Skip to content

BBC’s Fake Climate Claims Becoming A Habit

March 15, 2019

By Paul Homewood


They say once is an accident, twice is a conspiracy. I wonder what eight times is?



18 - Copy

18 - Copy

As I revealed yesterday, the BBC has formally upheld my complaint about their African penguin story. I am pleased to see then that The Times has now picked it up.


This complaint is now the eighth climate-related one I have been involved with which has been upheld against the BBC in the last two years. There may of course be others that I am not aware of.

  • In March 2017, World at One made the ridiculous claim that sea levels at Miami were rising at ten times the global mean.

The BBC were subsequently forced to admit that sea levels there showed “little divergence from the global mean”



  • Then in October 2017, the BBC broadcast an episode of “Russia with Simon Reeve”, which linked the deaths of “tens of thousands of reindeer” to climate change.

After a complaint was submitted, the BBC accepted that reindeer populations were in fact stable or increasing.

Written by Chris Fawkes, the BBC meteorologist, it categorically stated  that “A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5”

The actual data shows this is simply not true, as the IPCC themselves have made perfectly clear.

Eventually, the BBC printed a correction that their claim was based on “modelling and not historical data”


Harrabin claimed that investment in clean energy had slumped following a fusillade of policy changes, including a ban on new onshore wind farms.

There has been no such ban, only the removal of subsidies.

The BBC Executive Complaints Unit accepted that the article was materially misleading, and that there had been a serious lapse of editorial standards.




  • In June 2018, John Humphrys interviewed Lord Deben, allowing him to get away with wildly inaccurate claims about wind power unchallenged. In particular, Deben stated that “even where a community wants to have an onshore wind farm, it can’t have it.”

In fact there is no such ban, and the Government has actually devolved the decision to approve onshore wind turbines to local councils.

As a result, the BBC Executive Complaints Unit found that Deben should have been challenged on this point to ensure listeners were not left with a materially misleading impression.



  • December 2018 saw an episode of the BBC Weather World programme, which was little more than a free puff for onshore wind farms.

At one stage, the presenter casually commented that “Already about 30% of the UK’s power is produced by wind energy”. The actual figure is 15%.

Following a complaint, the BBC accepted their claim was wrong, and have now withdrawn that segment of the programme from their website.



Central to the IPPR’s case was this statement:

Since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold. “ [“Since 2005”, was subsequently amended to “since 1950”.]

Harrabin made absolutely no attempt to challenge or query this statement, or some of the other contentious claims in the IPPR report, despite the fact that it was patently absurd.  Instead his article was effectively just a cheerleading exercise.

The IPPR claim is in reality a totally fake one, as they misinterpreted the International Disasters Database used for their analysis. As the organisation which maintains the database makes totally clear, many disasters occurred in past decades but were never officially recorded in the database, purely because of better methods of reporting nowadays.

After considerable controversy, the IPPR made substantial changes to that section of their report, accepting that the original claims were false. The BBC then withdrew the fake claims and issued a correction.



Introducing a video report from South Africa, the presenter baldly stated that:

The next report is about the African penguin population and how it’s rapidly declining. Conservationists are saying their habitat is being hit by rising tides caused by climate change.

And it’s interesting that since that report by the UN last week on climate change, so many different organisations have been coming forward to emphasise the importance it has on their work.

Amazingly the video which followed made no mention of climate change or rising tides at all. Zilch! Nada! Instead, the local ranger, who was interviewed, categorically blamed the decline on overfishing.

This is actually very well understood by experts, such as those from the Organization for the Conservation of Penguins.

Despite the efforts of the BBC to fob off my complaint, the Executive Complaints Unit agreed that there was no evidence for the presenter’s claim and criticised their journalists’ failure to check claims.

I have no doubt that these eight cases relating to climate change are just the tip of the iceberg. Many other such fake reports are broadcast and go unnoticed.

It is also true that the BBC regularly try to fob off complainants with spurious replies, leading many to simply give in. This is even the case when their inaccurate claims are obvious, easily proven and factual.

Indeed, one of the things which continue to astound me is how the BBC continues to broadcast so many claims about climate change which are so utterly preposterous that even my dog would find them suspicious. Are their reporters and presenters so absorbed by global groupthink that they believe every bit of tripe and junk science put before them?

Are they more interested in propaganda than facts?

Are they just lazy?

Or are they simply following orders from higher up?

Unfortunately it is a fact that the BBC’s coverage of climate change has been unreliable for many years, and has long since abandoned any pretence of impartiality. It has got so bad that Fran Unsworth, the BBC’s director of news and current affairs, sent out a missive to all of her staff last year, which itself was full of factual errors, directing staff how they should report climate change and how they should marginalise sceptical scientists.

As a result of this one sided, blinkered approach to climate issues, the BBC frequently finds itself accused of misinformation, lack of objectivity and promulgating downright falsehoods.

But no matter how many times they have complaints upheld against them, one problem remains. The original fake news has gone around the world and back before the real truth emerges. By this time, nobody actually gets to see the “corrections” hidden away in the online news reports originally published months before.

Something has to change.


  1. March 15, 2019 10:18 pm

    That’s good to hear that the Times has picked it up

    • Gas Geezer permalink
      March 15, 2019 11:03 pm

      Yes,Sunday Telegraph,Speccie and now Times an encouraging ensemble of more main stream exposure to some of the stuff in here recently.

  2. Joe Public permalink
    March 15, 2019 10:24 pm

    At least it can be stated with confidence:

    “Climate change has led to a rise in the number of the BBC’s erroneous reports”

  3. Jackington permalink
    March 15, 2019 10:50 pm

    Bob Ward will be spitting blood to see it in MSM

  4. Roy permalink
    March 15, 2019 10:53 pm

    Good work, Paul. I put a complaint in at least once a month and currently have one that’s gone up to the next level regarding Jeremy Vines interview with that bunch of eco twits (whose name escapes me at the moment) after the Gatwick drone fiasco

    • Athelstan. permalink
      March 15, 2019 10:57 pm

      It was BLM – black lives matter – for some inane reason.

  5. HotScot permalink
    March 15, 2019 10:55 pm

    Following the tragic shooting today/yesterday of peaceful worshippers in a Mosque, the NZ PM attributed it to ‘right wing’ extremists. I have issues with that appalling comparison, not least is the some of the dead may themselves have been politically right wing.

    However, Radio 2 today repeated that appalling statement ad nauseam on every news bulletin without bothering to examine the website of the lunatic, murdering organiser who, from the excerpts I have seen, clearly indicate he’s an extreme left wing, anti Capitalist, eco-loon, fascist thug. Albeit his confused ramblings are all over the place.

    When I was exasperated enough, I switched over to Radio 4 where I was met with a psychologist dissecting the the subject of climate denialism in light of the student protesters. It seems, according to this guys’extensive’ research that we have an underlying childhood problem we either don’t recognise, we recognise it and bury it in our psyche, or we recognise it and simply refuse to admit it. I am of course paraphrasing as the options were to long and obtuse to remember far less commit here.

    Evidently we just don’t understand the science of climate change. We don’t dig deep enough into the subject to appreciate the threat it represents, according to a psychologist with expertise in denial, who hasn’t bothered to look any further than the BBC for his climate change science.

    Between those and Brexit, I have had a very bad day! Thank you BBC.

    • Gas Geezer permalink
      March 15, 2019 11:48 pm

      Waking up to the Today programme R4, either today or yesterday, author being interviewed on climate paper predicting 10 degree celsius rise in the near future in some arctic region, I’ve forgotten where .This prediction was of course taken as indisputable fact as per BBC guidelines,shades of grey being verboten, no scrutiny allowed. Childish format , pure propaganda ,John Cravens news round was better.

      • bobn permalink
        March 16, 2019 1:55 am

        I listened to the Today programme for many years but as it morphed in recent years to a leftie polemical propaganda show I stopped. I now play classical music in the mornings and havent heard the Today show for over 2 years. I no longer use the BBC for news since they only do propaganda. Turning off the BBC is good for stress levels. Break it up and Privatise it!

      • March 20, 2019 12:26 pm

        Try JHB on TalkRadioUK
        Then Farage is on LBC at 6pm

      • dave permalink
        March 16, 2019 8:07 am

        We have not heard much “crazy, red-‘hot Arctic” talk this year. That is possibly because … :

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        March 16, 2019 11:19 am

        I guess you missed this one:

        I checked the ice extent chart at DMI when I read that to see the highest level of sea ice in the arctic for quite some years. I think I’d call that climate denial.

      • dave permalink
        March 16, 2019 2:46 pm


        In the same way as I “miss” the doggy stuff our council allows to lie on the pavement.

        In 1970, there was excitement in Canada because of “forecasts by experts” that the Arctic would rise in temperature by 20 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2000 (nothing mealy-mouthed about that prediction! And nothing right about it either).

        What I remember most is that this was then regarded as an optimistic view – changing a million square miles of worthless Canadian land into an asset.
        The present weenies in Canada would panic at the thought of real change.

    • bobn permalink
      March 16, 2019 2:11 am

      Yes. Being a fanatical racist is not a badge of left or right which are economic and liberty viewpoints. (Govt domination of the individual is left, and Individual freedom from domination by Govt is right wing). Many Socialists have been fanatical racists as of course were beloved leftwing communists Stalin and Pol Pot.

      • Gas Geezer permalink
        March 16, 2019 9:11 am

        Thanks bobn, that’s a great way of explaining it , Last Exit To Utopia by Jean-Francois Revel is a brilliant book on this subject .

      • March 18, 2019 11:04 am

        You and I and anyone capable of rubbing two or more brain cells together knows this B.

        However that is neither here nor their for our political overlords (and the liberal fascists who fantasise about power) as they have been deliberately painting ANYONE who dares challenge their religion of liberalism as right wing race haters.

    • Adrian permalink
      March 16, 2019 7:16 am

      Do you have a link to, or the material in, the shooter website pls?

      I’m not doubting your claim, would like to read it myself.

      • HotScot permalink
        March 16, 2019 11:03 am

        I make no claims as to it’s credentials.

        View at

      • bobn permalink
        March 16, 2019 11:40 am

        Somebody actually looked at the scum bags website and posted a summary of some of his wacky ideas –
        View at

        Not had a chance to look at it yet (dont want to but now the propagandists are in flow labelling ‘right wing’ i guess i’ll have to check it.)

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 16, 2019 4:45 pm

      I hope Peter Hitchens will do his usual examination of such events and find – as always – he has taken mind altering drugs, either legal or illegal, most likely cannabis.

  6. Coeur de Lion permalink
    March 15, 2019 11:11 pm

    Well done. I’ve complained several times but only get boilerplate back.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      March 16, 2019 11:23 am

      The technique is to rebut the boilerplate, and demand that the complaint be re-examined in the light of your rebuttal. It’s a while since I have bothered: I do not listen or view the BBC (except for the rugby).

  7. BLACK PEARL permalink
    March 16, 2019 12:16 am

    Nice one again Paul … now sit back with a coffee and pick up a p-p-p-penguin

  8. March 16, 2019 12:21 am

    Can everyone who has complained about BBC, list them here (preferably with screen shots) so we can compile a list to be passed to the Times.

    It’s only a matter of time before someone breaks rank…this maybe that trigger.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      March 16, 2019 9:29 am

      I have multiple complaints, including one i took all the way to the BBC Trust. Made no difference. But compiling them and giving them to the Times might be a useful exercise.

    • Slipknot permalink
      March 16, 2019 8:29 pm

      As I have not watched the BBC for nearly 3 years now, I was incensed by the BBC’s intention to raise the cost of the licence fee. Last month I wrote to my MP who raised the matter with the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, Margot James. In her letter in reply, the Minister stated that the BBC Board must demonstrate to licence fee payers that the BBC is value for money. My contention was that the BBC did not provide value for money but the licence fee payer has absolutely no recourse.

      Apparently the licence fee is being allowed to rise in line with inflation to “ensure that the BBC can continue to provide high quality, distinctive content for all audiences” but this is risible – it is no longer true that the BBC produces the high quality programmes for which it was once famous.

      She further stated that the licence fee revenue is not just used to fund the BBC but also for “other strategic public service objectives including broadband, local television and S4C”, revealing that the licence fee is not a licence at all but a tax. This was the most revealing point she made.

      I firmly believe that the BBC should be broken up.

  9. Broadlands permalink
    March 16, 2019 12:28 am

    Try “demanding” that the acknowledged climate change experts (NASA, NOAA, the MET OFFICE)…and the policy makers who listen to them… explain to people, especially to those children (and their parents) who are now demanding some action to stop the world ending in twelve years what can actually and REALISTICALLY be done about that? Those experts know the problems but have never put out a schedule for when the climate will stop warming if we “act now”… regardless of our efforts. Many hundreds of very expensive years? These kids, and many others, actually seem to be.believe that if “we” do something and do it quickly, it might save them and the planet from extinction.The many lies are becoming facts (“the science is settled”), and those who disagree are in denial? Some are even recommending prosecution for skeptics. Where is some realism out there that can get some objective media attraction? Hello BBC and many others.

    • bobn permalink
      March 16, 2019 2:03 am

      Actually prosecution of sceptics might be a good thing. Being able to argue and test and defeat their claims in a court of law would be good. The Alarmists couldnt suppress debate in the court as they suppress debate in the media. As Tim Ball and others have found, when you go to court you can expose the truth and science wins. It was in a British court that Al Gores ‘Inconvenient untruths’ was tested – the judge finding that it was a work of fiction and banned it from presentation as science in UK schools.

      • Athelstan. permalink
        March 16, 2019 7:18 am

        The UK judiciary increasingly buy into the man made mythology far more than is seemly and as the ECJ writ becomes a stranglehold

      • March 16, 2019 2:54 pm

        That judgement seems to have been conveniently forgotten in schools these days.

    • Stonyground permalink
      March 16, 2019 7:29 am

      The climate stopped warming about twenty years ago didn’t it?

  10. tomo permalink
    March 16, 2019 12:36 am

    “becoming a habit” ?


    It’s the default position.

    The near eradication of unvarnished reportage from the BBC’s output and their never ending obsession with framing any subject to their own liking and omitting valid evidenced analysis that challenges their views is slowly but surely eroding their base.

    They like the drip drip manipulate thing but they are so utterly up themselves that they can’t see they’re sawing through the branch they’re sat on.

  11. March 16, 2019 12:55 am

    Reblogged this on Sandy Hook or by Crook.

  12. March 16, 2019 6:29 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  13. March 16, 2019 7:55 am


    Have you thought of sending a file of your complaints to your MP and getting him to raise the issue of BBC bias (or fake news or whatever you want to call it) with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport? I know it won’t get anywhere, but worth a thought.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      March 16, 2019 9:27 am

      I have tried this route with my MP Desmond Swayne. The standard response is MPs don’t want to get involved in the “independence” of the BBC. It a no-win for a Conservative MP

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        March 16, 2019 11:28 am

        The government response is that it is the responsibility of OFCOM. I think the response to that is that the government should take more are of who is appointed to the OFCOM roles that oversee the BBC.

        The BBC has a duty to deliver impartial, accurate news coverage and content under its Charter. Perceived editorial bias at the BBC is a matter for Ofcom as the independent regulator, not government.

        The BBC is independent of government and regulated by Ofcom. It is for Ofcom to hold the BBC to account on a range of areas, including perceived BBC bias. The BBC must comply with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code which contains rules for broadcasters on due impartiality and due accuracy and undue prominence of views and opinions. Ofcom sets the BBC operating licence which contains conditions it considers necessary for requiring the BBC to meet its mission and public purposes.

    • March 16, 2019 11:10 am

      My MP is the useless Angela Smith!

  14. Charles Wardrop permalink
    March 16, 2019 8:11 am

    Sorry to see “suspect” described in today’s (London) D. Tel. article headline as “right wing,” so they must also have been deceived, perhaps by news agencies or BBC.

  15. quaesoveritas permalink
    March 16, 2019 9:34 am

    One of the ways the BBC could avoid such mistakes in the future would be to allow “sceptics” on air to challenge the statements being made.
    Indeed, it would be a good idea to appoint in house “sceptics” to carry out fact checks.
    The trouble is, most BBC journalist at the moment have built in bias to believing every unbelievable statement on “climate change”.
    I wonder if when journalists are interviewed for jobs, they are asked what their attitude is to “climate change” and are excluded if they express any degree of scepticism.

    • bobn permalink
      March 16, 2019 10:08 am

      Correct. You will not get past the BBC selection questionnaires if you dont share their biases. The same is true of the civil service. You have to pass their selection questionnaire to be employed anywhere in civil service. When I was still a pilot in RAF (Handling Squadron) we employed civilians (cheaper) to edit documents on aircraft operation. The people with the expertise we needed were invariably retired RAF pilots. Having selected our candidate we had to get them to do the civil service recruiting tests. They always failed the PC questionaire, and we would have to seek special exemptions to employ them having failed the ‘luvie’ tests. The civil service would argue that we should employ one of theirs that had passed the tests instead, even though they wouldnt know the difference between an alternator and a generator. The civil service (and BBC) are fitered by selection to ensure they only employ avowed PC lefties.

  16. Coeur de Lion permalink
    March 16, 2019 9:34 am

    On my obsolescent iPhone home screen I have a shortcut permanently leading to the huge, masterly Complaint document written inter alia by your good self, a couple of MPs, the Lord Monckton and dated 22 April 2016. It is devastating. Chapter 8 for example destroys poor deluded David Attenborough. Why did it not get to judicial review? If I was a richer person I would print off a couple of thousand and post to all the names in the country. I occasionally dip in to reinforce my professional hatred of the BBC. Hot tip – get the best world news on Al Jazeera (203 on my telly)

  17. Robert Jones permalink
    March 16, 2019 9:38 am

    Paul, congratulations on your success rate! I am presently tackling my energy supplier which is boasting that 100% of its gas is carbon neutral;
    ‘…we’ve supplied 10% green gas since April 2016, generated by anaerobically digesting food and farm waste. And now we’re making the remaining 90% carbon neutral by carbon offsetting!…

  18. dunc permalink
    March 16, 2019 9:46 am

    The pro-green Times spinning it as a mistake.

  19. Malcolm Bell permalink
    March 16, 2019 10:14 am

    As you say Paul, the key issue is the publicity the lie gets and obscurity of the truth.

    Corrections must be presented before the headlines at the top of thevthree main news programmes each day. Likewise newspaper corrections must be on the middle of the front page.

  20. matelot65 permalink
    March 16, 2019 10:21 am

    My family are making “Countryfile” just bearable by having a sweepstake on how many minutes before “Because of Climate Change” is uttered in dire tones. The winner gets to sit nearest the woodburner, until thats banned of course!

  21. Geoffb permalink
    March 16, 2019 10:44 am

    Politics Today on BBC2 Friday 14th discussed the school strike with a panel of 4. All ardent believers that climate change is going to result in the destruction of everything. I had to switch it off, as shouting at the television raises my blood pressure.

  22. George Lawson permalink
    March 16, 2019 10:52 am

    An excellent article Mr Homewood. Why should the BBC now be prepared to promote an agenda that has to lie to serve its cause? We have professional Greek friends who we visit in Athens every year. They have always believed that the British nation is the only nation in the world that everyone can trust with their news output.. They have frequently referred to the fact that during the second world war and the subsequent take over of their country by the generals that the only accurate news on their own problems came through the BBC. Their own broadcasting station or any other news broadcaster anywhere across the world could never be trusted with truthful reporting. In a conversation with them on the subject on a visit to Athens last Autumn, I had to tell them that the BBC is no longer fulfilling that role, and that they were now following other world broadcasters by putting out false news in order to promote their own left wing agenda. . They were saddened, and hopeful that one day the BBC might revert to its previous high standards of news reporting. We need the BBC now more than ever, they said,. I think the BBCs Director General, Tony Hall should reflect for one moment on this sad and tragic situation, and do all in his power to recover the BBCs reputation that it has justifiably gained for its truthfulness from the very beginning of broadcasting, remembering that he is only a transitional Director General in a long line of DGs who recognised their responsibility to its worldwide audience, an audience that is being lost under his current leadership. If he cannot do this then he must move over and leave the job to someone else who does not see the BBC as being his own personal public mouthpiece.

  23. March 16, 2019 11:21 am

    The BBC’s over-the-top climate alarm promotion is the obvious cause of the ‘lapse in standards’. These days it IS the standard for them.

  24. Thomas Carr permalink
    March 16, 2019 11:25 am

    Please show occasionally in graphical form the accumulation of climate related complaints upheld against the BBC over time. Much as your own readers appreciate the trouble you take to report them in writing these is not likely to have the same traction as illustrations in the popular press — if I know anything about the powers of comprehension of many Daily M. readers. Also please make a cumulative list of those making the faulty reports and editing policy in the first place .
    Until then intellectual idleness of the public, the lazy prejudice of certain lobby groups and the conceit of the BBC will continue to set the tone.

  25. March 16, 2019 12:39 pm

    The term “Climate Blogger” is denigrating to a certain extent, possibly unintentionally, but it allows the alarmists to dismiss things a bit too easily, adopting the superior attitude that it is “scientists” vs mere bloggers.

    “Climate Historian”, which I’ve seen used before, would be a better title.

  26. March 16, 2019 3:16 pm

    IPPR from 2006:

    “Warm Words: How are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?

    This report was commissioned by the ippr as part of our project on how to stimulate climate-friendly behaviour in the UK. It analyses current UK constructions and conceptions of climate change in the public domain, using some of the tools and principles of discourse analysis and semiotics.”

  27. graham dunton permalink
    March 16, 2019 7:31 pm

    Keep the good work up Paul. We have the same problem with our ABC-and Australians, are therefore exposed to both the BBC and the ABC.

  28. Harry Passfield permalink
    March 16, 2019 9:39 pm

    The BBC – and others – need to double down on AGW/CC because they know that the world is in for a solar minimum, and as much as they like to exploit their uneducated masses, they know that those same masses will lose heart when the cold starts to bite. They are making hay BEFORE the sun stops shining.

  29. John Cullen permalink
    March 18, 2019 12:34 pm

    Hello Paul,

    Back in 2015 I wrote to the Director General of the BBC complaining about the Corporation’s biased reporting of global warming issues. Today, following your excellent article above, I have written to him again in the following terms:-

    Are You Asleep At The Wheel?

    Dear Director General,

    The website NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat [Ref. 1] recently published an article entitled “BBC’s Climate Lies Becoming A Habit” after the BBC had been caught eight times broadcasting erroneous information on climate and related issues.

    I had previously written to you on 28th October 2015 to complain about biased reporting by the BBC on matters related to global warming (now rebranded as “climate change”). Clearly, in the intervening years you have not got on top of the problem of the BBC promoting climate-related fake news; have you even tried?

    While the BBC may, when challenged sufficiently hard, withdraw its original stories and publish corrections, the major problem remains: the lie has gone around the world and back before the correction is made, possibly long after the event.

    Please do not try to hide behind the mantra that on climate issues, “The science is settled.” This is a lazy, disingenuous and silly argument promoted by post-normal scientists [Ref. 2] and their media allies (such as the BBC?) who wish to shut down debate. After all, is not the Earth’s climate one of the most complex phenomena known to man? So how can the science be “settled” now or in the foreseeable future?

    Given your very poor performance in this matter, is it not now time for you to give way to somebody who will put an end to the fake news, clean out the anti-science group-think, and lead the BBC back into the daylight where climate-related issues are concerned?

    2. University of East Anglia’s Prof. Mike Hulme, “Why We Disagree About Climate Change”, CUP, 2009. See pages 78 et seq. for a discussion of post-normal science, and pages 340 – 341 for, apparently, an invitation to abandon the traditional scientific method in favour of post-normal science.

    Yours sincerely,

    I await his reply with interest.


  30. Mick J permalink
    March 19, 2019 11:29 am

    Order-Order draws attention to another suspect report from the BBC, this time claims that teachers are cleaning the toilets due to lack of funding.

    As mentioned below, a Role of Honour page listing the reluctant BBC corrections driven by yourself and others would be a useful public reference.

  31. March 20, 2019 12:48 pm

    Complaining = Closing the stable after the horse has bolted.
    Join twitter, then whenever watching/listening follow live on Twitter vi the prog name or hashtag or network account eg @BBCradio4
    … You can then immediately tweet the presenter live when they make a false statement
    .. It works I’ve had them correct their mistake before the end of the show ..many times.

  32. clipe permalink
    March 21, 2019 11:24 pm

    I’m surprised no one has mentioned 28-gate.

    UPDATE4: Bishop Hill makes this excerpt from correspondence the “quote of the day”:

    We now know that the BBC decided to abandon balance in its coverage of climate on the advice of a small coterie of green activists, including the campaign director of Greenpeace. This shows that the “shoddy journalism” of Newsnight’s recent smear was no “lapse” of standards at all. BBC news programs have for years been poorly checked recitations of the work of activists.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: