BBC to launch weekly climate propaganda slot
By Paul Homewood
The shameless BBC has finally given up all pretence of objectivity where climate change is concerned, promising a weekly dose of propaganda, as they are worried the public is not giving it the attention they think it deserves.
From the BBC blog:
If Europe’s ports are underwater, Brexit may seem less important’: we’re expanding climate change coverage
Jo Floto
Editor, The World Tonight, Newshour
From 3 October The World Tonight on BBC Radio 4 and Newshour on BBC World Service will be covering climate change every week.
The BBC’s been reporting for a long time that climate change is not some distant issue whose effects that will only be felt by our grandchildren.
Temperature rises are affecting crops, changing the rainforests, and putting massive amounts of extra energy into the world’s weather systems. Rising temperatures are pushing malaria into parts of Africa that have never had the disease.
The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has made the oceans more acidic, so much so that we can actually observe the shells of tiny snails being dissolved by the water, threatening the entire marine food chain.
While the BBC has been consistently covering all of this, and investing heavily in specialist correspondents, climate change doesn’t always get the attention it deserves.
One reason for this is the way daily news programmes tend to work. We’re very good at covering the events of the day. The problem, which all editors and news organisations face, is that some of the most important things happening in the world aren’t always events.
They’re often a process, a trend, a gradual change. They don’t always compete well against daily news events that feel more urgent – explosions, elections, Presidential tweets.
So to make sure climate change doesn’t get crowded out, we’re committing ourselves and our programmes to covering it at least once week.
However, we’re not intending to give you a weekly update on Doomsday.
Mitigating climate change, and adapting to the consequences of what we’ve already done to the atmosphere, is driving huge changes in technology, business, and increasingly, politics.
Our first edition will come from Norway, a country that’s grown rich on fossil fuels, but now hoping to become Europe’s renewable energy “battery.”
We’ve also signed up some climate change diarists from around the world: people on the front line of a changing planet who will keep us posted on what they see around them, from the polar ice caps, to the Amazon, to the Pacific islands, via the Scottish Highlands.
Rest assured – we’ll still cover the daily news. It’s just that if climate change leaves Europe’s ports underwater, Brexit may seem a bit less important.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/653495fc-7cbb-474c-b51f-bb0ba19b3905
The whole tone of the statement gives away the sloppy, lazy and uninformed bias with which the BBC treats climate issues. Just take this single paragraph, which contains four falsehoods:
Temperature rises are affecting crops, changing the rainforests, and putting massive amounts of extra energy into the world’s weather systems. Rising temperatures are pushing malaria into parts of Africa that have never had the disease.
No mention of the fact that crop yields have been rising rapidly for decades. Or that all of this supposed “extra energy” has had no discernible effect on storms or any other type of weather. Or that, far from wiping out rainforests, extra CO2 has greened the planet. Or that the claims about malaria have been debunked by disease experts.
I doubt whether the new weekly slot will actually involve scientists in any of these areas, who might dare to challenge the BBC’s religious approach to the subject.
As for these “people on the front line of a changing planet”, the idea that climate is changing so fast as to be observed on a weekly basis is patently absurd. Much like the whole idea of the BBC’s weekly climate slot is.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
There you go staring into that cesspit again Paul.
What do you see, anything different? Surprised?
Why don’t you stop lifting the lid? I have one in my garden, I don’t look cos I know what’s in it.
If you’re so upset with the misappropriation of your money stop giving it to them.
I took my TV’s to the dump, no-one in the house even noticed for over a week. This was my solution to the BBC. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who still think that if it’s a ‘serious’ programme it must be true. Paul isn’t doing this for himself, obviously he is attempting the impossible but at least he tries to educate the herd.
Rather than an alcohol free October, why not try a BBC free October? Only 5 days in and I’m feeling much better.
Maybe sanity is only a channel away …
Another false claim… “The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has made the oceans more acidic, so much so that we can actually observe the shells of tiny snails being dissolved by the water, threatening the entire marine food chain.”
In the late Eocene, ~34 Myr-ago, atmospheric CO2 was more than double what it is today. The pH of the oceans was much lower than today’s. The carbonate-secreting plankton were thriving. Their “tiny” shells were the source of the geochemical data. The oceans have never been “acidic”; the alkalinity has been lower. But, of course, “acidic” sounds more scary.
