Skip to content

BBC Issues New Guidelines To Shut Down Debate On Climate Change

September 7, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

h/t Robin Guenier et al

Carbon Brief has obtained details of new BBC guidance on how to handle climate issues:

 

 

image

The BBC, one of the world’s largest and most respected news organisations, has issued formal guidance to its journalists on how to report climate change.

Carbon Brief has obtained the internal four-page “crib sheet” sent yesterday to BBC journalists via an email from Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s director of news and current affairs. The crib sheet includes the BBC’s “editorial policy” and “position” on climate change.

All of the BBC’s editorial staff have also been invited to sign up for a one-hour “training course on reporting climate change”. Carbon Brief understands this is the first time that the BBC has issued formal reporting guidance to its staff on this topic.

The move follows a ruling earlier this year by Ofcom, the UK’s broadcasting regulator, which found that BBC Radio 4’s flagship current-affairs programme Today had breached broadcasting rules by “not sufficiently challenging” Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor.

Lawson, who chairs a UK-based climate-sceptic lobby group, had made false claims about climate change in an interview on Today in August 2017. Before Ofcom published its ruling in April, the BBC had already apologised for breaching its general editorial guidelines during the Lawson interview.

The broadcaster has faced repeated criticism over the past decade for enabling “false balance” on the topic of climate change, as well as for failing to fully implement the recommendations of the BBC Trust’s 2011 review into the “impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science”.

This is the email sent by Fran Unsworth to BBC journalists yesterday:

Dear all

After a summer of heatwaves, floods and extreme weather, environment stories have become front of mind for our audiences. There are a number of important related news events in the coming months – including the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Green Great Britain Week in October – so there will be many more stories to cover. Younger audiences, in particular, have told us they’d like to see more journalism on the issue.

With this in mind, we are offering all editorial staff new training for reporting on climate change. The one hour course covers the latest science, policy, research, and misconceptions to challenge, giving you confidence to cover the topic accurately and knowledgeably.

Please book now by choosing a time from MyDevelopment (you’ll be prompted to login first), searching ‘reporting climate change’ on MyDevelopment, or emailing XXXXXX@bbc.co.uk to set up a tailored session for your team.

In the meantime, you can read the Climate Change for BBC News crib sheet, and the Analysis and Research website by searching ‘climate change’ which cover the basics.

I hope you find the training useful.

Fran

If a journalist clicks on the email’s link to book a place on the course, they are taken to this page on the BBC intranet:

(To avoid the risk of personal abuse or intimidation, Carbon Brief has decided to redact the email address of the BBC employee running the course. Carbon Brief can confirm, though, that the individual is not one of the BBC journalists who report on climate change.)

The crib sheet, below, includes a summary of the “basics” on climate science, the BBC’s “editorial policy” and “position” on climate change, and a precis of domestic climate policies in the UK as well as at the international level.

This is the document’s wording for the BBC’s “editorial policy” and “position” on climate change:

Editorial Policy

Climate change has been a difficult subject for the BBC, and we get coverage of it wrong too often. The climate science community is clear that humans have changed the climate, but specifically how is more difficult to evidence. For instance, there is very high confidence that there will be more extreme events – floods, droughts, heatwaves etc. – but attributing an individual event, such as the UK’s winter floods in 2013/2014, to climate change is much less certain.

We must also be careful to distinguish between the statements. For example: “Climate change makes this kind of event both more frequent and more severe,” and “Climate change caused this event”. The former uses previous scientific evidence to say ‘it is likely’ the event is the result of climate change, whereas the latter may be making an assertion without the proof to back it up.

What’s the BBC’s position?

  • Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.
  • Be aware of ‘false balance’: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken. However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier.
  • There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change

 

The fact that Unsworth begins her letter:

“After a summer of heatwaves, floods and extreme weather, environment stories have become front of mind for our audiences. There are a number of important related news events in the coming months including the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Green Great Britain Week in October”

tells us everything we need to know about the “impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science”.

Heatwaves, floods and extreme weather are merely weather events, and have nothing to do with climate change, though evidently the BBC thinks they do.

 

The comments about “deniers” make clear that the BBC also does not understand the real issues being debated actively around the topic of climate change.

Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage.

Even Lord Lawson does not deny that climate change is happening. Yet over the years the BBC has successfully shut down nearly all debate about the real issues of how much of the warming since the LIA is man made, how much we might expect in future, what impacts (good and bad) has it had and will it have, and so on.

 

The new guidance talks of:

For instance, there is very high confidence that there will be more extreme events

Yet I see no mention of the IPCC’s own findings about past trends in extreme weather, which completely contradict this claim:

image

image

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srex/

In short, there have been fewer cold spells and more warm ones (NSS!). Some areas have had more drought, and some fewer, and similarly for heavy rain. There is no observable trend in tropical cyclones or tornadoes.

I wait with bated breath for the BBC to tell us this, or allow one of the many scientists around the world who don’t buy into the alarmist creed to do so.

 

The email talks about “false balance”. What a joke! This is all we get from the BBC.

They wheel on any scientist who is prepared to promote the most outlandish of theories. They allow the most preposterous of claims to be made without challenge, and their own reporters propagate the such fanciful lies that anybody with a bit of common sense should know are ridiculous.

Never do they challenge any of these claims, never mind correct them. If anybody doubts this, check my BBC page here.

Of course, if you complain to the BBC about inaccuracy, they hide behind the “Scientists say” defence.

 

One could hope that this new training course might inform BBC journalists about the realities of climate change, so that they might avoid broadcasting these sort of lies:

 

  • Sea levels at Miami are rising at ten times the global rate – BBC reporter Nick Bryant
  • Tens of thousands of reindeer are dying because of climate change in Siberia – BBC Russia with Simon Reeve
  • A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5 – BBC Weather Man  Chris Fawkes

The BBC has been forced to retract each of these totally fake claims after complaints to the BBC Complaints Dept. Many other false claims have also been proved to be untrue.

But I have little confidence that the new guidelines will stop further spurious statements being made by their own journalists, never mind that they actually challenge interviewees.

 

If they were really interested in fair balance, they would be inviting the likes of Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, Pat Michaels, Steve McIntyre, William Happer, Chris Landsea and a host of others to offer a counterpoint to the establishment view.

The fact that they don’t tells us more about the BBC’s left wing leanings than the state of climate science. A view confirmed by the gleeful approval of the Guardian’s Damian Carrington today.

 

One question remains – why is the BBC so afraid of a real debate?

Advertisements
65 Comments
  1. Immune to propaganda permalink
    September 7, 2018 10:03 pm

    The BBC is full of foul smelling brown stuff and we are forced to pay for it. Scandalous!

  2. Curious George permalink
    September 7, 2018 10:47 pm

    What’s the BBC’s position? Easy – no comments on BBC’s web pages.

    Do not disturb us. Especially not with truth.

  3. Athelstan permalink
    September 8, 2018 12:52 am

    It smacks of fear, the beeb are frit, fear of being undone by exposition and immolation fired by and of the truth.

  4. September 8, 2018 6:56 am

    The BBC stopped doing proper science years ago when Shukman and Harrabin took over the BBC coverage of science. Neither is a scientist.

    The fact that the BBC relies on a political and bureaucratic organisation, the Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change, to provide the so-called “science” says all you need to know about the BBC political bias,

    • Rupert Wyndham permalink
      September 9, 2018 9:38 am

      They don’t have to be scientists. They just have to be persons of integrity, which they are not.

    • dave permalink
      September 8, 2018 7:55 am

      “Marginalization” is the name of the game.

  5. September 8, 2018 8:01 am

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    So this is what impartiality looks like at the BBC. They decide what your opinion should be and suppress or attack any other viewpoints. Pathetic.

  6. September 8, 2018 8:09 am

    We need to make it abundantly clear that climate change is real but is beyond our control, and is not caused by human CO2 emissions, which are beneficially increasing biomass. The IPCC AGW hypothesis is disproved by the complete absence of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature since the Industrial Revolution, and by the geological record which shows again and again that CO2 is a consequence, not a cause. Failure to discuss this will leave the BBC open to ridicule.

    • dave permalink
      September 8, 2018 8:38 am

      ” You do not need to include outright deniers of climate change.”

      So, by this wording the proponents of “Ice Age Now” are welcome. Only, they would not be, would they? Most ‘deniers’ believe there is more climate change than the ‘consensus’ allows.

      The establishment ‘they’ always mean their particular story and trajectory of climate change. It is still global warming – caused by wicked, capitalist us. The recent spin of course is that regional cooling or funny weather of any sort is declared as evidence of global warming; and, anyway, it is implied it will turn into catastrophic warming eventually.

      This propaganda line can go on for at least another twenty years. The Chinese just laugh.

  7. tom0mason permalink
    September 8, 2018 8:23 am

    As the world heads towards a colder climate the cAGW advocates are panicking and attempting to enforce dumb rules to keep their fantasy save. There’s too much money, prestige and reputation at stake for the la-la-land luvy fantasists of the BBC.

    Winters are starting to get colder and more extended, this one probably will be, 2020 is likely to be one of the coldest of recent years. By then hopefully people will start removing this unscientific CO2 chaff of climatism from their thoughts, and start to think about reality.

    • Simon Allnutt permalink
      September 8, 2018 5:32 pm

      The Mail is also blocking dissenting comments.

  8. Europeanonion permalink
    September 8, 2018 8:49 am

    A metropolitan talking shop, infection by proximity. Take an issue that demonstrates your concern for mankind and then feed the fire with any volatile material to hand. This was the essence of the Puritan period of English history that turned quacks and villains into tyrannical individuals that turned religion into a rod with which to beat people and encouraged several layers of increasingly extreme proselytising to invoke all manner of bad end if conformance was not applied.

    For a world of so much knowledge and so many forms of dissemination you can pick your strain of fact to the exclusion of all else. The BBC, in this instance, portray what in other circumstances is referred to as extremism, the pursuit of a singular aim inviolate. Removed by selectivity from any form of moderation.

    • dave permalink
      September 8, 2018 9:28 am

      “Fran Unsworth”

      A real world authority on the proper reporting of science, due to her degree in Drama:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Unsworth

      • Robert Jones permalink
        September 8, 2018 9:50 am

        She with the impeccable credentials of dealing with the fallout from the Sir Cliff Richard debacle.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        September 8, 2018 7:38 pm

        The spellcheck on Unsworth is ‘unworthy’!!

  9. September 8, 2018 9:58 am

    Climate Change is a religion at the BBC, revealed in its purest form on the World Service, which has different rules on impartiality. Yesterday they had a mostly good discussion about the elections in Sweden this weekend, but at the end was a mind blowing question/statement from the presenter about Climate Change coming to the rescue of the beleaguered leftie parties, due to the recent warm summer there. With one bound the preferences of the BBC presenter were revealed, with the typical triumph of emotion over reason.

    How does voting for a leftie Swedish party change the weather?

  10. CheshireRed permalink
    September 8, 2018 9:59 am

    They protest too much.
    Debating ‘settled science’ should be the easiest thing in the world, so why don’t they do it and humiliate deniers as often as they’re daft enough to keep fighting a lost battle? Could it be because it’s actually alarmists who keep losing debates, and they do so because the evidence is simply not on their side?
    Has all the hallmarks of a desperate last stand.

  11. Geoffb permalink
    September 8, 2018 10:01 am

    Just looked at the Daily Mail article….The comments are worth a read, just about all are critical of the beebs attitude to climate change. Fran Usworth also authorised the Cliff Richard house raid filming….which has cost them a bit in damages, (I guess it comes out of our licence money).

    • tom0mason permalink
      September 8, 2018 11:28 am

      Geoffb,
      “….which has cost them a bit in damages, (I guess it comes out of our licence money).”

      Indeed it will come from the portion of TV TAX the government allots to the BBC.

      It’s not a licence fee, it is a tax. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Reclassification_as_a_tax

      “in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services. A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, or cable”

      And also with recent changes computers and phones are included.

      So disabuse yourselves of thinking that there is a TV ‘licence’ it is NOT a licence!. The contracted collector (Capita and others) of this tax are allow to call themselves ‘TV Licensing’ and use the BBC copyrighted logo artwork — see tvlicensing.co.uk).
      There is not a licence fee, it is a general household tax paid to the government and put in the general tax pot. Some money is then allocated by the government to the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5, etc. after negotiations with these broadcasters.

      • Geoffb permalink
        September 8, 2018 3:52 pm

        I just read the wickipedia article….so if I ONLY watch on a catchup service such as bbc i player, I need a “tv licence” now? I guess this is why i player
        now asks if you have a tv licence. Crafty.

      • tom0mason permalink
        September 8, 2018 8:39 pm

        Geoffb,

        Yes the changes were suggested by the BBC and implicated by the government because… the technology has changed (that was their excuse). Also of note was that the latest changes to the law covers any technology not yet available but could be in the future. 😦

  12. Spence permalink
    September 8, 2018 10:04 am

    Ms. Unsworth states, ‘To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.’

