Has the BBC broken faith with the General Public?

Originally a guest post of mine at Watts Up With That

It is my opinion that the BBC in broadcasting BBC 2 Horizon program ‘Science Under Attack’ did not treat the general public in the UK and at least one of the interviewees in the ‘good faith’ that they should be able to expect from the BBC. After the program aired, I contacted James Delingpole, who was one of the sceptics portrayed in the program and he told me how he was approached to participate by the BBC.

“I am making a film for BBC’s Horizon on public trust in science and I was hoping you may be able to help.”  – BBC Producer

However, the programs underlying message to the general public came across to me as that climate science was under attack by climate sceptics or deniers of science who are on a par with those that deny Aids, vaccines and extreme anti GM environmentalist activists.

Yet, in discussion with a NASA scientist, the presenter Professor Paul Nurse apparently makes a gross factual error informing the viewer that annual man-made CO2 emissions are;

seven times

that of the total natural annual emissions. This raised a number of eyebrows and is now subject to some discussion amongst the blogs, including at Bishop Hill.

That such an apparent major error was presented to the public as fact, in the BBC’s flagship science program, should I think raise questions with respect to the handling of all the issues within the program.

Paul Nurse: The scientific consensus is, of course, that the changes we are seeing are caused by emissions of carbon into the atmosphere. But given the complexity of the climate system, how can we be sure that humans are to blame for this?

Bob Bindschadler[NASA]: We know how much fossil fuel we take out of the ground. We know how much we sell. We know how much we burn. And that is a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It’s about seven gigatons per year right now.

Paul Nurse: And is that enough to explain…?

Bob Bindschadler: Natural causes only can produce – yes, there are volcanoes popping off and things like that, and coming out of the ocean, only about one gigaton per year. So there’s just no question that human activity is producing a massively large proportion of the carbon dioxide.

Paul Nurse: So seven times more.

Bob Bindschadler: That’s right.

Paul Nurse: I mean, why do some people say that isn’t the case?

(from a transcript of BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack)

Following the program I contacted James Delingpole and he agreed to a telephone interview about the program. We had a few telephone conversations about the program  and he sent me a copy of the email from a BBC producer at the  BBC inviting James to participate in the program. (my bold)

“The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions.  On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves.   Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film.  They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.”

 –  BBC Producer to James Delingpole

The contents of that invitation put the presentation of his interview in the program into a different context. In my opinion it demonstrates bad faith on the part of the BBC in failing to present to the public the details of the sceptical argument about climategate and ‘climate science’ yet allowing those involved to present their defence without serious challenge.

The premise will be  ‘This is a  turbulent time for science.  After the debacles of Climate-gate, GM products and MMR, I want to explore why science isn’t trusted and whether we as scientists are largely to blame’. By looking at these different areas he will dig into the difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty in science, the communication of this uncertainty, and the difficulties when science meets policy and the media.

– BBC Producer to James Delingpole

The BBC is the UK’s national public service broadcaster (funded by a per household TV Licence) and by its Charter it has a duty to its audience to be fair and balanced.

The Horizon program is the BBC’s flagship science program , so when it uses the weight of the BBC’s authority alongside, Sir Professor Paul Nurse, a Nobel Laureate and the new President of the Royal Society it has a clear responsibilty to the public to fairly present the detail of the sceptical views  climate science and the issues around the climategate emails. 

My interview with James Delingpole

James actually received a lot of criticism from sceptics for somehow ‘failing’ to get across the sceptical arguments in this program. When I spoke to him his frustration was obvious as he said he had spent three hours talking to Professor Paul Nurse about the detail of the climategate emails, the failings of the inquiries and the many and varied sceptical arguments with respect to man-made climate change.

James said he had explained in detail why sceptics describe the inquiries as whitewashes, this included the vested interest of the participants, the fact that no one actually asked Jones about whether he had deleted emails, the failure of scientists to provide data to critics and journals (as scientific process would expect) the importance of hiding the decline in proxies, the fact that scientist had become advocates for policy. 

Yet in the programme all that comes across is a fade to voice over where Professor Paul Nurse states that James believes the enquiries were whitewashes. Why not allow the public to consider some of these reason from James Delingpole

Why did Professor Phil Jones say to delete emails?  Why did he ask colleagues to delete emails relating to the IPCC reports. And most importantly of all. Why did Phil Jones feel the need to ask colleagues to delete these emails?

Those question surely support James Delingpole’s view that the peer-review process and the IPCC processes had been corrupted.

Another question that has been often asked was, why did James trust the BBC?

To put the interview into context the BBC had received a number of complaints regarding both the BBC’s coverage of Copenhagen and the coverage of the climategate emails. The BBC had seemed genuinely surprised by this response from the public and had even launched a review of how science in the media handled subjects like climate science, vaccines and GM.

The invitation that James received from the BBC to be involved in this programme appeared to be very much in this context. 

“As an influential blogger on climate change, among other subjects, I’d really like Paul to meet you and chat to you about your views – how you see your role and that more generally the influence of the internet in changing the debate; your views on climate-gate and how that was handled by the media; the failings or otherwise of scientists in communicating the science.”

– BBC Producer to James Delingpole

James said that he had looked forward to this opportunity to discuss and present sceptical issues in the apparent spirit of the invitation.

The ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’

The BBC described the ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’ as at the crux of the climategate email scandal. Why would they not at least allow a sceptic to voice to the public the  sceptical viewpoint on this issue.

 Paul Nurse (voice over): Tree rings have been shown to be a good way of measuring ancient temperatures, and they’ve mostly matched instrumental measurements since the advent of thermometers.

However, after about 1960, some tree ring data stopped fitting real temperatures so well. The cause of this isn’t known. When Dr Jones was asked by the World Meteorological Organisation to prepare a graph of how temperatures had changed over the last 1000 years, he had to decide how to deal with this divergence between the datasets.

He decided to use the direct measurements of temperature change from thermometers and instruments rather than indirect data from the tree rings, to cover the period from 1960. It was this data splicing, and his e-mail referring to it as a “trick” that formed the crux of Climategate.

Phil Jones: The Organisation wanted a relatively simple diagram for their particular audience. What we started off doing was the three series, with the instrumental temperatures on the end, clearly differentiated from the tree ring series. But they thought that was too complicated to explain to their audience.

So what we did was just to add them on, and bring them up to the present. And as I say, this was a World Meteorological Organisation statement. It had hardly any coverage in the media at the time, and had virtually no coverage for the next ten years, until the release of the e-mails. (transcript)

The program was supposed to deal with the failure of the presentation uncertainties regarding climate science, the criticism is that climate science has presented to politicians a narrative of ‘unprecedented’ temperature rise which ‘must be due to humans. 

Yet the ‘complication’ that is not explained clearly to the public or politicians, is that temperature proxies declined when modern thermometers showed warming.  Even the simplest of politicians could grasp that if the proxies decline when thermometers show warming it reduces their credibility of recording historic temperatures.

Yet somehow it is deemed to complicated, this is a prime example of scientist becoming advocates for policy and presnting the issues as certain.  Remember this was the described purpose of the program.

An interesting response to ‘hide the decline’

James Delingpole wrote in his blog about how the mathematician Simon Singh, the best selling author of ‘Fermat’s Last Theorum’ had tweeted:

Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate

Simon Singh wrote a rebuttal in his own blog, yet in the comments it gave rise to an excellent rebuttal to the programs description of ‘hide the decline’ from a respected scientist Paul Dennis who is also at the University of East Anglia

Paul Dennis said…
Before I add anything further to the debate I should say that I’m an Isotope Geochemist and Head of the Stable Isotope and Noble Gas Laboratories in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. I’ve also contributed to and published a large number of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the general field of palaoclimate studies.

I don’t say this because I think my views should carry any more weight. They shouldn’t. But they show there is a range and diversity of opinion amongst professionals working in this area.

What concerns me about the hide the decline debate is that the divergence between tree ring width and temperature in the latter half of the 20th century points to possibly both a strong non-linear response and threshold type behaviour.

There is nothing particularly different about conditions in the latter half of the 20th century and earlier periods. The temperatures, certainly in the 1960’s, are similar, nutrient inputs may have changed a little and water stress may have been different in some regions but not of a level that has not ben recorded in the past.

Given this and the observed divergence one can’t have any confidence that such a response has not occurred in the past and before the modern instrumental record starting in about 1880.

Paul Dennis was thought by many newspapers to be the potential ‘whistleblower’ of the climategate emails. He commented a few times at Simon Singh’s blog and his identity was confirmed at Bishop Hill

Thus it could be said that on this particular issue at least and that the ‘science is not settled’ even at UEA!

The Conduct of the BBC

I last spoke to James Delingpole after the BBC4 program Meet The Sceptics had been aired that focussed on Christopher Monckton.  James had also been involved in the making of this program and had got to know the makers well and trusted them.

“The BBC? Not bloody likely. You’ve come to stitch us up, haven’t you?” I said.

“Not at all,” said Murray. “Look, there’s something you need to realise. I’m an independent filmmaker, I have no big budget for this, so I’m dependent on my work being original and interesting. The very last thing the BBC wants to commission is another hatchet job on sceptics. How boring and predictable would that be?”

Over the next few months I came to like and trust Murray. He was there filming Lord Lawson, Lord Monckton, Lord Leach and me when we debated at the Oxford Union. And he was there to capture our joy and surprise when we won – and to hang out drinking with us, afterwards, like he was our mate.

By this stage, we’d all come to accept that Murray was genuinely interested in presenting our case sympathetically. In fact, I must admit, I was really looking forward to seeing the finished product. “God this is going to be fantastic!” I thought. “At long bloody last, the BBC is going to do the right thing – and at feature length too.”  – from James Delingpole’s blog

When I last spoke to him, James was genuinely angry and felt badly let down by the BBC. He had taken part in the making of both programmes in good faith, yet the BBC had basically said to the world in his view, that climate sceptics are deniers and an organised group of these deniers are responsible for stalling political action to ‘save the planet. It appears to me that this was the program makers intention all along.

I asked James if he felt concerned for his safety now, and he said absolutely that was a concern, following how sceptics were depicted in these programmes.

Prior to this program being aired apparently both the BBC and Paul Nurse spoke to the Guardian with comments that gives every reason for me to think the program was intended all along to present sceptics in a bad light.

I believe that in this type of BBC science program the public has an expectation that the BBC would present fairly both pro and sceptical arguments on the issues in enough detail to allow the public to take own view. If a respected main stream journalist can be treated like this by the BBC, what hope and expectations of being treated fairly should a member of the public or a blogger (like me – RealClimategate) have of the BBC?

The issue I have with this program and the BBC is not who is right or wrong in climate science, but the failure of the BBC to fairly present in the program the sceptical arguments in detail (which it must be fully aware of) with respect to climate science, the climategate emails and the inquiries to the general public.

I would like to leave the final words to James Delingpole that he said to me (and one that he left in the comments at Bishop Hill) about why he participated in BBC Horizon  – Science Under Attack program  and trusted the producers of the  BBC 4 program, Storyville – Meet the Sceptics.

Why shouldn’t one have faith in one’s national broadcaster to tell the other side of the story? – James Delingpole



BBC Horizon -Science Under Attack – transcript

BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack – video (youtube)

The BBC Invitation to James Delingpole (my bold)

From: “Emma” [email address removed by author]

Date: 3 August 2010 19:25:08 GMT+01:00

To:  James [email address removed by author]

Subject: BBC Horizon

Dear James

I hope you don’t mind me contacting you on this email address but I was given it by Louise Gray at the Telegraph.

I am making a film for BBC’s Horizon on public trust in science and I was hoping you may be able to help.

The film will explore our current relationship with science, whether we as a society do and should trust it.  It is being presented by the nominated President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse.  If he is voted in later this summer he will be taking over the at RS at the end of the year at around the same time the film will be transmitted so it would very much launch his presidency.  The premise will be  ‘This is a  turbulent time for science.  After the debacles of Climate-gate, GM products and MMR, I want to explore why science isn’t trusted and whether we as scientists are largely to blame’. By looking at these different areas he will dig into the difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty in science, the communication of this uncertainty, and the difficulties when science meets policy and the media.

The tone of the film is very questioning but with no preconceptions.  On the issue of who is to blame no-one will be left unscathed, whether that is science sceptics, the media or most particularly scientists themselves.   Sir Paul is very aware of the culpability of scientists and that will come across in the film.  They will not be portrayed as white coated magicians who should be left to work in their ivory towers – their failings will be dealt with in detail.

Now obviously one of the other great areas of contention is when science meets the media.  Much as most scientists would like their papers to be published unedited in the mainstream media that obviously does not work. We will be visiting the newsroom of a national newspaper (most likely the Times although we have also been talking to the Telegraph) to explore the realities of where science fits in the news agenda, but I also want to explore the equally important role of the online world.

As an influential blogger on climate change, among other subjects, I’d really like Paul to meet you and chat to you about your views – how you see your role and that more generally the influence of the internet in changing the debate; your views on climate-gate and how that was handled by the media; the failings or otherwise of scientists in communicating the science.

Filming would be on the afternoon of 18 August ideally.

If you are interested please drop me a line or give me a call.

Kind regards

Emma [removed by author]

BBC Vision Productions

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Has the BBC broken faith with the General Public?

  1. toad says:

    Now that we can read the full story of the BBC’s duplicity we find a situation far, far worse than any of us could have possibly imagined.
    It shrieks of desperation at every turn !

  2. Kate says:


    Do you want to complain to the BBC?

    The BBC will only change their behaviour on this subject if they get complaints from the public. The more you let them get away with it, the more they will get away with. If the BBC knows their biased and unfair treatment of the subject and the participants in their programs will invoke an avalanche of objections from viewers and listeners, they may well alter the content of their programs to make them less biased and unfair.

    Contact the BBC directly –

    The BBC Trust
    “Your complaint is important to us. The BBC Trust ensures BBC programmes are high quality. If you have a complaint please use this process.”
    – Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust.

    Re. AGW bias:
    Last year, Alison Hastings said this:
    “The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected. In addition, the new guideline extends the definition of “controversial” subjects beyond those of public policy and political or industrial controversy to include controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters.”

    Feel free to throw this back in her face by contacting her directly –

    Alison Hastings
    BBC Trust Unit
    180 Great Portland Street
    W1W 5QZ

    Telephone: 03700 100 222
    Textphone: 03700 100 212
    Email: Send your complaint https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

    Also write to the BBC Complaints department:

    BBC Complaints
    PO Box 1922
    DL3 0UT

    There are three stages to the BBC Complaints process. Within 30 working days of the transmission or event you can either:
    make a complaint via this website:
    Call BBC Audience Services on 03700 100 222
    (UK-wide rate charged at no more than 01/02 geographic numbers; calls may be recorded for training)

    or write (as above) to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Darlington DL3 0UR

    There is also the BBC “Feedback” program which will accept complaints online:

    or write:
    PO Box number 67234
    SE1P 4AX
    telephone 03 333 444 544

    You can also complain to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ about editorial standards in radio and television broadcasts (but not online items or the World Service). Ofcom takes complaints about BBC issues except impartiality, inaccuracy and some commercial issues which remain the responsibility of the BBC Trust. Visit the Ofcom website to read about its remit and how to complain.


    BBC Statement:

    We monitor and report in public on the complaints we receive and learn from them to improve our programmes and services.

    Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?

    We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.

    If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.

    If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the department which replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint. If you made your original complaint through this website, you will need to use our webform again. You should normally do this within 20 working days.

    Stage 2: If I’m not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?

    If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days

    If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.

    Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/contact/complaints_appeals/appeal_trust.shtml

    Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?

    The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.

    Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.

    You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.

    We aim to treat every complainant with respect and in return expect equal consideration to be shown to our staff who handle complaints.


    Email other BBC programs directly:


    Broadcasting House

    Newsnight Investigations



    The Today Program


    Commissioning Editors

    The British Broadcasting Corporation
    BBC White City
    201 Wood Lane
    W12 7TS

    George Entwistle
    Controller, Knowledge Commissioning & Controller, Editorial standards (BBC Vision)
    (Encompasses the new genre areas within the umbrella of Knowledge)

    Emma Swain
    Head of Knowledge Commissioning
    Emma Swain’s role is to provide creative leadership to the team of commissioning editors, supporting the indie and inhouse producers. She will not make individual commissioning decisions, and will report to George Entwistle.

    Krishan Arora
    Independents Executive
    Krishan doesn’t commission projects, but is the liaison between independent producers and the BBC.

    Mary FitzPatrick
    Executive Editor Diversity
    Mary is also not a commissioner, but she works with commissioners and the like, and independent production companies to improve on-screen portrayal and diversity.


    Charlotte Moore
    Commissioning Editor, Documentaries
    Room 6060
    BBC TV Centre
    Wood Lane
    W12 7RJ

    Emma Willis
    Commissioning Executive Producer

    Maxine Watson
    Commissioning Executive Producer

  3. Russell C says:

    For readers willing to take some time in reading the collection of my articles seen when you click on my name above, the central figure of my articles is American anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan. How many of you across the pond know that his accusation phrase against skeptic scientists, seen in Al Gore’s movie full screen just before the 1 hour 13 minute point, is also found in a learn-to-speak-English BBC program?

    I discovered a 2004-ish Canadian “Quirks & Quarks” radio show archive at, of all places, the Abu Dhabi Men’s College: http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/hd1/english/listen/index.htm which apparently got their material from “BBC English: Listen and Read”. Go a bit more than halfway down the web page to the “Global Warming Listening Activities” and its #4 “Global warming listening” section to hear the MP3 file for the Canadian radio show. Then marvel at the way Gelbspan accuses skeptic scientists as being corrupted by big coal and oil industries.

  4. AlGoresLeftBoot says:

    The whole premise of the climate skeptic position is that their position is of equal validity and weight to the established climate science. The skeptic position is not given that weight because it is based on a few divergent facts in a sea of other confirming facts, discredited theories, and the suspicious whiff of Big Oil and Big Coal.

    James Delingpole may write entertaining and slightly hysterical copy, but his graps of science and the facts is thin. I would have expected someone who is an “authority” to have read the primary research himeslf, not to be “an interpreter of an interpretation”.

    The climate skeptics bear all the hallmarks of other conspiracists, not least the infallible belief they are being gagged as inconvenient, rather than just wrong.

    • Mrko says:

      Uhh, so you look at the spliced graph and consider it peer reviewed, valid, consensus science?

      Wow, the education system isn’t what it used to be.

  5. Jörg Janssen says:

    The whole premise of scientific epistomology is that each position on a given subject is of equal validity and weight until one either fails or succeeds the test of falsifiability. As Karl Popper put it: “every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability (…) Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory.”

    The establishment’s climate scientists made several falsifialble predictions. Some of most important are: temperatures would continue to rise through the 2000’s; snow cover would decline; temperatures in the lower troposphere at low latitudes would be found to rise three times faster than ground temperatures; there would be a discernible atmospheric water vapour feedback on warming.

    All of these were falsified. Even one such failure would have been sufficient to send a scientist back to the drawing board. In my own field, it would be thought of as exciting if experimental evidence contradicted a popular hypothesis. The establishment’s position? “We recognise that, unlike the classic concept of Popper (1982), our evaluation process is not as clear-cut as a simple search for ‘falsification’.” (IPCC 2001)

  6. Nigel says:

    BBC spokespersons have frequently made it clear that it is BBC policy not ever to give a fair hearing to the AGW sceptics, on the grounds that the BBC has decided that they are wrong and therefore must not be allowed to mislead the public! That being the case, I am surprised that experienced journalists like Delingpole and Monckton fell for the line spun to get them to participate. Perhaps now at last they will have learned the lesson.

  7. Paul Cottingham says:

    This is my experience of complaining to the BBC.

    BBC Complaints ID 17148744
    {Programme:} Hot Planet
    {Transmission Date:} 09/12/2009
    {Network:} BBC1

    After taking into account the BBC Trusts reply and after consulting with two other members, my experience of complaining to the BBC will appear in Spacesignl the Newsletter of the Space special interest group of Mensa, sometime around April or May.

    A Complaint on behalf of Members of the Space special interest group of Mensa to the BBC about its abuse of Astronomy in the Climate Change Debate.

    Finally the BBC Trust published the finding in December’s bulletin just before Christmas. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2010/nov.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2010/nov.txt

    The Climate Change debate in Mensa has hotted up within the last three months with the latest three Mensa magazines having ten letters from AGW sceptics and only one warmist who was calling for the debate to be silenced, some of the letters have criticised the BBC.

    My complaint to the BBC was about the Climate Change program “Hot Planet” transmitted in December of 2009. My complaint was “Ice Core data shows that CO2 levels rise about 800 years after Global temperatures rise, and therefore this fact makes the whole Documentary misleading and biased“. The BBC seemed to agree with me that astronomical events cause the warming and that CO2 levels increase about 800 years later. But this correlation was not shown in the program. Obviously this was because it would have been seen by the Viewer to contradict the context of the programme and therefore was left out so as to mislead the audience and not contradict the context of the program, therefore giving a misleading impression to viewers who are not aware of the full facts. The context and intention of the program misleads the viewer into thinking that the CO2 increase causes the warming. I suggested that this was a serious and specific breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines. After a convoluted reply which seems to be mainly replying to other peoples complaints they did eventually touch on my complaint. The complaint was not upheld, but no clear reason that I can understand was given. One of the other peoples complaints in the BBC,s reply was about the CO2 Hockey Stick controversy. The BBC continues to use statements withdrawn by the Royal Society on the insistence of the fellows, this one has been proven to be false. Over the first 80 years that Ice Cores are formed CO2 is absorbed by cold water, there has been 180 years of Atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods (Beck, 2007). This means that from 1810 to 1930 we have both Ice core and direct measurements of CO2 in the Atmosphere. This shows that ice cores have CO2 levels about 40 percent lower than the original atmosphere (Jaworowski, 2007). This also shows that CO2 levels were 470ppm in 1828 and 290ppm in 1888. The Royal Society was also quoted “carbon dioxide from human sources is almost certainly responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 years. There is much evidence that backs up this explanation and none that conflicts with it” This is also false and has also been removed from the Royal Society website (Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, Segalstad) proves this cannot be the case. Surprisingly the most blatantly biased statement by the BBC said that “Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact” the IPCC using an assumption says “very likely” and the BBC which claims to be impartial says “fact“. This also does not come from the Royal Society. This evidence proves that the BBC takes a more extremely Biased view than the IPCC or the Royal Society and conflicts with the BBC Trusts claim that impartiality is important. This also now leaves open the possibility of legal action against the BBC Trust which has continually refused freedom of information requests for details of how this decision was made by what the BBC calls “the best scientific experts“. I suspect the decision was made by Environmentalists not by Atmospheric Physicists. The BBC also claims to do independent investigations and then only talks to the scientists that make the program. The senior scientific advisor for the program was Professor Peter Cox. The BBC has had trouble with Professor Cox regarding the predictions of a Barbecue Summer and Mild Winters and his prominent role in the Climategate Scandal and with the IPCC. The BBC has no scientific investigative journalists and also it claims that it has access to 4,000 Climate Scientists but not one of these was used as an Independent Scientific investigator into Professor Cox or the program. Professor Cox did not mention water vapour, confused the southern ocean with the deep ocean and has not heard of the science of Cosmoclimatology. I suggested to the BBC that it should investigate the quality of its Scientific advisors in this case.
    After this complaint and 1,600 other complaints about the less than academic one sided promotion of the Global Warming scare by the BBC, the BBC Trust gave out 15,000 new editorial guidelines to its staff when obviously the people appointed to the BBC Trust are part of the problem. If the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust is overtly biased then it is not fit to dictate Editorial Standards to BBC staff. In response to the above comments the BBC Trust said that they change the Editorial Standards at least every five years, which gives you an idea why BBC Staff just ignore Standards of Impartiality. My complaint was to be published in the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee Bulletin for October, but was pulled at the last minute after I gave them the comments above. The BBC Trust said that they would reply shortly and publish their findings in November. Nothing happened, my complaint remained in a twilight zone, the BBC unable to either uphold, or reject my complaint for fear of legal action I have no intention of wasting my time and money on, That is for others to consider. Finally after a most amazing excuse that although the evidence that the BBC is overtly biased was provided to me by the BBC in its communications with me, it was not mentioned or referred to in the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee’s finding. That is like saying we know we are biased but you can not take legal action against us because we will not include this in the monthly bulletin of the BBC Trusts Findings.
    Finally the BBC Trust published the finding in December’s bulletin just before Christmas. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2010/nov.pdf http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2010/nov.txt

  8. jAMSPID says:

    Im 46 years old

    When i was about ten i can remember watching another horizon documentary on BBC2 with my dad

    That time they were saying that in 50 years time there was going to be another ice age

    Well we had a bit of snow other week that brought the country to a standstill for about a week and then the wearther brightened up

    But we are still having Global Warming

    So can these scientices make their mind up are we having the green house effect or another ice age


    So ask the question what are we paying them for

  9. jAMSPID says:


    If your in central london check this play out

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s