Check to see if UK streams have hard shelled life in them.
Then check the pH.
This could prove to be a positive development since there are at least half-a-dozen statements in this morass of fact-free garbage which are scientifically inaccurate and provably so.
It will take a bit of effort but it should be relatively simple to force a retraction from the BBC each time the relevant segment of the programme makes a scientifically incorrect statement about the climate. Those who choose to live by the science can perish by the science.
You could start with this one: “The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has made the oceans more acidic, so much so that we can actually observe the shells of tiny snails being dissolved by the water, threatening the entire marine food chain.”
That observation was a shameful demo which clearly involved something other than sea water, which isn’t by any stretch of the imagination acidic.
Just sloppy biased brain-dead rhetoric, confusing crazy discredited lab experiments with real life.
Much as I admire you optimism, I think you are possibly being unrealistic,
The BBC are very reluctant to ever admit they are wrong.
Especially since they do not accept any form of “climate change” denial.
Do remember that now if a programme gets 100 or more complaints they have to investigate and publish the outcome. Other channels such as ITV already do this and more. True that they will no doubt find everything OK, but they will find having to keep launching investigations a bit embarrassing, even for them.
It is difficult to see how the BBC can increase its coverage of “climate change”. It appears in almost all programmes; it is regularly in the news, in documentaries, in political programmes, in debates, in Countryfile, in Farming Today, in all “science programmes” and on and on. Despite all the BBC propaganda, most people don’t believe the BBC, because “is that true or did you hear it on the BBC?”
In case they run out of climate alarm ideas, please forward
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/06/15/history-of-the-global-warming-scare-chapter-6-2005-2010/
On your link, they missed out the 1980’s ‘hole in ozone caused by us’.
Mike Jackson is so right. The only way the beeb and its editor-level management will change their ways is to be dragged into retractions – that approach, at least, scares them.
Having written to several journalists who cover this nonsense, a reply will not be forthcoming if you are the least bit skeptical. Facts are not to be used. Nor are questions about them. Remember, “the science is settled”.
However, we’re not intending to give you a weekly update on Doomsday. Not much.
Could be the best comedy since Dad’s Army – “We’re all doomed.”
The end is nigh.
So pull your pants up !!!
So what happens if I dont renew my TV Tax in protest what is the usual coarse of action that I will get hit with ?
Well you disconnect your aerial, subscribe to Netflix and watch entertainment. Amazon prime too if you wish although that’s marginal. Still cheaper than paying for the BBC.
All you cannot do is, watch live TV via any delivery method, or watch the odious propaganda delivered on iPlayer.
You’ll ‘get hit’ with some extra spending money and good TV and a really good feeling that you’re not giving the b.stard’s any of your loot, it simply isn’t anything to you do with you any more. It’s surprisingly easy to wean yourself.
The BBC pension fund has stakes in Amazon and Netflix. Also in Google and Facebook.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/25/bbc-pension-fund-has-stakes-in-amazon-netflix-and-facebook
“…stakes in…”
Just the usual left-wing incest.
Apropos of ‘Google,’ a recent investigation showed that when you put ‘Trump’ into their evil system, out of the top 100 stories/links that come up, 94 are from avowedly left-wing media outlets.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the prissy little Canadian twit, Trudeau, has just had to bow to the reality that is Trump saying “In trade, it is Our Way or No Way!”
Yesterday’s Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll has Trump at 51% approval among ‘likely American voters.’ He is tacking against the wind but getting there.
So is that all live TV or just BBC channels ?
Throw out the TV, I have no regrets.
Extreme environmentalists like to be scared all the time. The BBC is run by extreme environmentalists. Therapy is the only cure.
The BBC wastes more of your money on ‘Climate Change’ propaganda.
The BBC is “Climist” similar to “Racist” – different context.
That ‘if’ is the laziest of lazy editing that any professional can admit to and should be hung round the neck of any aspiring editor like an albatross. It is, in no way, objective and merely panders to the those the BBC wish to keep in ignorance – which is counter to the best of Reith’s belief that the corporation should ‘educate’ and ‘inform’.
In any case, if Rotterdam – in a country that is famed for supporting land that is already below sea level – is likely to sink, I shall not weep. But then, I shall be long gone if and when it ever happens. The BBC, however, make it sound like it will be next year. For that, I cannot forgive them. Goebbels would be most proud – but then, many at the BBC would have lionised the man.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp
The Weather Channel tried this. NBC both the cable channel in 2008 for $3.5 billion. As time went on, more and more climate programming was added to the line up. Last May, the Weather Channel was sold to Byron Allen Entertainment studios for an undisclosed sum but estimates are that the deal was value at $300 million.
Should say “NBC bought the cable channel”
I am so glad that I threw my TV away years ago. I certainly haven’t missed it.
I understand there will be an underwater program, this will cover the sunken Maldives (as forecast 30 years ago), it is expected that the residents will have no trouble talking to frogmen in breathing msks. pffffft
We should not be surprised not one iota.
The amoebas and jelly spined loons running the beeb have dropped the facade, prejudice is, always was, their motto and in all things to do with promoting international Socialism, why would they not, it is after all what they are and crimson red to their very core.
Advertising is what the bbc do, now, advocating the great green climate swindle comes naturally to liars, Marxists and charlatanry married, dissembling and deceit: is their impulsion, their raison d’etre and essence.
As the nations of western Brussels bloc of Europe descend into a dystopian chaos, France, Sweden and the UK well down, on the slide and hurtling to the abyss and financial chaos. Economic calamity beckons, more particularly pertinent to Britain and bankruptcy hastened inexorably by a puritanically and suicidal drive to waste, to spend £billions in fervid effort to switch the bloody lights out, metaphorically and actually.
A pause if you will, one wonders at, and it causes one to speculate.
Sure it is that, bbc droids, whom are, cosseted in their salaried bubble cocoon, advocating the great green scam is, would seem a natural progression to them, because they deem that, unaffected they will be. Kidding themselves, it’s all theory innit – really.
Suddenly auntie is, thus emboldened to drop the veil and go full on climastrologist, the full chicken little doom mongering? Indeed, what I beg is, the beeboids haven’t a clue, collectively they’re just a bunch of ideologically driven drones, therefore the question is, who filled their minds provided the impetus and told them to go full alarmist-climate mental?
Who brought the green jelly zombies back to life as full saps? And why now, what is it that they fear so much………the corporate blob panicking the investment banksters screaming, the insurance ghouls seeing their climate baby going down the plug hole and ‘the Donald’ keeps on stuffing the myth up the backsides of this lot.
Sixth assessment report, bbc skirmishers on point, the hand of the EU and UN and UK government handlers in the Gulf, whatever there is something we’re not being told about all the little people must do is – cough, cough, cough up and again and again.
Transnational agreements are the very bane of democracy, and that very idea, demos and kratos, fills the beeboids with an existential dread.
The great green scam is just the transport to something much, much more nihilistic, Stygian dark and very totalitarian. Observe, there’s nothing more al beeb like better, than a left wing dictator telling the beeb drones what to do, Indeed, supra national dictators, all the better, agenda 21, 2030 whatever, that’s what the beeb wants for us, and because: that’s what the beeb are told to get on with promoting, all hands on deck.
Rantastic! Well said. I just want to live to see the whole, pathetic load of scumbags get their gonads removed.
Judge. Brett Kavanaugh’s elevation onto the panel of the SCOTUS will be part of the process, some vital cogs are now in place.
A middle-aged woman from Canada recently informed me that she was angry at Trump, because he was going to ‘overturn Roe v Wade.’ I forebore from telling her her that it was none of her business if the 48% of the USA’s population who identify as ‘Pro-Life’ want their voices to be heard.
I do not think she knew that ‘Roe v Wade’ only deals with the issue of whether abortion is subject to regulation under State law. She certainly did not know that several States, including California, have already passed laws which will continue abortions on demand whatever the Supreme Court does.
The Left everywhere is frothing at the mouth as Democracy makes a comeback. They are overplaying their hand.
We need to dramatically change how to think about our energy future. The benefits of fossil fuels in terms of human flourishing need to be weighed carefully against the environmental impacts of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are directly responsible for our present high standard of living. Where there is access to cheap reliable plentiful energy from fossil fuels we see life expectancy increasing by more than 40%, an eradication of starvation and malnutrition, and people are no longer living in the grinding poverty present in most of human history. Therefore it is anti-human and immoral to restrict access to fossil fuels by means of carbon taxes or other punitive carbon policies.
A summary of the best available climate science is as follows: The historical and geological record suggests recent changes in the climate over the past century are within the bounds of natural variability. Human influences on the climate (largely the accumulation of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion) are a physically small (1%) effect on a complex, chaotic, multicomponent and multiscale system. Unfortunately, the data and our understanding are insufficient to usefully quantify the climate’s response to human influences. However, even as human influences have quadrupled since 1950, severe weather phenomena and sea level rise show no significant trends attributable to them. Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose. As a result, rising levels of CO2 do not obviously pose an immediate, let alone imminent, threat to the earth’s climate.
Fossil fuels drive economic growth and jobs. Fossil fuels provide more than 80% of the world’s energy demand and will continue to do so into 2050. Renewable energy can only provide a small percentage of world energy. Proposals under the Paris Agreement to drastically reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions would devastate Canada’s economy. Reducing GHG emissions to 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050 implies that living standards would be reduced to that of the 1800’s.
Bravo, Ken!
Aren’t the UK mines full of nuclear waste now?
Why on earth people even give a minute of their time to the BBC is beyond me and others.
Their bias over not only this, but other subjects is beginning to become more and more apparent.
Turn them off!
One day the BBC will realise that by taking the line of the Green movement across the world they have contributed massively to unfounded scaremongering that has cost economies and lives heavily. For example, we have just learned that UK car sales are down a massive 10 per cent. this year, This is due primarily to the new and unfounded scare that diesel fumes are injurious to our health, even though we have been living in a diesel fumed world for the past 75 years without any effect on our lives, and ignores the fact that we are all living longer anyway. This has lead to a huge downturn in the purchase of diesel cars, amongst other things.
It is difficult to understand why the BBC should take, or be allowed to take such a one sided view on so called climate change when they are required to give balanced reporting according to their constitution. It must be a fanatical ‘Green’ at the head of their GW policy making. Greens never did see a balanced argument to their outpourings on life. Do we know who he/she is? It is always better to write a personal letter to an individual rather than just address letters to the ‘BBC’. Personal letters have to be replied to.
The BBC, like all the Progressive media, never take responsibility. Look at Venezuela. For decades now the BBC has been pumping out the Leftist view on things like aid, without any care as to whether the opposition to capitalism, trade and markets kills people.
They are literally shameless.
The simple and undeniable truth is that most places at most times are no warmer than the long term average, give or take the natural variation in that average. The global average anomaly for September was around one quarter of a degree. Nobody on the “front line” us experiencing anything out of the ordinary in any way whatsoever.
The BBC like so many Alarmists, doesn’t actually understand what it`s alarmed about.
Foolish move by the BBC which will have unintended consequences for its climate propaganda. Why? Because they’re going to provide endless opportunities for the likes of Paul to cross-examine, and make no mistake there’ll be errors everywhere.
The law of averages dictates that the higher the number of examples offered the higher the number of wrong calls.
Let them cut their own throats. ‘Never interrupt your enemy….’ springs to mind.
If the BBC had to earn its income from being right about things it would now be broke.
gosh……………….
that was quick……
Last night on a late long drive I listened to BBC World Service – specifically this piece on hurricanes and this piece on Arctic ice.
I could say I wasn’t impressed – but that wouldn’t come close – both programs featured soothsaying about the future (and misrepresentations of the past and present) based on the BBC’s choice of climate models – but treated predictions as fact – replete with scary assertions from a hand picked crew of experts and a truly irritating level of smugness.
Pumped out to purportedly nearly 400 million people a week – authoritative, unbiased honest journalism eh?.
The global audience was also repeatedly regaled with “the death of the personal car” – with the inference – I thought – that they were settings themselves up as the arbiters of who actually gets to use a car … which wasn’t lost on me as I navigated central London traffic and the M4.
On the Today programme on R4 this morning, John Humphrys did a good imitation of a climate change sceptic, playing devil’s advocate in interviews.
The trouble was he clearly didn’t know what he was talking about, for example. using the term “1.5 percent” at least 3 times, instead of 1.5 degrees, even though he was corrected the first time.
More effective tactics needed. Fooling ourselves by venting in echo-chambers; there is a need to embarrass the journos and their interviewees outside the cosy comfort zone of the bbc and its walls of silence. Twitter probably useful, as it seems an effective medium to upset the upsettable quite well. Unqualified commentators like Baroness Worthless should be worth a Tweet.