    What she ignores is that the ‘denier (sceptic)’ may challenge by showing observed evidence that the two MU goals were clearly offside, therefore the result should be viewed as having been reached only by misinterpretation of the events. The referee (climate scientist) has declared a result but that doesn’t mean he was right and that error (misinterpretation) will only be shown by allowing it to be challenged.

    Ms. Unsworth needs to enrol herself on a BBC impartiality course but then the terms BBC and impartiality are probably mutually exclusive.

  13. Phoenix44 permalink
    September 8, 2018 10:17 am

    I love the way they can see say climate science is settled yet they continue to allow every left-wing crackpot time and space to push utterly discredited socialist economics. If anything the BBC gives more time to those who think Venezuela us what we should become.

    The BBC happily allows people to contradict all the basic laws of economics, even in areas like trade where there are virtually no disagreement s amongst economists.

    But climate science? Oh no, have to silence dissent there.

  14. September 8, 2018 10:28 am

    “As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.”

    That is clearly aimed at that awful fossil-fuel funding, but will be a very useful line of attack when they seek to hide the Green Blob sucking money out of your bank account.

    • Mack permalink
      September 8, 2018 1:19 pm

      Interesting point. I look forward to BBC interviewers prefacing their cozy chats with ‘independent’ climate experts, who extol the virtues of renewable energy and screech about our carbon sins ad nauseum, with a long list of the bungs they receive from the Green Blob or subsidies from the taxpayer.for saying just so. Then the independent viewer can make up their minds as to whether the so called expert is practising settled science or merely singing for their supper. When Joe Public hears an ‘expert’ telling us that wind and solar are the best thing since sliced bread and then learns that the said genius is funded by, er….wind and solar, he might come to a more nuanced understanding of why he is being railroaded into fuel poverty and, hopefully, bite back. Call me a cynic but, for some peculiar reason, I doubt the Beeb will be so refreshingly open about the credentials and history of failed predictions of their doomster pals. Can’t imagine why.

      • keith permalink
        September 8, 2018 3:35 pm

        Fully agree with Mack here. I would not be at all surprised if this so called ‘training’ is funded by the Grantham Institute. After all Richard Black is ex BBC.

  15. TinyCO2 permalink
    September 8, 2018 11:13 am

    I rather think that their interviews of Lord Lawson were something of a gotcha. While an intelligent man he’s not as up to date with climate science as he should be to be a spokesman for sceptics and not fast enough to deal with the questions and issues an unscripted interview would throw up. The BBC has a technique of using ‘balance’ interviews to discredit a particular side or individual. They aim to demonstrate how weak the subject is by letting the audience see the weakness of the arguments and who delivers them. They use the interview process to avoid strong arguments by the opposition and steer the discussion towards weaknesses. In interviews where they agree with the interviewee, they do the opposite.

    The BBC would never use the intrview with Emma Thompson as an example where they got climate science dead wrong. Compared to her mistakes, Lord Lawson was positively on message.

  16. Dave Ward permalink
    September 8, 2018 11:49 am

    “The one hour course covers the latest science, policy, research, and misconceptions to challenge

    Guido posted this uncannily accurate spoof yesterday:

  17. Dodgy Geezer permalink
    September 8, 2018 1:05 pm

    Seems to me that they are treading on dangerous ground. They have now admitted that they are conducting a propaganda war against ‘deniers’ – we need them to spell out exactly what the definition of a ‘denier’ is. In the absence of that tight definition this policy can be used to suppress any disagreement with the IPCC.

    Incidentally, I think this is a world first for the BBC, in that they state that they will unquestioningly follow IPCC statements, and that though they may allow people to disagree with those statements, such disagreement should always be challenged. I cannot think of any other body – national or supranational, which the BBC promise to believe implicitly.

    Both the above points should be grounds for formal complaints to the BBC and to the UK Parliament. Given the BBC’s global reach, it should be open to non-UK citizens to complain equally with UK citizens – there is an ‘all-party parliamentary group’ which might be a useful contact – https://www.appgs.org/all-party-parliamentary-bbc-group/ UK citizens would be best advised to write to MPs…

  18. September 8, 2018 1:17 pm

    That anyone seeks to cut off debate, scientific discovery and free speech should be a huge “bridge out ahead” warning.

  19. Stonyground permalink
    September 8, 2018 1:38 pm

    The recent debate over the relative hotness of the summers of 1976 and 2018 has been very instructive in my opinion. The temperature has been slowly rising on and off since the Little Ice Age, there is no doubt about this. Yet the above mentioned debate shows that the change over the last forty two years. This slow process has shown no correlation with rising levels of CO2 whatsoever.

  20. Mike Thefordprefect permalink
    September 8, 2018 1:51 pm

    these therefore would demand equal time


    etc

    You really want these on mainstream tv????

    • TinyCO2 permalink
      September 8, 2018 5:02 pm

      The BBC has more time for homeopaths and dowsers than qualified people with legitimate questions about the immense and complex issue of climate change. I’ve seen more antivaxxers, and people who believe in fairies than climate sceptics.

      They’re terrified of sceptics because we make sense.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      September 8, 2018 8:15 pm

      “You really want these on mainstream tv????”

      None of that has anything to do with debating the theory/science/politics of ‘greenhouse gases’ and climate.

      Trying to suggest equivalence is just a feeble smear, an attempt to suppress alternative valid opinions. it’s as daft and dishonest as labeling anyone that wants to discuss the problems of mass immigration as ‘far right’ or ‘Nazi’.

    • John Ellyssen permalink
      September 9, 2018 12:05 am

      You have to luv these geoengineering conspiracy theories.

  21. Colin Brooks permalink
    September 8, 2018 1:54 pm

    A one hour presentation will make any and all BBC personnel ‘knowledgeable’ about climate issues???
    What a bunch of total idiots these people are!

  22. tom0mason permalink
    September 8, 2018 2:18 pm

    From https://www.sott.net/article/366034-David-Dilley-Definitive-Dates-for-the-Onset-of-Major-Global-Cooling

    Little Ice Age (LIA), climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, when mountain glaciers expanded at several locations, including the European Alps, New Zealand, Alaska, and the southern Andes, and mean annual temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average temperature between 1000 and 2000 ce. The term Little Ice Age was introduced to the scientific literature by Dutch-born American geologist F.E. Matthes in 1939. Originally the phrase was used to refer to Earth’s most recent 4,000-year period of mountain-glacier expansion and retreat. Today some scientists use it to distinguish only the period 1500-1850, when mountain glaciers expanded to their greatest extent, but the phrase is more commonly applied to the broader period 1300-1850. The Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 900-1300 ce) and preceded the present period of warming that began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

    [my emphasis]

    So somewhere about 800 to 1000 years ago it was warm, and from the ice core records we know that CO2 levels peak around 800 years after a warm period, so shouldn’t CO2 levels naturally rise now?
    Also of note is that during this time, from the few sketchy notes that have been found, the Arctic was very small at the time, and Greenland was warm enough for people (the Vikings) to live on and farm.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      September 8, 2018 8:35 pm

      Tomo: You say:
      “So somewhere about 800 to 1000 years ago it was warm, and from the ice core records we know that CO2 levels peak around 800 years after a warm period, so shouldn’t CO2 levels naturally rise now?”

      I tried that line with a true believer. His response was that man-made CO2 (say what?) was different and it (alone!) preceded temp rises! Of course, the corollary of that is that the amount of actual mm CO2 (if it can be separated out at all) is rather small compared to all the other CO2 out there, so it must be bloody powerful to have such an effect. But no, you cannot change a belief system which trespasses on the grounds of religion.

      • tom0mason permalink
        September 8, 2018 8:53 pm

        Harry Passfield,

        Yes I had very similar experiences with younger ‘know-it-alls’.
        When I point out the ‘human generated CO2’ will still be there when the climate turns to a cooler phase they just about have a breakdown. I’ll then rub it in when I wager them my entire net worth against theirs, that the climate will turn cooler in less than 30 years. By that time they’ve lost the plot and storm off in a huff as they realize I’m a practically penniless retiree.

        P.S. I’ve got money on it snowing again this winter at the best odds of only 5:1 at the bookies. You would have thought that it should be 1,000,000:1 if the BBC is correct.

      • September 9, 2018 12:19 pm

        “P.S. I’ve got money on it snowing again this winter at the best odds of only 5:1 at the bookies. You would have thought that it should be 1,000,000:1 if the BBC is correct.”
        You can bet on that?
        Snow somewhere in the UK over the whole of winter?
        If so I want in on the action.
        Which bookmaker?

  23. Bitter@twisted permalink
    September 8, 2018 2:40 pm

    Welcome to 1984.
    And I thought the Biased Bullshi1 Cartel, couldn’t stoop any lower.

  24. saparonia permalink
    September 8, 2018 3:53 pm

    I threw my TV’s away. They wanted to search my house? They sent a man to ask me what I thought of BBC radio! A man came and showed me his plain white van and said it was a TV detector van!! I laughed my head off. I said if I could look in his van he could look in my house. Of course this never happened, like so much of what the BBC broadcasts.

    • John Ellyssen permalink
      September 9, 2018 12:09 am

      I always thought the TV detector vans were way to much over watch by big brother in a free society.

  25. saparonia permalink
    September 8, 2018 4:11 pm

    In a couple of hundred years when we are all dead and only our descendents live in the icy cold of Europe, they will be taught in school that in the 21st century the earth warmed and their proof will be that the population developed darker skin colour.

  26. Vanessa permalink
    September 8, 2018 5:11 pm

    It is so telling that someone who has ZERO scientific knowledge about anything telling the idiots at the BBC to MIS-inform the public about something we probably know more about than ANYBODY at the BBC. Debate over – just shut the f…..ck up BBC !!

  27. stephen kent permalink
    September 8, 2018 6:14 pm

    So no more balancing debates… frightening… welcome to the fascist state

  28. Stonyground permalink
    September 8, 2018 6:30 pm

    This story seems to have gone global with posts at Jo Nova and Watts Up With That. It seems to be an open admission of mindless bigotry by the BBC. The thing is, we are right and they are wrong, they won’t be able to deny reality for ever. The bubble has to pop eventually and when it does those responsible for this nonsense will be screwed.

  29. September 8, 2018 7:30 pm

    This is an outrageous breach of the BBC Charter, we must all complain, lobby our MP and sign the petition. The sheer arrogance of the BBC in shutting down debate is breathtaking. They must not be allowed to get away with this. We must also lobby GWPF.

  30. John Cooknell permalink
    September 8, 2018 9:59 pm

    The BBC News science reporting is journalism, it is not science.

    My observation is that third party news outlets are used to provide most of the BBC science reporting, and the BBC pay for this. Editors like Shukman use whatever sensational rubbish they can find to tell a story, they are journalists.

    The BBC are the same as other institutions they act illegally and protect the reputation of the organization at all costs.

  31. John Ellyssen permalink
    September 9, 2018 12:11 am

    It is sad when government control over media keeps increasing to the point of being unbelievable.

  32. September 9, 2018 8:33 am

    I despise the BBC for their deceit.

  33. victor hanby permalink
    September 9, 2018 11:24 am

    “one hour course covers the latest science, policy, research, and misconceptions to challenge,” All this in an hour?

  34. September 9, 2018 12:13 pm

    I think it is a disgrace that the BBC won’t allow the questioning of “climate change”, while it allows free rein and almost encourages those who want a second Brexit referendum.

  35. Stonyground permalink
    September 9, 2018 5:59 pm

    Apologies if someone else has already picked up on this part which is really quite funny.

    “To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.”

    They would be correct to deny this, the match in question was played on Sunday.

  36. RAH permalink
    September 9, 2018 6:08 pm

    “One question remains – why is the BBC so afraid of a real debate?”

    That’s an easy one. It’s appearing ever more likely that the worm is turning both in nature and in the public opinion. That what they have said would happen is not happening and does not appear it is going to in the foreseeable future. They cannot be allowed the ever more obvious “adjustments” and ever more extreme disinformation that will be necessary to cover this up to be challenged. So they shut the potential challengers out. Your getting exactly what your taxed for. Government controlled media.

  37. John atkins permalink
    September 9, 2018 7:27 pm

    The UN, IPCC, and BBC have created an external threat to mankind. This is classic. They are trying to unite the world and create a threat which will unite mankind. Nice try. Wrong threat.
    Sky News are now leading on ‘plastic in the food chain’. Could be more promising, but demonising the Ruskis is now the frontrunner.(Putin is undoubtedly malevolent to the worlds democracies but I am not sure just how much of a threat.)

  38. Hugh Higginson permalink
    September 10, 2018 7:33 am

    “what are the BBC afraid of”
    The cost of the green agenda is being carried by the most physical and financial vulnerable, by way of their energy bills.
    The very people who pay the BBC £140 a year and trust them.

  39. Jan Christoffersen permalink
    September 15, 2018 1:44 am

    The BBC has become like the CBC in Canada – little more than a front for government propaganda.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: