Montford and Newbery's submission to the BBC's Science Coverage Review

I’ll be honest and say that I’m deeply sceptical that this or any other submission will make much difference, but I admire their tenacity.

Andrew Montford ( Bishop Hill ) and Tony Newbery (Harmless Sky) have put in a submission to the BBC’s Review of Impartiality and Accuracy in their coverage of [Climate] Science. It’s a good read and summarizes very well some of the major areas of complaint about the BBC’s slanted reporting on environmentalism, scepticism and global warming.

In order to get to send the submission, they had to go through the usual Byzantine intrigue of working out just where to send it and to whom to address it.

Over the last several years, Tony N (Harmless Sky) and I have taken a great deal of interest in the BBC’s coverage of the climate debate, and this has involved a good deal of behind-the-scenes research. So we were obviously interested when the BBC Trust announced in early January this year that they were to conduct a review of the impartiality of their science coverage.

Our first reaction was to write to Professor Richard Tait, the trustee who was fronting this project, requesting that we should make a submission to the review and pointing out that the main critics of the BBC coverage of AGW were in the blogosphere. Not only were we unable to get a reply form Professor Tait, but we were unable even to get confirmation from the secretary of the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee that he had been given the letter. This will be the subject of another post.

Fortunately, in April, I happened to spot a request for comments from the general public on an obscure BBC web page. He contacted Professor Steve Jones, the person commissioned by the BBC Trust to conduct the review, who proved to be rather more approachable than Professor Tait. It was quickly arranged that we should make a submission before the end of October. His report is due to be published in the Spring of 2011.

Anybody holding their breath? Me neither.

BBC Science Review Submission

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 16, 2010 11:55 am

Removing one grain of sand from a hole does not seem to do any good. But over time, it makes a difference.

November 16, 2010 11:57 am

Media Science=BBC Science=Hollywood Science…..No extreme winter time cold will ever make them change.
Last winter we enjoyed, here in WUWT, a complete painted white UK, how will it look this time, a new Greenland perhaps? 🙂

November 16, 2010 12:11 pm

The BBC has remarkably blatant left/liberal/socialist leanings.
They will never allow the skeptical point of view to gain traction within their system because it is seen as a right wing ideology by the BBC. Obviously the recruitment process at the BBC was designed to achieve the left bias becoming institutionalized. It happened before Blair was elected but it has strengthened and deepened since then.
Listen, as I do, to the World Service and the Africa Service and you will be astounded at the anti-capitalist anti-conservative, anti-science bias it has.

Doug Leach
November 16, 2010 12:13 pm

The link to Bishop Hill for the BBC review is broken. The following appears to work.

James Sexton
November 16, 2010 12:14 pm

Well, I applaud their effort, at any rate. But, yeh, they’ll change as soon as our NPR and PBS change their POV.

November 16, 2010 12:16 pm

I get a “Page Not Found” when I hit the link. You can go from there to the Front page and find the submission, but I don’t think the link is working correctly.
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]

November 16, 2010 12:16 pm

The BBC has nothing to gain by entering such correspondence. If being a member of the club called “Ignore It And It’ll Go Away” wasn’t enough, BBC staffers are terrified of upsetting their political masters’ carbon tax schemes. But we’re not finished yet – because the BBC staffers’ pension scheme – which has already provoked strikes about potential cuts in pension payouts – is up to it’s neck in carbon trading funds.
The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of BBC staffers is Peter Dunscombe, and he is a “man-made climate change” fanatic.
Peter Dunscombe is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in “climate change” schemes, and he runs the £8.2 billion BBC pension fund. He is also Chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) which has 47 members and manages €4 trillion Euros worth of investments.
Yes, you read that correctly, that’s €4 TRILLION.
…Which is why any inquiry about the BBC’s treatment of the global warming fraud is usually met with a deafening silence.

November 16, 2010 12:24 pm

Link at the bottom of the article appears to be broken?
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

Another Ian
November 16, 2010 12:28 pm

Link to BBC Science Review Submission gives a page not found error
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

Eric Gisin
November 16, 2010 12:31 pm

The CBC is even worse than BBC. Government funds a bit under half.
David Suzuki is Canada’s Al Gore, much worse than anyone at the BBC.

November 16, 2010 12:38 pm

The link appears broken.
[Fixed, I think. Thanks. ~dbs]

Barry L.
November 16, 2010 12:38 pm

Climate scepticism: The top 10
How about WUWT updates the chart in the link below with up to date facts!!!
And pass it back to the BBC to see if they will update their page.

gary turner
November 16, 2010 12:46 pm

I had trouble opening the Word document. I finally got to do it. (A pox on word and all its git.) The pdf version may be found on Newberry’s site.

November 16, 2010 12:47 pm

The link is broken, it needs %20 ‘s in place of the spaces.
[Fixed. Thank you. ~dbs, mod.]

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
November 16, 2010 12:55 pm

Andrew and Tony have done an excellent job, here (with the exception of a few typos!) The key paragraphs from where I’m sitting:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.
To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. (emphasis added)
Henceforth, communications from all government departments followed this template, which greatly influenced the way in which the UK media reported climate change.

The above “concept” came from futerra communications. And, from where I’m sitting, it seems to have migrated across the pond: Canada’s CBC is an equally unbalanced purveyor of “climate change” gospel.
In other arenas, here in Canada, as Donna Laframboise notes in a post today, the green activist PR machine has moved beyond merely peddling the mantra and denigrating those who disagree, to physical actions and activities which are designed to prevent those with whom they disagree from exercising their right to freedom of speech (even on a matter unrelated to “climate change”).
As Donna noted:

[The environmental activist] compares [Globe & Mail columnist, Christie] Blatchford to Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher.

And speaking of echoes of Streicher and his cohorts, green activists and shutting down dissident voices, things are not so rosy in Germany these days either. On my own blog, I have noted that we need a clarion call for clarity.

November 16, 2010 12:59 pm

From the BBC (Google):-
“Editorial guideline breaches
In 2007 it emerged that the BBC had been involved in a number of editorial guideline breaches. Mark Thompson, as BBC editor-in-chief investigated these breaches, and presented his interim report to the BBC Trust on 18 July 2007.[6] The Trust felt that the BBC’s values of accuracy and honesty had been compromised, and Thompson outlined to the Trust the actions he would take to restore confidence.
Later that day he told BBC staff, via an internal televised message,[7] that deception of the public was never acceptable. He said that he, himself, had never deceived the public – it would never have occurred to him to do so, and that he was sure that the same applied to the “overwhelming majority” of BBC staff. He also spoke on BBC News 24[8] and was interviewed by Gavin Esler for Newsnight. He stated that “from now on, if it [deceiving the public] happens we will show people the door.”[9] Staff were emailed on 19 July 2007[10] and later in the year all staff, including the Director-General undertook a Safeguarding Trust course.[11]”
Although it would appear that publishers have experienced a stranglehold for issuing such books as Climate: the Counter Consensus, written by Professor Bob Carter, it seems fairly obvious that television programmes may also be under the same cloak. I wonder why Thompson, now chairman, is really leaving the BBC next year. Could it be anything to do with his assertion above?
By the way, I recommend the aforementioned book to anyone who wishes to find out about our chaotic climate.
Sorry about the plug Anthony, but good example, yes?

November 16, 2010 1:09 pm

[SNIP – violation of site policy – is not a valid email address. the domain is in Arlington, VA and your comment originates at The University of Reading, UK., until you use a valid email address, all of your comments will be discarded – Anthony]

November 16, 2010 1:13 pm

We have a gifted journalist in the UK by the name of James Delingpole. He writes with vigour and great penetration on, amongst other things, climate stuff. Here is a taster from a recent post:
‘When the history of the greatest pseudoscience fraud in history -aka “Climate Change” – comes to be written, no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC. That’s because, of all the numerous MSM outlets which have been acting as the green movement’s useful idiots, the BBC is the only one which is taxpayer funded and which is required by its charter to adopt an ideologically neutral position.
How then has it managed to breach its social responsibility so frequently and flagrantly?
Thanks to the combined efforts of the great Bishop Hill and the similarly wondrous Tony Newbery at the Harmless Sky blog, we now have the most comprehensive and thoroughly damning account yet of how the BBC became such an important part of a sinister political campaign to promote climate change alarmism. ‘
Read it all here:
And rejoice that we still have journalists like him in this island over which the dismal fogs of political correctness, leftie-group-think, and spin-doctor guided PR, have thickened and spread over the years. With the BBC as one of the citadels of this stultifying and oppressive, yet hugely self-satisfied, culture.

stephen richards
November 16, 2010 1:16 pm

I’m with you John. The BBC is a very sociaux/communist leaning organisation by the nature of it’s make-up and activity. It is a social network with socialist ideals. I admire The Bish’s and his colleagues stubbornness but hold out little hope of achieving anything at all. In my opinion the sooner their reputation is severely damaged the better. Their effectiveness will be much reduced and their usefulness to NGO’s and government diminished.

Don B
November 16, 2010 1:18 pm

I suspect the BBC is going through the motions of self-appraisal for PR purposes, somewhat like UEA helping the investigators investigate it.
If so, that will backfire, just as the Climategate whitewashes backfired, with an investigation of the investigators.
Prediction: The BBC will determine that the BBC is completely unbiased.

November 16, 2010 1:19 pm

This is just another opportunity for the ‘establishment’ to say ‘nothing to see here-move along’ and in so doing strengthen their misplaced and undeserved authority.
>>The man responsible for looking after the fat pensions of the boys and girls at the BBC is a climate change fanatic, and he is part of an international group of investment managers who bust a gut to invest in ‘climate change’ schemes. He’s called Peter Dunscombe, and he runs the £8.2bn corporation pension fund, advising trustees on a day-to-day basis about their investments. Mr Dunscombe, who addresses conferences about ‘ethical investments’, is also chairman of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC), which has 47 members and manages four trillion euros’ worth of investments; yes, four trillion. Their goal is to find as many ‘climate change’ investment opportunities as possible:
The IIGCC Investor Statement on Climate change was launched in October 2006. Asset owners and asset managers who signed the Statement committed to increasing their focus on climate change in their own processes and in their engagement with companies and governments

November 16, 2010 1:21 pm

It’s a pity that I can’t rely on the BBC for objective news any longer. I wouldn’t dream of it.

November 16, 2010 1:24 pm

Keith Battye says:

The BBC has remarkably blatant left/liberal/socialist leanings.
They will never allow the skeptical point of view to gain traction within their system because it is seen as a right wing ideology by the BBC.

Bingo. This is it. And it also applies to all national broadcasting organizations that I know of (CBC, ABC, PBS, etc.)
It’s really quite simple: if you want to eliminate a point of view, simply paint it as “right wing” to instantly cut half of the world off from even hearing it, let alone paying attention. And before the liberals get ranting, no it doesn’t work in reverse. Media and the arts are not only in control of the left, they are the expression of the left. Movies and music are also permeated with leftist liberal idealism. There are no more closed minds than the left, ironically.
This is an important lesson to learn, because I am aware that many people think that this is about Science. It’s not. This is a propaganda war, nothing less. The hypothesis of AGW with its fear-inducing “tipping points”, ocean acidification, etc. has already been clearly and completely disproved, however the people holding the mic just have to act as if it hasn’t.
The key is, as it has always been, communication. It’s not enough to know the truth, you have to communicate it. Look at how many people misquote Palin, thinking that the crap Tina Fey was saying actually came from her. Even people who should know better are misled, because once something is out there it can’t be withdrawn.

November 16, 2010 1:27 pm

Mark says:
November 16, 2010 at 1:09 pm
If following what the science says rather than refusing to believe any evidence that disagrees with you is ‘leftist’, then I guess most scientists are ‘leftists’ and should be thrown to the wolves, just like the tea party seem to want.
mark, you’re funny
No one in the Tea Party has ever said that about scientists.
They have called a socialist a socialist when they see it, and good for them for
doing so.
It’s about time…….

November 16, 2010 1:27 pm

I’m getting this when I click the link…
Page Not Found
The page /storage/BBC Science review submission Final.doc could not be located on this website.
[Thank you. It’s fixed now. ~dbs]

November 16, 2010 1:28 pm

Enneagram says: November 16, 2010 at 11:57 am
Last winter we enjoyed, here in WUWT, a complete painted white UK, how will it look this time, a new Greenland perhaps? 🙂
Not exactly, but ubiquitous Hudson Bay is getting ‘hot’ again. Regular readers may recall my interest Hudson Bay.

Dr T G Watkins
November 16, 2010 1:37 pm

Prof Steve Jones, an eminent geneticist at UCL, seems to be a pretty sensible bloke. (Well he is Welsh from Aberystwyth).
Hopefully,his professional integrity will override any personal views he may hold and a proper review of the BBCs remarkably biased take on AGW will take place.

November 16, 2010 1:42 pm

Everyone knows the extreme weakness of computer models based on chaotic systems: when you are unsure about the data and the assumptions the models are fed, the results of that weak data are especially unconvincing.
In direct contrast, empirical science does NOT point to any increase in catastrophes such as rising sea levels or more and stronger hurricanes, etc.
Yet the BBC headlines scream out, “CATASTROPHE! DEATH! DESTRUCTION!”
Anyone can see the disconnect.

John David Galt
November 16, 2010 2:03 pm

I still get “Page not found”.
[Reply: Which particular link? I get them all now. ~dbs]

Anthony Hanwell
November 16, 2010 2:14 pm

With regard to the mindset at the BBC, I’m surprised that no-one mentioned that the BBC does most of its recruiting through the employment pages of the Guardian. Saves a lot of interviewing, a sort of first stage of selection to ensure all the candidates are onside?

November 16, 2010 2:25 pm

The UN consists of various people who are un-elected, as does the EU.
Further to my previous comment, there is this snippet to communicate:-
“The Club of Rome is a conspiratorial umbrella organization, a marriage between Anglo-American financiers and the old Black Nobility families of Europe, particularly the so-called “nobility” of London, Venice and Genoa. The key to the successful control of the world is their ability to create and manage savage economic recessions and eventual depressions. The Committee of 300 looks to social convulsions on a global scale, followed by depressions, as a softening-up technique for bigger things to come, as its principal method of creating masses of people all over the world who will become its “welfare” recipients of the future.”
The club of rome has this to say:-
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations”
The above is quoted from ‘green agenda’ (Googled).
This is just one face of the sinister, esoteric and evil power that is possibly behind the strangulation of the media, in particular television, and especially the BBC, with its reputation beginning to come apart at its very roots.
To Auntie Beeb I say this: stand up for your principles; if a statement appears along the lines of ‘the science is settled’, then that should be your cue to question that assertion vigourously, for the simple reason that no science is ever settled.

Stephen Brown
November 16, 2010 2:36 pm

I grew up in Central Africa in the ’50s and early ’60s, at 1900hrs (local time) the chimes of Big Ben rang out from the valve-driven radio, tuned into short wave (25m if memory serves correctly) to be followed by a sonorous voice intoning “This … is London” (the pause was very dramatic). It was the BBC World Service News which was listened to avidly by all, not a word was spoken whilst the News was being delivered. No child dared make a sound.
Then the News was strictly factual, any editorial comment came later from correspondents and was announced as such.
I have now returned to England, much against my desire, and for the last eight years I’ve not listened to a word that the BBC has broadcast, either on radio or on TV. Upon my return to this blighted country I rapidly learned that the BBC is nothing but a propaganda machine for Socialist views which verge on the extreme.
I have a TV in my house which the Government demands that I purchase from them a licence for £145 (US$230) annually. The licence is not per household, it is per TV set! You have TWO sets? That’ll be $460 please! Vendors of TVs are obliged to notify the Government of the name and address of the purchasers of TV sets in order to maximise the return from the licence fees.
The licence fee is given to the BBC.
What is the penalty for not having a TV Licence?
People found guilty of using TV without a valid licence risk prosecution, legal costs and a fine of up to £1,000. Plus, they will still have to buy a TV Licence.
Anyone who watches or records television programmes as they are being
shown on TV needs to be covered by a TV Licence, no matter what
device they use. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games
consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders.
Currently, TV Licence costs are £145.50 per annum.
I steadfastly refuse to pay.
Welcome to the EUSSR, Socialist Sector UK.

Peter Miller
November 16, 2010 3:01 pm

The BBC is a classic example of an out of control, unaccountable, bureaucracy. The salaries paid to its numerous top executives are outrageous for what they do and achieve, especially as most of them would be unemployable in the private sector.
To expect such an organisation to police itself in its supposed efforts to limit bias on something as trendy/lefty as the subject of ‘climate change’, is similar to expressing belief in the tooth fairy.
Anyhow, I wish Montford and Newbery good luck in their efforts, but sadly hell will freeze over first before the BBC becomes objective on the subject of climate.

November 16, 2010 3:02 pm

[Reply: Which particular link? I get them all now. ~dbs]
The very last one. Sorry, it was the only one I (and perhaps others) tried. The link titled BBC Science Review Submission.
[Fixed now… I think. ~dbs, mod.]

son of mulder
November 16, 2010 3:15 pm

It was enough for me to see the pathetic experiment on BBC’s newsnight when they introduced CO2 to a plastic bottle and the temperature increased by 4 deg C. This they used to emphasize what a dangerous pollutant CO2 is. So I got out my envelope and did a small calculation. In such an environment doubling CO2 would increase temperature by about 1 deg C. Arrhenius and his chums would agree this. So to increase temperature by 4 deg C would require increasing CO2 16 fold. So far CO2 has increased by about 1/3 since the start of the inductrial revolution ie 280 ppm to 380ppm. ie 1/48th of the amount put in the bottle. Be afraid be very afraid!

Corey S.
November 16, 2010 3:16 pm

the BBC’s slanted reporting on environmentalism, scepticism and global warming.

It seems as though the BBC is coming up with a new show, calling it ‘Hell on Earth’. I found out about their new venture because they were soliciting for a host for the show, looking for a certain demographic: Special Forces. I used to be in the Seal Teams, and I got the announcement through some other former Team guys. Here is a snippet of it [emphasis mine]:

BBC Worldwide Productions and the producers of Dancing with the Stars and What Not To Wear are currently seeking a male host for an amazing, original new series!
Our ideal host will be part survivalist, part environmental scientist—former military Special Ops experience and/or extreme survival training is required. Our host will be both the instigator of the adventure and the guinea pig who enters the danger zone.
This is a truly groundbreaking series that requires an all-out, fearless adventurist with the knowledge to take us along on the incredible journeys into his potential Hell on Earth!
For more information, contact:
Rachel Stevens, Casting Producer

I don’t see anything on having a degree in environmental science on this casting call. I guess they aren’t interested in the science.

November 16, 2010 3:40 pm

The link to the submission at the bottom of the article does not work. The link in the body of the article does, however.
[I think it’s fixed now. Thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

November 16, 2010 4:13 pm

If it were not for Timothy Berners-Lee we would not be able to express our posts, comments and other (sometimes) trivia amongst ourselves.
To him we have to thank for not only the chattering community, which can mostly be ignored, but also to the many stalwarts of our new-found freedom, such as WUWT, along with many other blogs of similar ilk.
Without this almost magical technology we would have no voice and little, or no persuasion with our opponents, especially with the likes of the BBC.

November 16, 2010 4:53 pm

I have also found this…
Muchos de los estados actuales se autodenominan “democracias”: gobierno en el que el pueblo es soberano.
Sin embargo, la soberanía del pueblo se limita a marcar, cada pocos años, una cruz en una papeleta, señalando unos nombres de entre otros, que le son propuestos. Nos han hecho creer que la democracia es ese simple gesto.
Nuestro sistema, NO ES UNA DEMOCRACIA. Es un sistema social de jerarquía global, sostenido por una minoría para dominar a una mayoría.
jerarquía, unos
pocos, situados en
la cima de la Pirámide
del Poder, imponen sus leyes.
Se arrogan unos derechos que nos han
usurpado a todos los demás. Son los grandes
capos de la banca y la industria. Han acaparado más dinero
que nadie, y a través de él ejercen el control sobre seres humanos y recursos
Se valen de los gobiernos (“democráticos” o “dictatoriales”, de “derechas” o de “izquierdas”), que les sirven, y con quiénes comparten porciones del poder. Los gobiernos son los asalariados directos de la gran banca y la industria multinacional.
Las autoridades son un artificio pensado para responder a necesidades creadas artificialmente: seguridad y protección. Son una herramienta de usurpación del poder por parte de las multinacionales. Son el biombo tras el cual la industria mueve los hilos.
Por debajo de los gobiernos, las instituciones se disputan las porciones de poder que les son concedidas.
Políticas Nos comprometen en guerras que nosotros no deseamos. Establecen alianzas o apoyan embargos a otras naciones, sin tenernos en cuenta.
Nos imponen leyes para controlarnos y pagan a jueces para condenarnos.
Nos niegan el poder de decidir los tratamientos que queremos para mantener nuestra salud. Nos intoxican con las vacunaciones a las que nos obligan a someternos; nos mutilan con supuestas cirugías preventivas y nos envenenan y exterminan con pseudo-medicamentos.
Nos educan para que seamos sumisos, para que tengamos miedo. Nos inculcan la creencia de la desigualdad, que es la base sobre la que han conseguido sus privilegios. Controlan la investigación científica a partir del dinero que aportan en subvenciones, y no tienen empacho en censurar o falsificar los resultados según su conveniencia.
Instalan sistemas electrónicos para vigilarnos (inculcándonos la creencia de que es para nuestra seguridad y protección). Pagan a policías para detenernos.
Controlan los medios de comunicación más importantes, y a través de los mismos crean una falsa realidad que actúa como cortina de humo para que no podamos ser conscientes de sus manipulaciones.
Para llevar a cabo su agenda de control, la Cima del Poder lleva adelante su Plan Secreto. A eso se le llama CONSPIRACIÓN o COMPLOT. Ya que el plan es secreto, no podemos conocerlo. Pero vemos sus resultados.
Y la mejor manera de desmontar un complot es exponer esos resultados a la luz del día.
A fuerza de repetírnoslo, hemos acabado creyendo que no tenemos ningún poder para cambiar nada. Pero somos nosotros quiénes pagamos el salario de nuestras autoridades. Nosotros, quiénes hemos depositado nuestra autoridad individual en manos ajenas, y hemos permitido el desarrollo y mantenimiento de los gobiernos que tenemos. Tienen la autoridad que nosotros queremos darles.
Nosotros podemos vivir sin ellos. Ellos no pueden vivir sin nosotros…”
It would appear that where so ever you look, more information hits you between the eyes. It certainly does to me. Google a couple of key words, and extraordinary posts are there for you to read, or perhaps, even gasp at.
Many people are naive when trying to put their views forward, and, indeed I may be one of those, but when you read some of the weblogs, and comments thereof, one cannot help but feel overwhelmed.
The language of the above comment cannot be translated by me, but the vitriol of the piece, headed by ‘new world order’ is no less than acid to my stomach.

November 16, 2010 5:08 pm

To ‘son of mulder’, I would say this…
Temperature rise always precedes an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
In other words, I would hazard a guess that the Sun has quite a bit to do with climate!

November 16, 2010 6:43 pm

“`…You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.’
`But the plans were on display…’
`On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.’
`That’s the display department.’
`With a torch.’
`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.’
`So had the stairs.’
`But look you found the notice didn’t you?’
`Yes,’ said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”.'”

David Ball
November 16, 2010 6:52 pm

It may finally be their undoing (we can only hope), but the CBC in Canada has given up pretending to be unbiased and has gone full bore left. They do not represent me or anyone I know in any way, yet I have to pay for it through my taxes. Please tell me again how they are allowed to do this. Seems funny paying for something that does goes against what I believe. I would love to see Harper step in and remove those at the helm. Didn’t journalists used to be proud of presenting the news without imposing their opinions? Where the hell has that gone?

Mike Spilligan
November 16, 2010 9:51 pm

I hope Montford and Newbery can get somewhere with this – but I don’t think they will. I have complained to the BBC over several years about its (non-climate) partiality, but not so frequently that I can be dismissed as a “serial whinger”. However, I’ve always had (in essence) the same reply: This is the BBC and we always get things just right.
I’m afraid that only a huge top-down shake-up or complete demolition will do the job that’s required.

James Bull
November 17, 2010 12:02 am

As Kate says:
November 16, 2010 at 12:16 pm , there must be a large number of BBC employees who are very frightened at the futures of their pensions as invested by Peter Dunscombe, he will obviously have a protected pension (in oil,coal and gas).

John Marshall
November 17, 2010 1:43 am

Hey, I have been complaining to the BBC for years about their one sided discussions and always get the same reply. It boils down to- ‘we hear what you say but reserve the right to ignore it despite you paying our wages’.
They have recently been told to encompass skeptical views about climate and discuss. So far to no avail so I have complained again and had no reply as yet because they can take up to 3 weeks for that.

Dave from the "Hot" North East of Scotland
November 17, 2010 3:58 am

I have tried to view the Bishop Hill posting several times both from WUWT and directly and in all cases the page isn’t found. I suspect it’s a Bishop Hill blogprob since evrything else I have linked with today has been fine.
On a point of information, the BBC TV licence is per household, irrespective of number of sets in the household. Only equipment with a tuneable receiver is subject to licensing.
The BBC are more likely to respond to a significantly large number of individual comments about aspects of their service than to heavyweight, hard hitting, “high profile” submissions such as that of Andrew and Tony. Is all UK readers of WUWT were to write and express their concerns, copying any correspondence to the ITV, we might see some form of shift.
But then again, maybe I’m seriously naive and the AGW-pooh has actually baked on to the fan too tight to come off any time now.

Dave from the "Hot" North East of Scotland
November 17, 2010 3:59 am

Errrr! That should read “If all UK readers of WUWT where to write and express their concerns…”

David Waring
November 17, 2010 6:00 am

All this BBC-bashing is just so much green ink. Go to any left-wing site in the UK (there are one or two, but nowhere as near as many as those on the right, the far right, the distant right and the so-wayyyy-awayyy-they’ve- disintegrated-under-the-velocity-of-their-own-spleen right) and you will see comments on just how right-wing BBC editorial and bias is. So it must be doing something correctly, to p*ss off both foaming fringes.
As to a license per TV. Wrong. Per household it is, and it represents spectacular value for money, compared with anything offered by anyone else anywhere.
And no, I am not a BBC employee. Matter of fact I do not own a television. I am just tired of Beeb-bashing ignorance.

November 17, 2010 12:21 pm

When I was on the BBC website recently up jumped a survey on “Equality and Diversity”. Some of the questions related to “Balance” and “Fairness”. In my comments I referred, among other things, to the BBC’s coverage of Climate Science. I doubt that they will make any difference. I wish that I had seen this before I filled inthe survey.
But I really liked the comment from David Waring about Beeb-basing ignorance despite the fact that he does not own a TV.

November 17, 2010 12:36 pm

@David Waring: You are a silly man. You don’t have a TV and (therefore) do not – cannot – watch BBC news programmes and documentaries. So wtf qualifies you to comment on the bias or otherwise of the BBC. I would have more respect for your argument had you bothered to engage (buzz-phrase, I know, but it means you should get acquainted with both sides of the argument).
I really don’t know why you even bother to take the trouble to comment here. You have nothing to add to the debate and have just wasted your time, and, on reflection mine.
I suggest you go and get some kind of education, one way or the other, on what is happening in the world as a result of the con that is CAGW and the way the BBC is bent (very apt0 on reporting it.

November 17, 2010 12:51 pm

Two applicants go for an interview for a job at the BBC. One walks into the interview room with a rolled up copy of The Guardian under his arm, the other with a rolled up copy of The Daily Telegraph under his. Which one gets the job?
OK. It was the guy with The Guardian. D’oh……The guy with The Daily Telegraph was in the wrong room as, not being a Guardian reader he had no idea of the vacancy and had merely gone to the BBC to inquire of a job in security.

November 18, 2010 6:17 am

The BBC have confirmed their dominance of Climate reporting journalism when compared to their UK competitors. This makes it even more important they take input from Bishop Hill and Harmless sky seriously.
See here:

Brian H
November 18, 2010 10:28 pm

Scottish Dave;
Your correction is also incorrect.
Go back to “were”, not “where”. The latter is no verb. Not never nohow.

%d bloggers like this: