The BBC Endeavours to Provide More Biased Coverage on Climate Change

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

The BBC’s governing body, the BBC Trust, has released a report on its coverage of climate change, that is based partly on “an independent review” by Steve Jones, a Genetics Professor at University College London (UCL).

The report states that “Professor Jones describes incidents of what he calls “false balance” and suggests there may sometimes have been “an over-rigid application of the (editorial) guidelines to what is essentially a fact-based field. This can produce an adversarial attitude to science which allows minority, or even contrarian, views an undue place. The BBC has tried hard to find a suitable balance.

There will of course be occasions when a scientific story should be presented as a debate purely and simply within the scientific community. There will be others when it is appropriate to broadcast a range of views, including some from non-experts, because science cannot be divorced from the social, political and cultural environment in which it operates”

“The Trust notes the Executive’s plans for ongoing monitoring of impartiality and accuracy in science coverage. The results of the Editorial Standards Board review that the Executive plans to carry out in a year’s time should be shared with the Trust. The Trust expects this report to measure the accuracy and impartiality of BBC science coverage, using the findings from this Trust review as its benchmark. The report should include an account of:

• The effect of the new “due weight” stipulation within the editorial guideline on impartiality in relation to BBC science coverage

• The influence of the Science Editor on the quality of BBC News science journalism and content

• The impact of the Science Editor and the pan-BBC science forum on connections between BBC divisions, in-house access to science expertise and the standard of BBC-wide science coverage”

In the associated July 20, 2011 press release by the BBC it states that “the report concludes however, that in particular the BBC must take special care to continue efforts to ensure viewers are able to distinguish well-established fact from opinion on scientific issues and to communicate this distinction clearly to the audience.”

“When considering ‘due impartiality’ under the new Editorial Guidelines, the BBC needs to continue to be careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of “due weight” can lead to ‘false balance’, meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but the BBC must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

The BBC Executive will establish a new training programme for journalists on impartiality as it applies to science and will run seminars with science journalists to debate current issues and coverage in the media.”

The BBC’s oxymoronically and euphemistically named “BBC Trust – Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC’s coverage of science” page can be found here.

The BBC’s existing biases are apparent, for example in this 27 May 2011 BBC News article “Unlocking the secrets of the Arctic’s melting ice”, it states that “A scientist hopes that a better understanding of what is happening beneath the Arctic ice will offer an insight into why summer sea ice is melting at rate that is alarming experts. Unlocking the secrets of the Arctic’s melting ice”

“As a scientist, the reason I am prepared to come out here and be cold is because of the desire to learn and answer burning questions I have about what is going on up here, why the ice is melting as fast as it is” she told the Earth Reporters programme.

“My theory is that this organic matter absorbs the Sun’s energy, making the ice melt faster.

and this 7 April 2011 BBC News article “New warning on Arctic sea ice melt” states that “scientists who predicted a few years ago that Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013 now say summer sea ice will probably be gone in this decade.”

“Since the spectacularly pronounced melting of 2007, a greater proportion of the Arctic Ocean has been covered by thin ice that is formed in a single season and is more vulnerable to slight temperature increases than older, thicker ice.”

This is biased reporting by the BBC, because these articles imply that the decrease is Arctic Sea Ice is mysterious, that it will continue to decline at an accelerating rate and that the decline is caused primarily by warming in the arctic. Whereas there is ample evidence that, “perennial sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean decreased by 23 percent during the past two winters as strong winds swept more Arctic ice than usual out Fram Strait near Greenland. The study relied on 50 years of data from the International Arctic Buoy Program, currently directed by Ignatius Rigor of the UW’s Applied Physics Laboratory, and eight years of data from NASA’s QuikScat satellite, a review of which was led by Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.”

“The most important thing about this paper is that it foretells this summer’s record minimum ice extent in the Arctic,” Rigor, a research scientist and co-author on the paper, says. “While the total area of ice cover in recent winters has remained about the same, during the past two years an increased amount of older, thicker perennial sea ice was swept by winds out of the Arctic Ocean into the Greenland Sea. What grew in its place in the winters between 2005 and 2007 was a thin veneer of first-year sea ice, which simply has less mass to survive the summer melt.”

University of Washington September 28, 2007 fact sheet: “Perennial ice, sometimes thick enough to defy icebreakers, may be key to predicting Arctic thaw”.

In this October 01 2007 NASA article,

“Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

“The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”

The 2007 paper “Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice” by Nghiem, Rigor, Perovich, Clemente-Colo, Weatherly and Neumann states that, “Perennial-ice extent loss in March within the DM domain was noticeable after the 1960s, and the loss became more rapid in the 2000s when QSCAT observations were available to verify the model results. QSCAT data also revealed mechanisms contributing to the perennial-ice extent loss: ice compression toward the western Arctic, ice loading into the Transpolar Drift (TD) together with an acceleration of the TD carrying excessive ice out of Fram Strait, and ice export to Baffin Bay.”

This 2011 paper, “Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline”, submitted to The Cryosphere by L. H. Smedsrud, et al.;

used “geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960’s.”

In 2010 the Guardian reported that, “Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.”

“About half of the variation in maximum ice loss each September is down to changes in wind patterns, the study says.”

Here’s the associated study, “Influence of winter and summer surface wind anomalies on summer Arctic sea ice extent” by Masayo Ogi, Koji Yamazaki and John M. Wallace, published in Geophysical Research Letters.

It found that, “based on a statistical analysis incorporating 925‐hPa wind fields from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalyses, it is shown that the combined effect of winter and summer wind forcing accounts for 50% of the variance of the change in September Arctic sea ice extent from one year to the next (DSIE) and it also explains roughly 1/3 of the downward linear trend of SIE over the past 31 years.”

“We have shown results indicating that wind‐induced, year‐to‐year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September SIE on a year‐to‐year basis and that a trend toward an increased wind‐induced rate of flow has contributed

to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice.”

This 2004 paper “Variations in the Age of Arctic Sea-ice and Summer Sea-ice Extent” by Ignatius G. Rigor & John M. Wallace, states that “The winter AO-index explains as much as 64% of the variance in summer sea-ice extent in the Eurasian sector, but the winter and summer AO-indices combined explain less than 20% of the variance along the Alaskan coast, where the age of sea-ice explains over 50% of the year-to year variability. If this interpretation is correct, low summer sea-ice extents are likely to persist for at least a few years. However, it is conceivable that, given an extended interval of low-index AO conditions, ice thickness and summertime sea-ice extent could gradually return to the levels characteristic of the 1980′s.”

This 2001 paper, “Fram Strait Ice Fluxes and Atmospheric Circulation: 1950–2000” by Torgny Vinje published in the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate found that “Observations reveal a strong correlation between the ice fluxes through the Fram Strait and the cross-strait air pressure difference.”

“Although the 1950s and 1990s stand out as the two decades with maximum flux variability, significant variations seem more to be the rule than the exception over the whole period considered.”

“The corresponding decadal maximum change in the Arctic Ocean ice thickness is of the order of 0.8 m. These temporal wind-induced variations may help explain observed changes in portions of the Arctic Ocean ice cover over the last decades. Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”

As such, the BBC’s reporting is currently biased, because they are not accurately informing the public that a significant portion of the recent decrease in Arctic Sea Ice is due to natural wind variations versus warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, the BBC is now planning to increase the bias of its reporting to prevent “false balance”. As such, the BBC is not a trustworthy source of information on Earth’s climate system.

This BBC article offers an interesting look back at when the BBC was still capable of reporting facts, uncertainties and countervailing hypotheses about why Earth’s climate changes.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Titus
July 23, 2011 10:11 pm

My suspicions were raised a few years ago when the BBC created a page for SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENT (Sci/Environment). It used to be Science & Technology and Nature and Environment which IMO go very well together as they feed the other.
Sci/Environment IMO is a garbled mess of articles that have little or no connection. I have complained a number of times and once got a reply that I was not the only one with this opinion but no reasoning as to why.
If you feel the same as I do then please add your voice here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

Blade
July 23, 2011 10:24 pm

DISCLAIMER: I’m not in the UK, just a curious American.
How the BBC is not compared to Sovet era Pravda or Izvestia is beyond me. And this thing is piped right in to living rooms of the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie alike, fees automatically billed to the taxpayers. Marx must be ROTFIHLHAO (rolling on the floor in hell laughing his ass off).
To be sure, the leftists here in the USA tried something similar but came up short. We have PBS (Public Broadcast Service), partially subsidized by USA taxpayers and it has pretty deep penetration on over-the-air and cable (don’t know about satellite). But they are smart enough to not push the propaganda too far, or else the peasants like myself are likely to show up with pitchforks.
If we can finally manage to wrest control of the government from the Socialists infesting the District of Criminals, PBS will be severed from the taxpayers and billed for all prior contributions. Then it can survive or die, I don’t care, but by standing on its own (with help of course from all the liberal foundations that are already involved).
I don’t see what our brothers and sisters in the UK can possibly do at this point. Or am I mistaken?

Anton [July 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm] says:
“The BBC has five billion in retirement funds invested in carbon trading. If they and others can’t keep the AGW scare going, their stock, already worth muss less than it cost, will become worthless. That’s five billion reasons to do what they’re doing.”

Wow. If that doesn’t violate every written and unwritten law on Conflict of Interest, I don’t know what does. When I hear of these types of examples of business as usual, I fear for the future. It may be that prosperity in the west has just bred stupidity and we are simply marked for darwinistic de-selection.

Elizabeth (not the Queen)
July 23, 2011 10:28 pm

I think the general public would be better served if the media stopped treating scientists as gods.

Al Gored
July 23, 2011 10:33 pm

The only reason to watch the BBC is to see how they are spinning the propaganda.
On the AGW front they were relentless until Climategate. Daily climate crisis story, with dire AGW warnings. Now they have become more subtle. Just relentless weather porn that is supposed to subliminally convince us of climate disruption or wierding or whatever.
The BBC currently hits bottom with Richard Black’s blog and articles. Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, he just keeps coming back with the same old tune no matter how many times new evidence chops off more of it.

Allen
July 23, 2011 10:44 pm

To paraphrase an associate from another lifetime, BBC doesn’t know “$h!t from shinola” when it comes to climate science. Much like the CBC in Canada, ABC in Oz, and NPR in the US. This lot of taxpayer-funded broadcasters share something in common with the likes of NASA and the Met Office – when Big Government writes your cheques you tend to list to the lefty way of thinking, i.e. a love of social engineering and a disdain for those very same taxpayers who fund their socialist fantasies.

DDP
July 24, 2011 12:11 am

What is it with geneticists talking out of their arse to/at the BBC? It was bad enough with Paul Nurse claiming we annually produce seven time more CO2 than global natural emissions. Science isn’t about facts, it’s about interpretation of observable data and increasing knowledge and understanding of why something happens. Knowledge is changeable, facts are not. If it was about facts then warmists would take into account 4.5 billion years of the unpredictable, unstable natural variation of the planet’s climate. If it was about facts there wouldn’t be a need to alter datasets to fit your argument. Wasn’t it a ‘fact’ that the Earth was flat?
I sometimes wonder if scientists know what they do any more, other than get paid. Of course, the more crap you talk the more the liberal elitist MSM takes note, the more the MSM takes note the more money you make due to obviously being an ‘expert as you’ve been on TV.

Peter Plail
July 24, 2011 1:17 am

LazyTeenager says:
July 23, 2011 at 8:32 pm
“And no explanation of why we should have year after year after year after year of trend in increasing polar wind speed with very little random variation superimposed on that trend.
So if we plot the wind speed trend against the ice extent trend what do we get? I am betting no relationship and the “just the facts theory” will then be in the toilet.”
Ah, at last you seem to understand. Both weather and climate are the consequences of chaotic events, so attempts to derive predictable relationships are doomed to failure. Variability in wind speed, wind direction, ocean and atmospheric circulation, sun’s output across the full electromagnetic spectrum, radioactive decay, volcanism, proportions of atmospheric gases and vapour (both natural and anthropogenic) all conspire to challenge our efforts to predict the future and even explain fully the causes of observed (past) climate changes.
I compliment you on seeing the light.

Rhys Jaggar
July 24, 2011 1:17 am

The question Professor Jones should be forced to answer, under oath, before the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, is this:
‘Name one climate scientist whose professional career will not be adversely affected by expressing skepticism about the veracity of carbon dioxide-driven global warming yet still does so in public in on-the-record briefings’.
Then he should be asked the same question replacing the words ‘climate scientist’ with ‘Higher Education Institution employing climate scientists’ and the words ‘professional career’ with ‘financial health’.
Ditto with the words ‘venture capitalists with investee companies dependent on carbon dioxide theories for their credibility’.
Etc etc.
Professor Jones should be told in no uncertain terms that scientists are not dispassionate observers in this matter. They are financial participants.
And if that is beyond his powers to understand he should be told to stand down immediately from any position involving climate science.

John Marshall
July 24, 2011 2:41 am

This in fact changes nothing. The BBC either ignores or repeats the normal stupid platitudes by way of reply to any comment or complaint on climate change inaccuracy or lie.
Prof. Jones should be ashamed of himself especially since he is not a specialist in the eare of climate, being a geneticist, and since he himself has had problems getting truth out within his own area of expertise.

John Marshall
July 24, 2011 2:43 am

Sorry ‘area’ not as typed. My brain is working faster than the fingers today.

roger
July 24, 2011 2:46 am

Not just in Climate matters do the BBC exhibit their left of centre proclivities. Being somewhat of a night owl I watch both the BBc and the Sky TV rolling news channels at 11.20 pm and 11.30 pm respectively as they divulge and discuss the headlines from the next morning’s national daily papers.
It is quite remarkable how regularly the reviewers, usually senior journos from the national press, are those from the Guardian, Independent, and left wing red tops ( often being a pair of pinkos together), on the BBC resume, whilst BSKYB with it’s almost identical format invariably has press people with opposing perspectives.
Needless to say the BSKYB review is much more lively and informative in it’s disection and analysis, whilst that of the BBC is dull self evident left wing propaganda.

Roger Longstaff
July 24, 2011 3:19 am

“Anton says:
“July 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm
The BBC has five billion in retirement funds invested in carbon trading. If they and others can’t keep the AGW scare going, their stock, already worth muss less than it cost, will become worthless. That’s five billion reasons to do what they’re doing.”
Anton, do you have a reference for this? I am pursuing a formal complaint against the BBC and this would be useful ammunition.

Dave Baker
July 24, 2011 3:47 am

Justa Joe is right about Prof Steve Jones. He is also a militant atheist in the mould of Richard Dawkins, yet can’t see that his pro-AGW stance of stifling opposition to AGW and vilification of any heretical opposing view, even in the face of proper scientific findings, is quite analagous to religious belief that he so despises.

Bloke down the pub
July 24, 2011 4:39 am

stevefb says:
July 23, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Nice piece on this topic in the Telegraph
http://tinyurl.com/3hll2dc
—————————————————————————————————————-
‘His successor, Sir John Beddington, an applied population biologist, is only the latest of those held up as ”scientists” to pronounce on climate. Yet, outside their own specialism, the scientists have no more authority than the proverbial man in the pub.’
Recognition from Booker is praise in itself.

Billy Liar
July 24, 2011 4:54 am

Roger Longstaff says:
July 24, 2011 at 3:19 am
http://www.iigcc.org
In their News, Press and Events section you will find a document announcing the appointment of the current chairman on 2 June 2009. Before that time the chairman was Peter Dunscombe, BBC Head of Pension Investments. Short bio:
http://www.spsconferences.com/our_speakers.asp?spkid=386

Robert Stevenson
July 24, 2011 7:30 am

Steve Jones was an engineering apprentice in shipbuilding before converting to biology and genetics. However as a scientist he just follows the establishment view on global warming in the UK which has always followed the biased view of the IPCC.

Tom
July 24, 2011 9:00 am

Longstaff at 3:19 am
There was a a good thread over at Bishop Hill blog on the BBC pension fund (with good links). They are “Not Guilty” unfortunately – I would have loved them to have put their eggs in the windmill subsidy farmer basket – truly….
To falsely accuse the BBC of having an overiding financial interest via the pension funds – is to gift them something they really don’t deserve and makes critics look bad – I wish the accusers would actually make the effort to confirm the veracity of their claims before slinging mud..
The wage bill for dishonest alarmist activists with unequivocal connections to eco loon political movements and parroting their catechisms is bad enough – it doesn’t need varnishing.

Dave
July 24, 2011 9:21 am

Anyone who does not think the BBC is biased towards the warmistas clearly does not watch their programmes.
On the media: it should also be asked to what extent the Murdoch media have influenced matters? After all Rupert Murdoch has been in close cahoots with the warmers Blair, Brown and Cameron whose collective efforts and carbon taxes are slowly ruining the British econolmy and really hurting poor disadvantaged people, the worst off who will not be able to both keep warm and eat properly this coming winter.
The most worrying thing is that those who trumpet global warming most loudly know next to nothing about the climate system – and that includes chief scientific advisers, past and present, to government, to say nothing about the pathetic Steve Jones (what a mighty shot in the foot!).

Billy Liar
July 24, 2011 9:45 am

Tom says:
July 24, 2011 at 9:00 am
You forgot the link:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/7/19/bbc-review-of-science-coming.html
Maybe you were Brownedoff?
Doesn’t look good if your pension manager is chairman of an international group of investors in AGW and you have a grave institutional bias in the same direction.

Filbert Cobb
July 24, 2011 10:48 am

Steve Jones, as a self-confessed “media tart”, has merely acceded to his client’s wishes. Job done. Kerching!

J Martin
July 24, 2011 12:55 pm

william
Can you provide some links for your item no, 3 please.
In all of this AGW nonsense the thing that interests me most is which one of the minimums will we not bounce back from. The one we are entering now ? or the one due in 200 years or a still later one. There seems to be some evidence that suggests that this one may be it. I am intensely interested in anything that provides information in this direction.

anticlimactic
July 24, 2011 4:54 pm

I live in the UK and 90% of my TV viewing is BBC programs. I do not know how the BBC can be more biased against the skeptical view!
It is not just the failure to acknowledge any science contradicting the AGW dogma, it is the outright propaganda which is most repulsive.
Recent examples are ‘Meet the Skeptics’, which turned out to be a 1 hour hatchet job on Lord Monckton, with no right of reply.
Another was in a series about the effects of geology of human development. The presenter was the guy who fronted the ‘Climate Wars’ farce. In this series he said that the interglacial should be a lot cooler by now, and, smirking to the camera, he said the lack of cooling stemmed from the period when humans started farming! [I didn’t watch any more so not sure how he justified it]
The news clip about methane in water as an argument against fracking showed flames coming from a tap – but no water! The guy had to turn the tap off to shut off the flame – obviously a stunt.
The recent studies in to the possibility of the Sun becoming dormant and causing global cooling was presented [web only] as being at a small unimportant meeting by advocates. At the same time a report suggesting drastic destruction of ocean life by ‘Climate Change’ was presented as being by ‘scientists’ [web and TV], not the eco-activists who feed off the rotting corpse of AGW that they were.
With the Gulf oil spill a TV reporter at the scene said a SMALL patch of oil had landed at a pelican colony, and ONE pelican had dived in to it. A picture of this pelican became the backdrop picture for this story for the next several months! Interestingly they did have one expert on who said that natural oil spills were a regular feature in the Gulf, and so the local bugs were adapted to eat oil. This was never referred to again.
In addition there are all the wildlife series, usually with some propaganda, included. The worst being ‘South Pacific’ where a whole program is given over to propaganda : eg. Coral atolls sinking beneath the waves [there was an excellent article on WUWT some time ago explaining how atolls by their nature are ALWAYS at sea level, whether the sea is level is rising or falling]; Ocean ‘acidification’; etc.
There may be some poetic justice in this : If, as I suspect, the costs of renewables will destroy the UK economy, there will be be very few funds to support the BBC. It may very well disappear completely. I would be sad at this as the BBC CAN often produce some truly excellent programs.

anticlimactic
July 24, 2011 5:16 pm

Dave says: July 24, 2011 at 9:21 am
“On the media: it should also be asked to what extent the Murdoch media have influenced matters?”
___________________
In the MSM the few papers that have any kind of skeptical view are often owned by Murdoch : The Australian, South China Daily, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and others. Indeed, it did cross my mind that part of the drive behind the recent feeding frenzy against Murdoch and News International was because of this. If he can be ousted then perhaps this chink of skepticism can be closed.

anticlimactic
July 24, 2011 6:20 pm

`I think the main problem is that ‘environmental correspondents’ will usually be from the Green Movement, either as members or with strong affiliations. To be objective with regards to the science which contradicts AGW risks alienating them from friends, and even a whole lifestyle, should they be ostrasized.
There is also the obvious question as to whether they would even want to be objective. It is no surprise that they would want whatever the green movement dictates to be regarded as the only truth. The surprise is how successful they were at the BBC, but I have no knowledge of the backgrounds of those they convinced so easily, or their reasons for agreement.
I do not know if environmental correspondents are ‘gullible idiots’ who simply believe what they are told to believe, or more knowledgeable people who simply want to push propaganda ‘for the good of the cause’. It would take someone brave to be objective as the consequences on their lives could be far reaching.
The same must also be true of climate scientists who, if they were ‘too objective’, could lose friends, research grants, their job, any future career, etc.

anton
July 24, 2011 9:53 pm

Roger Longstaff says:
July 24, 2011 at 3:19 am
“‘Anton says:
”The BBC has five billion in retirement funds invested in carbon trading. If they and others can’t keep the AGW scare going, their stock, already worth muss less than it cost, will become worthless. That’s five billion reasons to do what they’re doing.'”
“Anton, do you have a reference for this? I am pursuing a formal complaint against the BBC and this would be useful ammunition.”
Yes. And the BBC has not been cleared, as claimed by one of the posters above. It most certainly IS guilty.
Here a few links to get you going:
http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-funds-linked-to-climate-policy/
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2010/02/bbc-pension-fund-invested-in-climate-companies/
http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/04/bbc-pension-trust-carbon-laundering.html