Climate Bias At Sky News–When Will OFCOM Investigate?
By Paul Homewood
Sky News are bound by the same rules of impartiality that GB News are, who Sky were keen to gloat about a few months ago.
So why is that Sky can get away with flagrant and blatant bias on climate change? Two articles just this week could not exemplify this bias any better:
The first attacks Rishi Sunak’s slight watering down of Net Zero demands:
It gives column inches to a letter to the government from the Committee on Climate Change, which contains outright lies and mistruths, eg:
“that renters will have to pay more for energy in less efficient homes, while drivers who move to electric cars later rather than sooner will face higher costs through their vehicle’s lifetime.”
Sky fail to challenge this obvious nonsense or seek alternative views, as they have a duty to do.
For a start, renters will be much worse off once rent increases to pay for insulation are factored in, And if rents are frozen, landlords are likely simply to sell up. One of the reason for rising rents is the shortage of rental homes.
The claim about EVs is even more absurd. If drivers really are better off buying an EV, they would but one anyway. They refuse to because EVs are much more expensive.
The article then goes to publish anti-Sunak comments from:
- The UK Energy Research Centre
- Ford Motor Company (ignoring the motor manufacturers who agree with the delayed ban)
- The UK Director of Transport and Environment, a lobby group for “clean transport”
- The Conservative Environment Network, the extremist green fringe group of the Conservative Party
There is not a single comment supporting Sunak’s policy, never mind critical of any of these Net Zero policies. Nor is there any attempt by Sky to actually back up the CCC’s mendacious claims with actual data.
The next day, Sky published another ridiculous “we’re all going to drown” report:
The article includes a long debunked photo of a polar bear:
It headlines the threat of 1.5m homes flooded out by rising seas, something which belongs in a fairy tale.
It claims:
“Arctic temperatures are rising four times as quickly compared to the global average, unleashing chaos on wildlife and the people who depend on the rapidly melting ice to survive.”
But fails to mention that Arctic temperatures plummeted at a similar rate between 1960 and 1990, that polar bears and other Arctic animals are thriving, and that the inhabitants of the Arctic are doing fine as well.
It says that “Dwindling ice could destabilise a North Atlantic current known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) “, another claim that has been thoroughly debunked by scientists as well.
The article ends with a plea for more funds by the Chair of the Polar Research sub-committee, whatever that is. Apparently giving scientists more money and an ice-breaker will solve all of our problems!
Of course, we know that OFCOM will never investigate bias at Sky News, because they both share the same set of political values.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
OFCOM should be renamed Come Off It. They are just using their power -because they can – to have a go at GB News , which seems to have struck a chord with at least some of the public that people like OFCOM will never manage to do.
Just goes to show how incompetent was the John Lewis recruitment process when selecting an ex OFCOM apparatchik as their new CEO
OFCOM should be shut down as it is another unnecessary creation of Sir B Liar.
I wonder whether any of the writers understand the simple concept of the melting of floating ice on the Arctic Ocean? Perhaps they confuse the Arctic Ocean with the Antarctic ice mass.
From far away, I always had the idea that UK students got a good grounding in Earth science classes. Apparently not!
Sky is bad but the BBC is even worse. Why is it that Ofcom feel they must protect their own kind? Laurence Fox made an error of judgement regarding Ava Evans whilst the BBC – through their slag mouthpiece – Victoria Coren double barrelled Mitchell (am I allowed to say that?) – are quite at liberty to deliberately be much more obnoxious.
https://x.com/thereclaimparty/status/1711350014469882183?s=20
Mercifully there are other news channels.
I find ITV News unwatchable because they can’t do a single report without saying “climate emergency” at some point.
I fill the dishwasher and only watch the local news and weather forecast. Even that is spiced up the record breaking something or other
Have you noticed that when the media are not able to convince us that we are having a heat wave, the melting ice stories start.
I cannot find EXACTLY what Ms Evans said to so infuriate LF – he did spout first think later for sure; not coincidental that the entire Big Tech censorbot gave blanket coverage to his comments and painted her as the injured party….
We know what the real game is: the establishment cannot stand for an ‘upstart’ TV news show that doesn’t slavishly repeat the ‘truth’/propaganda of net zero, mass immigration, the ‘EU is good’ and the New World Order. They are out to destroy GB News so we only get to hear the acceptable ‘truth’ peddled by the BBC, SKY and ITV.
I can’t get over that Danish website thst shows Arctic temperatures above 80 north every year since 1958. With metronomic exactitude temp rises to plus about a degree and a half for two to three weeks in July every year and is sub zero all the rest. OK one can see sometimes that temp rise to minus 15 where it used to be 20 but where is this four times whatever? Show me
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but it’s just stopped updating for the third time this year
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”
A quite extraordinary comment. Some years ago such a remark would been laughed out of existence by any serious scientist, and the perpetrator would cease to be taken seriously. But, since climate change has taken hold as a quasi religion, these sorts of comment now seem to be acceptable.
The rot at Sky News has been there a long time. It didn’t even report the _first_ let alone the subsequent ClimateGates
Melting sea ice has no affect on sea level.
The floating ice displaces the same mass & volume whether solid or liquid.
Physics 101.
To suggest melting Arctic sea ice will affect sea-level is bollocks.
The Sky article does refer to ‘melting glaciers and ice sheets’. OTOH they don’t point out that if existing sea ice melts it has almost no effect on sea levels, as you say.
It’s run by woke Comcast, so you know what you are going to get.
Who watches it, in fact, who watches it and the BBC
Sky News AUSTRALIA is reasonably balanced group of reporters, with some die-hard climate catastrophists, and some sensible folk (like me!) This reflects well on Rupert Murdock’s empire, IMHO.
The same mix of views was evident in the coverage of a referendum yesterday. It was curious that there was a perfect correlation between pro-yes-referendum viewpoint and the pro-climate-catastrophist viewpoint among the Sky News AUSTRALIA reporters.
If Arctic temperatures are rising 4 times as fast as the average, an awful lot of the Earth must be rising a lot slower than average. Yet Sky and others tell us that’s not so.
It’s worse than we thought. Every place they ever talked about was rising twice as fast, now it’s going to be 4 times as fast.
Sky are late to this story. The Grauniad has been saying four times faster since the start of the year and no doubt it will be 5 times faster next year 🙂
test
“Arctic temperatures are rising four times as quickly compared to the global average, unleashing chaos on wildlife and the people who depend on the rapidly melting ice to survive.”
Who are these people and shouldn’t they be happy about the rapidly melting ice – or am I missing something?
Ofcom are captured by the lefties, it will always be biased until normality resumes
Contrary to what some may believe, The BBC undoubtedly can be forced on the back foot IF people take them on at their own game. They are very obviously vulnerable when accused of choosing when to be impartial – by putting incontrovertible facts to them BUT ONLY AFTER they have shot their biased bullets on a particular subject.
I encourage all to take them on and I am on a mission to ensure T.Davie’s office hears about every example of provable bias I manage to unearth. Proof is here ( one of many ..) – I put this slightly OT but still relevant issue up for people to read ( and once they admit they are biased they are F***** as a result ): sincere apologies for length – my original BBC HYS post was in answer to someone stating in very one eyed fashion that CC is a thing and we all have to bend, kneel, succumb to the inevitable – and that climate scientists know what they are talking about – I said that there was no such thing in reality…I am on BBC HYS censors speed dial and my comment posted was instantly removed whilst the original post remained and was not removed subsequently; “they” have , effectively, accepted that my comments posted are true, not off topic, does not constitute an offensive theme. The original BBC article was to do with ….climate change and their usual bias was very evident;
Dear BBC User,
Thank you for contacting the BBC.
In this instance, it appears your comment was removed in error so we have reinstated it.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention and please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.
Regards,
BBC Moderation Services
http://www.bbc.co.uk/social/moderation
From: XXXXXXXXX (iPages noreply)
Sent: 13 October 2023 17:46
To: Central Communities Team.
Subject: Moderation Comment form response
This is an automatically generated email. To reply to the sender, please create a new email to
The message is as follows:
Please choose a subject: Appeal against moderation decision
Your BBC ID display name: XXXXXXXXXX
Add reference number: e5aef7e3-e201-4e8e-b424-4b7885b9a581
Your comments: It is the case that the study of the earth’s climate ( and therefore weather systems ) is multi disciplinary , and in many cases little understood as has been stated by scientists many times the world over – eg the influence of the Sun in all its aspects. The BBC in recent days has made a massive play that it is editorially impartial – anyone who has studied the BBC’s output knows this is abject rubbish as eloquently detailed by Robin Aitken ( ex BBC…he knows); the BBC has decided as far back as 2006 that the “science is settled” as far as AWG/CC is concerned , and has trotted out this editorially partial theme ever since despite thousands and thousands of scientists ( which The BBC is emphatically NOT and which employs biased reporters – Rowlatt for one – to constantly push AWG/CC ) signing the Oregon Declaration and others which The BBC habitually ignores. Similarly The BBC constantly pushes their “Anti-vaxxers” agenda in the face of decades long evidence documenting serious issues with certain ( many ) vaccines as well as the disaster of experimental mRNA gene editing drugs with a tsunami of evidence documenting fraudulent trials (Pfizer’s own documents attest to that), historically unique levels of adverse effects, premature death, massive levels of excess deaths that are caused by repeat doses ( I doubt The BBC will report on the massive meta analysis of southern hemisphere, official government data sourced, that – yet again – proves the scale of death and adverse harms caused by these highly dangerous drugs ) You cannot argue that The BBC has NOT remained editorially impartial as far as AWG/CC/SARS COV2 drugs – The BBC spouts their settled position constantly – and in so doing refutes their own mendacious statement that, as Mr Davie has tried to gaslight everybody, editorial impartiality remains a “raison d’etre”. What utter self evident rubbish – “you ” have once again fallen into a trap which highlights the total lack of impartiality but illustrates the scale of corporate mendacity as far as your sanctimonius editorial position evident with the horror of the genocidal terrorist attacks in Israel by HAMAS – a legally proscribed terroist organisation. If you do not reinstate, I do not particularly care – I have proved my point multiple times – but this act of censorship in a week when the cowardice show by The BBC plumbs the deepest depths possible whilst trumpeting the one off switch of BBC “editorial impartiality” is the final straw – I will send this to Davie’s office and publish the exchange as I see fit.
It did go to Davie’s office and I await the outcome ….