Skip to content

BBC censorship and the man-made global warming scam

October 9, 2018

By Paul Homewood



A brilliantly incisive article from Melanie Phillips:

BBC censorship and the man-made global warming scam

It’s only fair to share…

This evening, an important lectureis being delivered in London on the subject of man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

If you follow BBC news programmes, you are extremely unlikely to hear anything about this important lecture.

That is because the scientist delivering it is saying that man-made global warming theory is a scam.

BBC policy is to report no challenge to AGW theory at all. The explicit statement of this policy was set out in a four-page memo by Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s Director of News and Current Affairs, which was leaked to Carbon Brieflast month.

This memo maintained that man-made climate change “exists” and no-one proposing the contrary view – offensively termed a “denier” – was needed to balance the debate. “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.”

In true Soviet fashion, the BBC will now indoctrinate its journalists into misreporting the issue. It will be “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”.

In itself, this is absolutely astounding. In the BBC’s mindset, propaganda is fact and scientific facts are propaganda. Censoring information like this goes against the most fundamental BBC rules of fairness. It goes against the most fundamental rules of journalistic objectivity. And it goes against science itself. The widespread claim that “the science is settled” on AGW is scientifically illiterate. Science is never settled but is always subject to fresh discovery, analysis and challenge.

The BBC subscribes to the claim that some 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree man-made global warming is an established fact, and that it is “denied” by only a few cranks or propagandists on the fringes of academic respectability. This is also totally untrue. I refer to many such sceptical scientists in my 2010 book The World Turned Upside Down: the Global Battle over God, Truth and Power. These include some of the most distinguished in their field who were used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as expert reviewers of the evidence – but resigned when they realised that the IPCC, a political/ideological rather than scientific body, was grossly misrepresenting their research to support an AGW thesis that didn’t stack up.

The man delivering tonight’s lecture is one of the most eminent climate scientists in the world. He is Richard Lindzen, who until his retirement in 2013 was Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences. He has consistently drawn attention to the fact that AGW theory is a sham and a scam.

In tonight’s lecture, he ridicules the core premises of AGW theory that the climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarised in just one variable – the globally averaged temperature change – and that it is primarily controlled by the 1-2 per cent perturbation in the single variable of carbon dioxide. This, he says, is “an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking.”

That’s because it is dictated not by science but by politics and ideology. “A few years ago Christiana Figueres, then executive secretary of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that mankind was, for the first time in history, setting itself the task of intentionally changing the economic system”.

On the evidence itself, Prof Lindzen simply shreds AGW “magical thinking” as not just irredeemably stupid but as not even saying what its hysterical exponents in the media and elsewhere say it says.

“Turning to the issue of temperature extremes, is there any data to even support concern? As to these extremes, the data shows no trend and the IPCC agrees.

“… At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming.

“This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use. Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem”.

That hasn’t stopped nonsensical hypotheses being fed into computers – whose modelling function is in any event wholly inadequate to deal with the extreme complexities of climate even if accurate data were being fed into them.

The whole thing is absurd beyond belief. Yet that hasn’t stopped the shameless production of ever more ludicrous inconsistencies, contradictions and lacunae. Today the IPCC has issued yet another prediction of climate apocalypse, giving us 12 years to limit the catastrophe of climate change.


In 2006 Al Gore said the planet had 10 years to avert climate change apocalypse. in 2007, seven years after that supposed tipping point had come and gone, Rajendra Pachauri, then the IPPC chief, declared: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

Do clickhere to marvel at the way the tipping point for the apocalypse has itself been tipping throughout the years.

The original IPCC report predicted that a 2℃ increase in global warming would produce planetary catastrophe. In today’s report, the IPCC claims that even half a degree of extra warming will “affect hundreds of millions of people, decimate corals and intensify heat extremes”.

Limiting global warming to 1.5℃, as it recommends, would require “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” – ie, reducing carbon emissions to zero and thus plunging the world back into the pre-industrial dark ages.

And yet: global temperatures have been falling sharply since 2016 while the 21st century warming trend is half of what most climate models predicted;
Arctic sea ice is no longer decreasing but expanding and thickening;
Polar bears are not dying out but their numbers are stable or even expanding.

And so on.

As Prof Lindzen says: “Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence… An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization”.

The man-made global warming scam is the defining motif of the west’s own cultural death warrant. And that’s because it is the signature issue illustrating the western world’s repudiation of modernity, science and reason itself.

It’s only fair to share…

  1. Derrick Byford permalink
    October 9, 2018 10:06 pm

    And of course the BBC will not even mention that there is major uncertainty even among the climate community.

  2. Phillip Bratby permalink
    October 9, 2018 10:16 pm

    It’s good to hear others who call it a scam.

  3. Phillip Bratby permalink
    October 9, 2018 10:16 pm

    It’s good to hear others call it a scam.

    • Mack permalink
      October 9, 2018 10:30 pm

      Your statement sounds even better in stereo Phillip!

      • HotScot permalink
        October 9, 2018 11:00 pm


        At least we know he’s not a duck. 🙂

      • Gerry, England permalink
        October 10, 2018 1:41 pm

        Quacks do echo, you just can’t hear it. Source: Mythbusters

  4. October 9, 2018 10:21 pm

    Paul,NOTALOT longer comes to me,perhaps because I had a Word Press problem.I have ticked the notify box below,so I will check tomorrow,and hopefully normal service will have been restored.
    Hope that you had a good holiday.

  5. Ian permalink
    October 9, 2018 10:21 pm

    I see from the Independent that the BBC is under fire for allowing A “denier” air time today. Turns out it was Myron Ebell. I suggest this may have been deliberate. If they wanted a proper rebuttal, why not ask somebody like John Spencer or Robert Pielke Jr?

    • alexei permalink
      October 9, 2018 11:14 pm

      like John Spencer? Don’t you mean Roy Spencer?

      • Ian permalink
        October 9, 2018 11:22 pm

        Yes! Thanks, it’s getting late. I should also have suggested Prof Lindzen.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 10, 2018 1:42 pm

      I think that is a bit unfair to Myron Ebell. He gave a very good account of himself at a GWPF briefing when some leftie journo asked a question.

    • October 10, 2018 3:42 pm

      The BBC should be under fire for allowing its guests to say that hurricanes are getting worse, all hell would break loose if anyone said the opposite.

    • dennisambler permalink
      October 12, 2018 4:56 pm

      Pielke Jnr I am afraid, is a little flaky, although he has produced some good stuff on weather damage related to population and urban coastal expansion. He has concurred that hurricanes are not an increasing trend. He believes in AGW but not CAGW. In a speech this year in Japan, he referred to James Inhofe as the Republicans chief global warming denier. He also said that we need to go from 14% non-carbon sources to 90% within the century

  6. Alasdair permalink
    October 9, 2018 10:49 pm

    Fran Unsworth who wrote the BBC memo on climate change reporting policy has no qualifactions at all on scientific matters. It is incredible that she should have been given the job on pronouncing on these matters. Her Memo proves her incompetence.

    The BBC should immediately withdraw it and enlist the services of an independent scientific body to produce a properly written document outlining the basic scientific principles to be used in the reporting and dissemination of Climate Change issues.

    • HotScot permalink
      October 9, 2018 11:00 pm


      The problem is, the ‘independent’ body would be specially hand picked by the BBC.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        October 10, 2018 1:47 pm

        With all their pension funds in green crap and Tesla they are not going to do that.

  7. HotScot permalink
    October 9, 2018 10:58 pm

    Melanie has been amongst my preferred reading list for some time now. My understanding was that she was a socialist until she saw the error of her ways and now embraces Capitalism.

    I have learned more about the middle eastern conflict in recent years from Melanie than I ever did from the MSM. She is a highly intelligent, principled journalist who isn’t scared to confront authority with well researched, well considered facts.

    It was Melanie who alerted me to the disgusting labour party conference display of members waving party distributed Palestinian flags after a speech on the middle east.

    I don’t care what individual delegates think about Israel and Palestine, but the labour party has no right to take sides in a dispute that is none of their concern. No wonder these ignorant, thoughtless socialists suffered the ire of the UK’s Jewish population.

    And once again, Melanie turns the spotlight on the BBC and their reprehensible behaviour.

    I hope you read this Melanie, just so you know I’m grateful for your integrity.

    • bobn permalink
      October 10, 2018 2:01 am

      Melanie can often be good except on Israel, where she is blind to the atrocities perpetrated by that State. Alas there is a whole swath of the media that confers sainthood on the belligerance of israel. Israeli aggression good, arab aggression bad is the Brit press view. Personally i think all their aggression is bad. Israel bombs syria and Lebanon illegally at will. Lebanon and syria do not bomb Israel. Why wont israel get back in its box? Oh, because USA and UK and the West give it carte blance to spread bombs and terror at will. Alas Melanie, stupidly, thinks Israel is sanctified. Israel is belligerant and aggressive and is a disgrace to Judaism.

  8. Jonathan Bensted permalink
    October 10, 2018 5:58 am

    Interesting to note that Lindzen appears to be discredited by the majority of his own department and colleagues at MIT.. (?)

    In respect of Lindzen’s letter to Trump that AGW is a scam; “As [Lindzen’s] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science,” said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

    The plot thickens..!

    • dave permalink
      October 10, 2018 7:04 am

      MIT. One by one, every formerly respectable institution fouls its pants.

  9. Phoenix44 permalink
    October 10, 2018 8:45 am

    Once again the BBC eludes from one position to a different position without acknowledging the change. Nobody really claims the climate us not changing – yes, it’s 2-0. What is in dispute is why. The Manchester United example is ironic in that the BBC pay Linekar and others millions to do what they say they should not do – discuss why it was 2-0, with different views and opinions.

    This is once again a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 10, 2018 2:00 pm

      Of course a referee is never wrong. VAR anyone?

  10. CradleyJohn permalink
    October 10, 2018 9:28 am

    A copy of Prof. Lindzen’s paper should be sent to each and every one of our MPs.

  11. Ian Miller permalink
    October 10, 2018 9:44 am

    I for one, – certainly can’t believe this Climate Change propaganda !
    The North Pole we were assured would be ice-free by 2013, – How come we still have the same ice volume in the Arctic as in year 2012.
    Islands in the southern hemisphere allegedly being covered by alleged sea level want our ‘Paris’ money only because they are sinking (while others are actually rising) .
    Events on the ground ARE NOT stacking up according to the environmentalist activists’ models.
    Corals we are told will disappear? When world temperatures were much higher than today’s, corals still existed. How come ?
    CO2 has not been proved to be the Cause of alleged Global Warming, – as from core samples taken, temperatures have shown historically to rise BEFORE atmospheric CO2 increases, and not AFTER CO2 increases, – CO2 cannot therefore be a CAUSE !!
    At CO2’s .04% concentration in the atmosphere, how can such a trace gas whose actual molecules would be hard to find, – possibly be a greenhouse gas to the extent of dangerously raising temperatures?
    Why is CO2 considered a ‘pollutant’ by governments when it is essential for plant life?
    How do we know 1.5, 2.0 or even 3.0 degrees are so critical. Who can so exactly know this ?
    Extreme weather events are reported to be not increasing by the IPCC, yet contrastingly it is reported publicly that they are…..Lies are reported to ‘up-the-anti’ by activists blatantly prepared to lie.
    Results are inconclusive and the so called IMPARTIAL BBC terrified of dissent from their accepted view will not permit ANY robust argument to challenge their propaganda.
    We need intelligent persuasion, and yet this is sadly absent. So we legitimately ask: What is the televised media HIDING ??

  12. Vernon E permalink
    October 10, 2018 11:17 am

    bobn – methinks you show some bias. There are rockets fired into Israel frequently. I don’t take sides in this but would observe that we in the west would be a lot less safe if Israel wasn’t covering our backs in the middle east.

  13. Stonyground permalink
    October 10, 2018 12:26 pm

    Don’t forget this part.

    “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.”

    The match referred to took place on Sunday, so the outright denier in that case would be correct. Rather symbolic I thought.

  14. frederik wisse permalink
    October 10, 2018 1:24 pm

    Here in Holland nowadays the situation is worsening . Not even the public broadcasting system is propagating the AGW-sacre nowadays stalinist judges are pushing a free-us-of-carbon-agenda on the population based upon EU-laws that were never introduced through a democratic proces .It is disgraceful that a leftist agitator in a black robe should decide what is good for the people and not the people themselves as it is common in a democracy .
    Only this case is proving the righteousness of Brexit and more future eu-EXITS !

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 10, 2018 1:59 pm

      I fear our government morons are making such a mess of Brexit nobody else will try. It will be a great missed opportunity to separate the political EU project from the Single Market for trade.

  15. October 10, 2018 1:29 pm

    An attempt by absolute authoritarians to rule thought and the world. Tyranny at its worst.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      October 10, 2018 2:04 pm

      Agendas 21 & 2030 & Sustainability in a nutshell.
      Currently Globalism rules and only President Trump stands in their way.

  16. October 10, 2018 3:46 pm

    When I was at University I always wondered what the Arts students got up to in the afternoons. Us scientists always had practicals to carry out whereas the Arts bods always vanished; allegedly to the library! Now I know what was going on; they were having all the analytical bits of their cerebral cortices excised so they could go through life making crass comparisons!! Perhaps a Drama student from Manchester University thinks a Man United football score is an entirely valid comparison to climate science; after all they are obviously equally complex!! It would be laughable if said Drama student wasn’t laying down the law for BBC journalism. “Be very, very afraid”

  17. October 12, 2018 3:59 am

    Reblogged this on Science is distorted by progressive philosophy.

  18. quaesoveritas permalink
    October 13, 2018 11:55 am

    Discussion on this week’s “Newswatch” about how much air time should be given to “climate change sceptics” on the BBC.

  19. October 16, 2018 12:51 pm

    “It’s like questioning if Manchester United won a football game”
    Climate change future projections, is hardly the same as past facts.
    Says a lot about BBC
    “If Manchester United will win a future game”
    which may perhaps be likely, but not certain, and not by how much!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: