easier for the BBC to treat the letter with their usual contempt like they did with Lord Lawson

  3. April 25, 2016 11:48 am

    Quite the detailed indictment of the BBC and the rest of the “climate change” community.

    Some time ago, I was watching a series of BBC produced Scottish geology programs on my laptop. I love geology and a Scottish hotshot geologist was the presenter. However, at one point he went off into man-caused climate change. I turned off the program and knew I could not believe a word he had said. Had I not been to Scotland, I would have to question its very existence.

  4. Broadlands permalink
    April 25, 2016 12:03 pm

    A stunning document! I agree with Pearl that it’s unlikely to find its way into the public arena, at least in a timely fashion. And I agree also with Jackington on the signatories “clout”. Once again, the “bull’s-eye” focus will be on the messengers and not on the message.

  5. April 25, 2016 12:25 pm

    Congratulations on a wonderful summary of the real science involved in the climate debate. I hope that it can get past the powerful cartel that controls public information on the topic.

    Possibly more could be said about the economic effects of this appalling consensus-science on the UK and EU.

  6. Joe Public permalink
    April 25, 2016 12:37 pm

    Thanks to all concerned for their efforts in collecting & collating the facts for this complaint.

  7. April 25, 2016 12:49 pm

    An excellent and timely document. Alas I fear that there will be an attempt to time it out. If it does come to this ” : . . we may have to apply for judicial review of either the BBC or the Trust or both.”, I’d be happy to contribute to a fighting fund.

  8. April 25, 2016 1:11 pm

    Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
    About time the BBC were brought to account for their shameless support of climate change alarmism.

  9. David Young permalink
    April 25, 2016 1:30 pm

    Oh dear, it rather puts my brief missive to the Radio Times in the shade.

    The Feedback section in this week’s edition included a whinge from Peter Blackman (Strategic Director, Save Our BBC) about the forthcoming charter changes, to which I replied…

    In regards to the letter from Peter Blackman (Strategic Director, Save Our BBC) – Feedback 23-29 April, I quote…

    ‘And shouldn’t the BBC’s audiences and service users (the license fee payers, the public) engage directly with the BBC and be able to hold its leaders to account?’

    Would this be the same BBC that buried the Balen Report? Would this be the same BBC that consistently refused to name ‘the best scientific experts’ of the 2006 (28gate) seminar?

    Just two examples of how the BBC holds it audiences and service users in contempt – and now they come begging for our assistance.

    Regards etc.

  10. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    April 25, 2016 2:13 pm

    Very good summary of the BBC numb nut performance over the years. And should include the pestilence of climate change mentions(s) in just about any Radio/TV emission. There was also the nonsense of sour puss David King (Sir) with the ethical man experiment. Was crap filched from the USA.

    I’ll add to the JR fund certainly.

  11. April 25, 2016 2:25 pm

    I too would be happy to contribute to a judicial review.

  12. steverichards1984 permalink
    April 25, 2016 2:29 pm

    Well done!

  13. lapogus permalink
    April 25, 2016 3:09 pm

    Yes, well done to all concerned. Your efforts to hold the BBC to its charter are very much appreciated by this lowly grouse.

  14. April 25, 2016 4:09 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    Signatories to the letter:
    Piers Corbyn
    Richard Courtney
    David T C Davies MP
    Philip Foster
    Roger Helmer MEP
    Alex Henney
    Paul Homewood
    Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
    John Whitfield
    Rupert Wyndham,

  15. markl permalink
    April 25, 2016 4:57 pm

    Wow! Well done. It remains to be seen how much media coverage this receives. You can count out the BBC most assuredly. My opinion as a foreigner is most UK (and world) MSM is Liberal owned and Green controlled (who in turn are dupes of the EU/UN cabal). Consequently this will be ignored by the MSM as they do with anything contrary to the CAGW narrative. We need more of this to wake peoples awareness to the point they can no longer ignore and are forced to address the questions that demand answers.

  16. April 25, 2016 5:05 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  17. ralfellis permalink
    April 25, 2016 5:36 pm

    I too have had my complaints aboutthe climate coverage rejected by the BBC. If it is ever needed, I can send details. Their rejection was dismissive, akin to swatting flies, so I hope this complaint carries more weight and makes then sweat a little.


  18. Jim. permalink
    April 25, 2016 6:17 pm

    On Friday 22nd April on Ceefax at 06.00 the BBC business news had an item about the Sun/Edison corp. filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, by 10.00 that item had been removed. But ‘Green’ items can stay on for days often keeping their place near the top of the list.

  19. Swisspeasant permalink
    April 25, 2016 6:27 pm

    An excellent piece of work.
    If there was any justice it would be taken seriously. I fear we will have to keep fighting though.

  20. michael hart permalink
    April 25, 2016 8:46 pm

    Sorry to have to disagree with the title, but why should it constitute a “major and serious” complaint?

    Just because an MP, an MEP, and a member of the House of Lords sign the document, that does not make it important or serious by many standards. The signees have no power over the BBC or power within government. And the BBC can call on many corrupt politicians to say the opposite.

    I can agree almost completely with the contents of the letter, but the BBC will not even laugh it off. They will probably ignore it completely. They don’t give a toss what critics think or say, and they don’t yet see anybody in power who is willing to make them give a toss.

  21. April 25, 2016 10:04 pm

    This is excellent! Good and solid and too big to be swept under the carpet. Even with its head in the sand, the BBC must by now be aware of strong viewer dissatisfaction. It clearly needs to do some serious housekeeping and this complaint comes as a well-deserved kick in the pants! I will watch on with much interest. Thank you.

  22. joekano76 permalink
    April 25, 2016 11:39 pm

    Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.

  23. clipe permalink
    April 26, 2016 2:25 am

    “Civil Procedure Rules, we make it clear at the outset that unless our complaint is responded to in what we regard as a satisfactory and timely fashion, we may have to apply for judicial review of either the BBC or the Trust or both.”

    How does judicial review come into play under British law?

  24. April 26, 2016 4:45 am

    The list of BBC errors should point out that, far from warming ,the earth has been cooling since the millennial temperature cycle peaked in about 2003. See:
    Here are the latest forecasts and conclusions from the post.
    3.1 Long Term .
    I am a firm believer in the value of Ockham’s razor thus the simplest working hypothesis based on the weight of all the data is that the millennial temperature cycle peaked at about 2003 and that the general trends from 990 – 2003 seen in Fig 4 will repeat from 2003-3016 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2640.
    3.2 Medium Term.
    Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelengths the simplest hypothesis is that the cooling trend from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the rising trend. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig,1.which shows cooling until 2038 ,slight warming to 2073, then cooling to the end of the century.
    3.3 Current Trends
    The cooling trend from the millennial peak at 2003 is illustrated in blue in Fig 5. From 2015 on,the decadal cooling trend is obscured by the current El Nino. The El Nino peaked in March 2016. Thereafter during 2017 – 2019 we might reasonably expect a cooling at least as great as that seen during the 1998 El Nino decline in Fig 5 – about 0.9 C
    It is worth noting that the increase in the neutron count in 2007 seen in Fig 8 indicated a possible solar regime change which might produce an unexpectedly sharp decline in RSS temperatures 12 years later – 2019 +/- to levels significantly below the blue trend line in Fig 5.

    To the detriment of the reputation of science in general, establishment climate scientists made two egregious errors of judgment in their method of approach to climate forecasting and thus in their advice to policy makers in successive SPMs. First, they based their analyses on inherently untestable and specifically structurally flawed models which included many questionable assumptions. Second they totally ignored the natural, solar driven , millennial and multi-decadal quasi-cycles. Unless we know where we are with regard to and then incorporate the phase of the millennial cycle in particular, useful forecasting is simply impossible.
    It is fashionable in establishment climate circles to present climate forecasting as a “wicked” problem.I would by contrast contend that by adopting the appropriate time scale and method for analysis it becomes entirely tractable so that commonsense working hypotheses with sufficient likely accuracy and chances of success to guide policy can be formulated.
    If the real outcomes follow the near term forecasts in para 3.3 above I suggest that the establishment position is untenable past 2020.This is imminent in climate terms. The essential point of this post is that the 2003 peak in Fig 1 marks a millennial peak which is totally ignored in all the IPCC projections.”

  25. Stonyground permalink
    April 26, 2016 7:00 am

    Even if the BBC continues to ignore complaints made against it, it must eventually come unstuck when reality eventually closes in. Climate change alarmism is a colossal house of cards which will eventually collapse. When it does, where will that leave the BBC when it is exposed as having been propagating this mountain of lies for decades?

  26. Richard111 permalink
    April 26, 2016 7:18 am

    After all these years people still have difficulty understanding that there is no such thing as a ‘greenhouse gas’. 99% of the Earth’s atmosphere, when warmed by conduction from the surface is unable to cool unless here are other radiative gasses present.
    When people claim warm air rises and cools ask them to please explain where did the energy go? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Where was this energy transferred to? The adiabatic lapse rate can only exist if something in the UPPER atmosphere is transferring the energy to space.

  27. Andrew Duffin permalink
    April 26, 2016 7:34 am

    Good luck with that.

    Destined for the memory hole already, I fear.

  28. Coeur de Lion permalink
    April 26, 2016 7:42 am

    Drew WUWT ‘s attention to this. I must write again to Dame Slingo of the Met Office UK drawing her attention, reminding her of my last letter (unacknowledged), and asking her to take a cold look at the MO’s website, climate change section, which is becoming a laughing stock.

  29. Annie permalink
    April 26, 2016 8:09 am

    Well done. The bias at the BBC absolutely infuriates me. While we were living back in England I was very annoyed that we were forced to subsidise this institution.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      April 26, 2016 10:06 am

      That’s exactly how we feel about the far-left biased, tax-payer funded ABC down here in Australia.

      Why is it that all tax-payer supported media seems to be far-left oriented.

      Is it because the people working there could not get a job in a commercial enterprise?

  30. April 26, 2016 8:44 am

    Congratulations & sincere thanks to all involved in this considerable amount of solid work.
    We must now all work to spread this as far & wide as possible.
    Straight on my facebook for a start, & I’ll mention it on sites I comment on.
    John Doran.

  31. Swisspeasant permalink
    April 26, 2016 10:03 am

    An interesting article in the Spanish press on the greening of the planet and the benefits of C02 as a fertiliser. It still contains the politically correct messages about sea level and storms at the end but it’s the sort of good news which would never see the light of day at the BBC.

  32. It doesn't add up... permalink
    April 26, 2016 10:09 am

    Are we already seeing a reaction?

    Nic Lewis and Judtih Curry quoted by Harrabin in a report on the CO2 greening study.

    • April 26, 2016 2:25 pm

      What a reasonable, scientific and fair-minded chap he is!
      You’re right, he must have a copy of the complaint!

  33. johnbuk permalink
    April 26, 2016 9:30 pm

    Agree with others re thanks for all the hard work put in by all concerned. Additionally if a JR is contemplated I would be happy to chip in.

  34. April 27, 2016 9:03 am

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Wbhen it comes to climate matters the BBC’s claims of impartiality crumble to dust.

  35. Joe Public permalink
    April 27, 2016 9:57 am

    Could your complaint have begun to influence reporting?


    Today, Aunty reports “Venezuela introduces two-day week to deal with energy crisis”.

    Amongst the details:

    “Electricity Minister Luis Motta looks at the massive Guri Dam, virtually dry because of the drought”

    “Venezuela is facing a major drought, which has dramatically reduced water levels at its main hydroelectric dam.”

    “Several countries in the region have been affected by the drought, caused by El Nino. But Venezuela has the highest domestic consumption of energy.”

    Three times, subbie forgets to blame climate change!

  36. April 27, 2016 10:13 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Same story with Australia’s public broadcaster – the Leftist ABC. Its former boss Maurice Newman noting the broadcaster had been “captured” by a “small but powerful” group of people when it came to climate change groupthink…

    Great work:

    Piers Corbyn
    Richard Courtney
    David T C Davies MP
    Philip Foster
    Roger Helmer MEP
    Alex Henney
    Paul Homewood
    Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
    John Whitfield
    Rupert Wyndham

  37. April 27, 2016 12:25 pm

    reblogged this on Scottish Sceptic.

    yes … Great work:

    Piers Corbyn
    Richard Courtney
    David T C Davies MP
    Philip Foster
    Roger Helmer MEP
    Alex Henney
    Paul Homewood
    Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
    John Whitfield
    Rupert Wyndham

  38. April 27, 2016 12:33 pm

    Actually – I’m now at the stage I just want to stop paying for the BBC altogether. The BBC have shown themselves incapable of abiding by their charter obligations unless you have the money to take them to court – and even then I doubt they’ll comply with the letter of any judgement let alone the spirit.

    To my mind they are just a fifth column in British politics using our money to push a very distorted view of politics, climate, our economy, Europe, … and life in general (such as risk aversion), anti-male, anti-family …. so just shut them down so that the consumer finally has a choice whether they want to have their perverse politics & science broadcast into our homes.

  39. April 27, 2016 1:11 pm

    ‘the climate science establishment who are promoting a view that man is causing significant global warming which, with the plateau in temperature, has morphed into “climate change” ‘

    They will just tell you that the IPCC was formed in the 1980s (the ‘CC’ = Climate Change).

    Of course one of their favourite propaganda tricks is to tie warming and ‘man-made warming’ together and pretend that if you object to their man-made claims, you’re objecting to the existence of any sort of climate change at all – and must therefore not be worth listening to.

    The mere fact that these types of distortion and fake argument are deemed necessary tells us there’s very little truth in their claims.

  40. edmh permalink
    April 27, 2016 3:41 pm

    Would it not be amazing if the BBC could understand a few of the recorded fact about temperature during the Holocene.

    Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

    However all the Northern Hemisphere Ice Core records from Greenland show:
    • the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.
    • each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
    • for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
    • but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
    • the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
    • the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.
    • eventually this late 20th century temperature blip will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.
    • other published Greenland Ice Core records as well as GISP2, (NGRIP1, GRIP) corroborate this finding. They also exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent past.

    When considering the scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions in this century, it is useful to look at climate change from a longer term, century by century and even on a millennial perspective.

    The much vaunted and much feared “fatal” tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures close to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.

    • April 27, 2016 5:47 pm

      The millennial cycle peaked at about 2003 see my comment at April 26, 2016 4:45 am above

  41. Roger Harrabin, BBC Environment Analyst permalink
    April 28, 2016 7:31 am

    You say I have “close financial and political links with climate-extremist advocacy groups”. This is a lie. The Mail on Sunday were forced to withdraw this false allegation after I took legal action against them. You must do the same immediately. At the BBC we attempt to steer a path through the complex and politically-charged area of climate change science and policy. You are welcome to your views on our coverage – but you are not at liberty to libel us.

  42. April 28, 2016 12:21 pm

    This Nov 201 Mail on Sunday story mentions something about Harrabin seeming to use Tyndall Centre grant money to run seminars for BBC staff.
    – It contains no legal update note, but does contain this “Mr Harrabin did not derive any personal financial benefit.”

    – There was a followup story the week after

    • April 28, 2016 12:28 pm

      extra note I quote
      >> The BBC has given Rose a response to the article as follows:
      ‘The BBC is aware of the funding arrangements for the Real World seminars. They have been considered against our editorial guidelines and raised no issues about impartiality for the BBC or its output. <<

  43. Charlie Moncur permalink
    April 29, 2016 7:03 am

    Excellent work Paul. The only way to deal with BBC is to drag one of their senior management into court. This will be costly. Any plans to fund this by way of citizen funding? Alternatively, mass refusal to pay the licence fee that funds the BBC. They can not take everybody to court!!! 38 Degrees seem to have success with petitions and force government about turns. Maybe an alternative route? I would be prepared to support a court action by way of financial contribution. Any thoughts?

  44. Peter permalink
    April 29, 2016 7:59 am

    Great stuff! We all need to write to the BBC asking what action they are going to take regarding this letter and its contents. They are obliged to answer us, so we need to make as big a fuss as possible!

  45. April 29, 2016 11:15 pm

    Reblogged this on Sunrise's Swansong and commented:
    My cynical side feels this effort will simply be ignored, but the effort must be made. The media must be confronted by the fact it is not “fair and balanced” by examples of balanced people who get no hearing. Although this post is too long for most of us to find time to read, it is loaded with stuff, and well worth skimming.

  46. Coeur de Lion permalink
    July 1, 2016 8:49 pm

    It’s more than 60 days. What has happened to this marvellous attack on a corrupt organisation ?

    • July 2, 2016 9:55 am

      We’ve heard nothing yet.

      • Charlie Moncur permalink
        July 31, 2016 8:32 am

        This is surely a candidate for crowd funding to pursue BBC in court and sue individuals for dissemination of false information. Who will take this forward? Several successful crowd funding initiatives recently – legal challenge against Tony Blair in progress. Only in the court can we confront the climate scam.

  47. September 15, 2016 9:01 am

    Excellent. Thank you.

  48. Charles Moncur permalink
    September 18, 2016 12:24 am

    Excellent Paul. I reiterate my previous comment – the only way to get the attention of the BBC is to drag them into court. This will be expensive but could be managed by crowd funding. A crowd-funded legal challenge by the families (CrowdJustice) of the dead servicewomen and men will seek to take Tony Bair to court to answer for his actions in taking UK into an illegal Iraq war. This raised 170K in a very short time!! I have contributed to this. The film “Climate Hustle” now showing in America /Canada was also funded this way. I contributed to this. Curtailment of BBC funding is another weapon. Why pay a licence for political spin!!!! We can complain all we like – but real action is needed. If such a crowdfunding action could be started I would certainly financially support.

  49. September 25, 2016 10:56 am

    Well time has moved on, what difference has the threat of Judicial review had on the BBC ?.

    Well miraculous would be an under-statement, their scare mongering has ceased, like someone flicking a light-switch, their science page is bereft of ”the science” and ”some scientists say”.

    This thread is interesting as i did not know about Monktons threat of action against them.

    When ”climate change” vanished from their science page i thought it was Therresa May, putting her foot on their neck, because she was going to go Gas instead of nuclear, and was gagging their enviroloons.

    Anyway well played,,,,,,,,,now how about the same for the Guardian and non-skeptical science,,, and Bristol universities waste on lewenbowski.

    • Charles Moncur permalink
      September 25, 2016 9:57 pm

      Any update from those who submitted the complaint to the BBC?

      Piers Corbyn
      Richard Courtney
      David T C Davies MP
      Philip Foster
      Roger Helmer MEP
      Alex Henney
      Paul Homewood
      Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
      John Whitfield
      Rupert Wyndham,

      • September 26, 2016 9:36 am

        We have basically been fobbed off, but are now appealing to the BBC Trust

  50. September 30, 2016 1:02 pm

    You may have been fobbed off, but the spotlight has had a paralysing effect on the one-way flow,, still no dissenting voices ofcourse, but climate talk has been pretty much gagged.

  51. Coeur de Lion permalink
    October 14, 2016 11:06 am

    Well I’m not so sure. Wadhams got five minutes on the Today programme recently when Sue or Sarah or whoever thought he was marvellous. She did ask one awkward question – what’s happened to ,your 2012 forecast that the Arctic will be ice-free this year? Oh I only meant One million Sq kilometres – next year. Giving rise to a unit of measurement -a Wadhams = 1M sq km. Arctic bottomed out at just over 4 Wadhams. He was given an embarrassingly soft ride. Anyway, this magnificent piece of work must not go to waste.

  52. Coeur de Lion permalink
    December 21, 2016 12:36 pm

    I mustn’t allow my professional hatred of the BBC to affect my judgement, but returning to the charge again (see my October post above) – where do we now stand? I noticed a BBC TV piece the other day about bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef – the area well to the north and affected by El Niño – which was attributed to “CO2” . Otherwise full of lies as well about permanence versus regeneration . So no cure yet. Any progress with the Trust?

  53. Coeur de Lion permalink
    January 18, 2017 2:23 pm

    Humphreys on the Today programme this morning asked a lady ‘scientist’ about the “warmest year EVAH” . Got the answer 2016 of course. “Are you scared?” he asked. Never asked ‘by how much?’ (Answer two hundredths of a degree over the 1998 El Niño). I do hope this magnificent work will have an effect soon.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: