BBC’s ‘A Perfect Planet’ contradicts mainstream scientific findings
By Paul Homewood
The BBC are up to their tricks again!
Prominent claims in the final episode of the series are contradicted by the recently published findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Royal Society and the leading instrumental datasets.
A Perfect Planet was conceived as an explicitly campaigning show. James Cross, creative director at BBC Creative, has said the series and accompanying billboard campaign aim to “shock people into action” and “influence popular culture, using shock tactics to do that.”
The complaint also points out that contributors such as Jeremy Rifkin are proponents of a “degrowth” policy, which is a concept controversial even among environmentalists.
Harry Wilkinson, Head of Policy at the GWPF, who wrote the complaint, said: “The impression created by the documentary is of ‘radical…out of control’ increases in extreme weather, and this is clearly not supported by the scientific evidence.”
“The influence of anthropogenic climate change on extreme weather events is complex, and it is clearly not the case that all trends are going in the same direction. That the BBC are using activists to try and frighten people is deeply concerning.”
The BBC’s latest documentary is another example of misleading activism on the part of the broadcaster. The GWPF is challenging the programme’s inaccuracies in order to improve public understanding of climate change trends.
Read the full complaint below:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“…the series and accompanying billboard campaign aim to “shock people into action” and “influence popular culture, using shock tactics to do that.”
Once again, no mention at all of what possible realistic action people could take that could possibly affect the global temperature of the Earth. Shocking people is about all that these people can do, and have been doing. Tiresome.
Right on the button, Broadlands!
These broadcasters show no scientific balance or insight, let alone shame.
But Broadlands you don’t understand. The ‘people’ they’re intending to shock are of course the leaders of big ‘emerging’ economies who’ve been foolishly observing their entitlement under the Paris Agreement to prioritise economic development over emission reduction. Members of the Chinese politburo for example are no doubt watching this programme and doing a facepalm as they realise just how wrong they’ve been.
The real problem is that they sought to shock people into one particular political response. It’s like showing the problems of poverty and only allowing Left-wingers to say how to solve the issue. Completely biased.
The day that the BBC admits climate change is having benefits is one I will look forward to.
I might have to wait a long time.
Another hilariously biased/contorted/desperate article here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56378397
Seagrass is a massive carbon sink yet grows so slowly a dragged anchor causes 1000years of damage.
Climate change is an existential threat (warmer sea) but doesn’t actually kill it, and compared to the climate over the last 200k years – never warmer, really?
Codswallop on steroids.
Thank goodness for the likes of Mr Wilkinson, most educated People will see through the nonsense of the it. But it is good to see the real world being shown for what it really is.
With control of the media the Marxists have planted seeds that when sprouted will grow into catastrophes only they will be able to resolve using only the same media.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-calls-for-new-world-order-says-wasting-covid-crisis-would-be-worse-than-pandemic?utm_source=must_reads
Well if the BBC is going for perfection, now Pope Frank has gone full on build back better with the usual. What with the future king, the PM, Welby and the infallible going Schwab, we’d better invest in thick clothing, insect steaks and donkey carts.
Good luck with the complaint Harry………… I’m still waiting for a resolution to one I made in December 2019. Yes, 2019. It began with an online complaint and morphed into a letter when I heard nothing back. They replied twice by letter apologising for the delay.
A year later I wrote again to nudge them. They replied with a third letter saying they were still working on it and ended with the good old “don’t call us, we’ll call you.”
Refer your complaint to OFCOM. The BBC has failed to deal with it.
Good stuff. I’m pleased to see the line with the BBC is that renewables are a political choice, not a scientific inevitability. Personally I would far rather see adaptation to any climate change that occurs than utterly changing our economy and society just in case. That’s a political choice and the BBC should be giving as much time to that as to the other choices.
Usual annoying interview on the Today programme this morning – this time with Mark Carney; frequent references by the presenter to the “climate crisis”. When are they going to invite Paul to knock some sense into them? Not that they would listen. If they complied with their constitution all these interviews would be debates.
However … no less than Jeremy Vine putting his job on the line on Friday questioning all those “green” electricity companies and their claims to be 100% renewable. Couldn’t believe my ears https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000szvx scroll in 30 minutes. We have challenged the ASA so often on this, to no avail.
Brenda, I might be being overly optimistic here, but I do see increasing signs of a little wedge being driven between the hard core greens and the parasites who are either in it for a buck or who (like Carney) get caught using accounting tricks to greenwash their business-as-usual.
Hopefully the other side will start eating itself, because neither position (green puritan or greenwashed capitalist) is tenable.
Anyone noticed the latest Christian Aid TV ad throws in ‘climate change’ much in the same way the Amazon one does? Same agency I wonder.
But we already know that the BBC is wedded to such propagandising. All of its departments have been put through the Global Warming seminar and ‘denier’ comment is scorned as being heretical
Just who gets to define a “perfect planet”?
I’m unable to get onto the GWPF website right now.
Have they been “cancelled”?
It’s working for me.
“the series and accompanying billboard campaign aim to “shock people into action” and “influence popular culture, using shock tactics”
If they are a taxpayer funded public organization charged with providing information and they admit to this kind of shock treatment activism, haven’t they violated their contract?
Toeing the government line.
I see. It’s an inside job. Thanks.
As the goons continue with Net Zero, bear in mind that CO2 molecules only stay in the atmosphere for 5/7 years. Without ‘greenhouse gasses’ temperatures could fall by up to 33°C. Plus, if NOAA’s prediction of a Grand Solar Minimum is correct, 2025, reach for the winter woolies and overcoats !