By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Three-quarters (rounded up to 97.1%) of all commenters expressing an opinion on my recent post about Dana Nuccitelli’s attempt at ex-post-facto justification of the false assertion in the lamentable Cook et al. paper of a non-existent 97.1% “scientific consensus” that turned out on peer-reviewed inspection to be 0.3%, enjoyed the name-calling in the post. A quarter did not. To them, sorry.
One of the non-placets asked if I could summarize the argument without the insults. Certainly, sir. I have redrafted the posting as a letter asking the editor of Environmental Research Letters, which had published that gravely misleading paper, to withdraw it and to announce that he has done so. All who would like to add their names to mine on the letter before I send it, please send an email to Anthony, who will pass it to me. Many thanks.
——————————————————————————————————
Professor Daniel Kammen
Editor, Environment Research Letters
12 September 2013
Dear Professor Kammen,
Request for withdrawal of a misleading paper
published in Environmental Research Letters
For the reasons that follow, we are now requesting you to withdraw a defective and gravely misleading paper published in Environment Research Letters on 15 May 2013.
The paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, was by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting and Andrew Skuce of the polemical website “Skeptical Science”; Sarah Green of the Department of Chemistry at Michigan Technological University; Mark Richardson of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading; Robert Way of the Department of Geography at the Memorial University of Newfoundland; and Peter Jacobs of the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at George Mason University. Copies go to all authors.
The introduction to the Cook paper said:
“We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [the abstracts of 11,944 papers on global climate change], published over a 21 year period [1991-2012], in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”.
The Cook paper’s definition of “scientific consensus”, emboldened by us for clarity, is the standard or quantitative definition adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which, in its Assessment Reports of 2001 and 2007, considered it probable that more than half of the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950 was manmade.
Computerized and manual examination of the data-file assembled by the authors of the Cook paper, which they appear to have released only some weeks after their paper had appeared, showed that they had categorized and marked as few as 64 abstracts out of 11,944, or 0.5% of the entire sample, as explicitly endorsing the “scientific consensus” as they had defined it in their introduction.
Further examination of the 64 abstracts by Legates et al. (2013) showed that only 41, or 0.3% of the entire sample, had in fact explicitly endorsed the “scientific consensus” as defined.
However, the Cook paper concluded with these words:
“Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
The authors, having stated at the outset their intention to determine the level of
“scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”,
and having listed
“(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming)”
as the first of seven “levels of endorsement” to which they assigned the 11,944 abstracts, did not state in their paper that they had categorized only 64 out of 11,944 abstracts as having explicitly endorsed the “scientific consensus” as defined. To conceal how very small this number was, they added together all of the abstracts they had assigned to the first three of their seven categories, and did not state the three values separately.
The seven categories or “levels of endorsement” in the Cook paper were –
1 “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
2 “Explicit endorsement without quantification”
3 “Implicit endorsement”
4 “No opinion or uncertain”
5 “Implicit rejection”
6 “Explicit rejection without quantification”
7 “Explicit rejection with quantification”
Mr. Nuccitelli, one of the authors of the Cook paper, has written a posting on the “Skeptical Science” blog in which he sought to justify the discrepancy between the 0.5% of abstracts that Legates et al. had shown the Cook paper had assigned to the “explicit endorsement with quantification” category and the “97.1% based on abstract ratings” that the conclusion of the Cook paper had claimed endorsed the “scientific consensus” as defined:
“The IPCC position (humans causing most global warming) was represented in our categories 1 and 7, which include papers that explicitly endorse or reject/minimize human-caused global warming, and also quantify the human contribution. Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view.”
From this series of admissions, it is evident that the authors of the Cook paper are now claiming 87% (not 97.1%) “scientific consensus” – but that they are doing so on the basis of a sample size that has shrunk from 11,944 to just 75 papers, arbitrarily and improperly eliminating 99.4% of the papers in the original sample. No scientific survey or opinion poll with a sample size of less than 1000 would normally be regarded as statistically significant.
Even then, Mr. Nuccitelli’s account of events contains an obvious error. For none of those abstracts that the Cook paper had assigned to categories 5 and 6 (explicit or implicit rejection of the consensus without quantification), as well as none of those in category 7 (explicit rejection with quantification), endorsed the “scientific consensus” as defined.
There were 41 abstracts explicitly endorsing the IPCC’s version of consensus. But there were not only 9 in level 7 but also 54 in level 5 and 15 in level 6. Total sample size was thus only 119 out of 11,944 papers, or just 1% of an already smallish sample of the entire literature.
Accordingly, even on Mr. Nuccitelli’s arbitrary basis, endorsement for the “scientific consensus” as defined was not the 87% he asserts on behalf of his co-authors in the above-cited passage, but just 34.5%. That is little more than one-third of the 97.1% endorsement that the Cook paper had originally claimed for the “scientific consensus” as defined.
Nowhere does the Cook paper make it plain that the sample size on the basis of which the claim of 97.1% endorsement for the “scientific consensus” is made was so tiny.
In an article Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, posted at http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html, the Institute of Physics wrote:
“Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: ‘We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made.’”
We can discern no basis for the claim made in the above passage by one of the authors of the Cook paper that 97% of the 4000 papers that had stated a position on the “scientific consensus” had “said that recent warming is mostly man made”. The claim is false.
The central, and irremediable, error in the Cook paper is that the authors, by not adhering scrupulously throughout to the definition of “scientific consensus” that they had stated at the outset was the basis of their inquiry, were implying that if 97.1% of those abstracts that had expressed some sort of an opinion on global warming had said or implied that Man could cause some warming (their categories 5 and 6), those same 97.1% would also say or imply that Man caused at least half the global warming since 1950 (their category 7).
We are disappointed at the authors’ apparent attempt to conceal the fact that they had been able to categorize only a very small number of papers as explicitly endorsing the “scientific consensus” as they had themselves defined it; that, even then, they had miscategorised one-third of the 64 papers they had marked as endorsing that “scientific consensus”; that their methodological defects are numerous and fundamental; that they failed to disclose that their effective sample size was not 11,944 nor even 4000 papers but 119, rendering the entire exercise statistically meaningless; and that one of the co-authors has incorrectly stated in a public scientific forum that 97% of abstracts expressing an opinion on global warming had “said that recent warming is mostly man made”, when only 1% of those expressing an opinion and 0.3% of the entire sample had in fact done so.
One of us wrote a corrective commentary and submitted it to the editor of Environment Research Letters, and, upon request, subsequently shortened and resubmitted the commentary, but received no further reply.
In the circumstances, we now request that the manifestly defective and gravely deceptive Cook paper be withdrawn forthwith. We should be grateful if you would make an early announcement to that effect, and if you would kindly let us know when you have done so.
Yours truly,
Monckton of Brenchley (and, I hope, others)
===================================================================
Here is Monckton’s request letter (added)
===================================================================
Professor Daniel Kammen, Editor, Environment Research Letters
14 September 2013
Dear Professor Kammen,
Request for withdrawal of a gravely misleading paper
Please withdraw the gravely misleading paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature (May 15, Environment Research Letters). The paper claimed a 97.1% “scientific consensus” among the abstracts of 11,944 climate change papers published from 1991-2012. The true “consensus” was not 97.1%. It was 0.3%.
The defective paper’s introduction said:
“We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC [the abstracts of 11,944 papers on climate change], published over a 21 year period [1991-2012], in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. [my emphases]
The paper’s definition of “scientific consensus” is thus the standard, quantified definition adopted by the IPCC, which, in its Assessment Reports of 2001 and 2007, considered it very likely that most of the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950 was manmade.
Computerized and manual examination by Legates et al. (2013) of the authors’ data-file, made available only some weeks after the paper had appeared, showed that on that file the authors had marked as few as 64 abstracts out of 11,944 (0.5% of the entire sample) as explicitly endorsing that “scientific consensus” as defined in the introduction to their paper.
Legates et al., on further examining the 64 abstracts, found that only 41 of them, or 0.3% of the entire sample, had in fact explicitly endorsed that “scientific consensus”. However, the defective paper you published concluded with these words:
“Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
The authors had stated at the outset their intention to determine the level of
“scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. [my emphases]
They had listed this standard, quantified definition of “scientific consensus” in their paper as
“(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification (explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming)”, [my emphases]
the first of seven “levels of endorsement” to which they assigned the abstracts. Yet they did not disclose in their paper how few abstracts – just 64 – they had marked as having stated support for that standard, quantified “scientific consensus”.
To conceal how very small this number was, they added together all of the abstracts they had assigned to the first three of their seven categories, treating all three categories as one, and did not state the three values separately. An impartial peer reviewer would have spotted this.
The seven categories or “levels of endorsement” listed in the paper, with the abstracts marked on the data file or disclosed in the paper as falling within each category, were –
| Level of endorsement of “scientific consensus” in 11,944 abstracts |
Marked |
Disclosed |
|
| 1 | Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming |
64 |
┐ |
| 2 | Explicit endorsement without quantification [We cause some warming] |
922 |
│ 3896 |
| 3 | Implicit endorsement |
2910 |
┘ |
| 4a | No opinion |
7930 |
7930 |
| 4b | Uncertain |
40 |
40 |
| 5 | Implicit rejection |
54 |
54 |
| 6 | Explicit rejection without quantification |
15 |
15 |
| 7 | Explicit rejection with quantification |
9 |
9 |
|
|
|
||
| Total |
11,944 |
11,944 |
One of the authors has sought to justify the discrepancy between the 0.5% of abstracts they marked as “1” (“explicit endorsement with quantification”) and the “97.1% based on abstract ratings” that their conclusion had misrepresented as endorsing the “consensus” as defined:
“The IPCC position (humans causing most global warming) was represented in our categories 1 and 7, which include papers that explicitly endorse or reject/minimize human-caused global warming, and also quantify the human contribution. Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) [actually 73] falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) [actually 64] endorsed the consensus view.” [my emphases]
The authors, then, are now claiming 87% (not 97.1%) “scientific consensus” – but are doing so on the basis of a sample size that has shrunk from 11,944 to just 73 papers, improperly eliminating 99.4% of the papers in the original sample. No scientific survey or opinion poll with a sample size less than 1000 would normally be recognized as having any meaning.
Even then, none of the abstracts the authors had marked as falling within categories 5-7 could possibly be said to have endorsed the “scientific consensus” as defined.
There were 41 abstracts explicitly endorsing the IPCC’s version of consensus. But, rejecting any anthropogenic influence, there were not only 9 in level 7 but also 54 in level 5 and 15 in level 6. Thus, 78 papers rejected any definition of “scientific consensus”.
Total sample size was thus only 119 out of 11,944 papers, or just 1% of an already smallish literature sample. Nowhere does the paper admit that the sample size on the basis of which the claim of 97.1% (now 87%) endorsement of “scientific consensus” is made was so small.
Even on that author’s newly-proclaimed and strange basis, endorsement for the “scientific consensus” as defined was not the 87% he now asserts but just 41 in 119, or 34.5% – a third of the 97.1% endorsement originally claimed for that “scientific consensus”.
In an article entitled Study reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, posted at http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html, the Institute of Physics cites one of the paper’s authors:
“Co-author of the study [name and institution] said: ‘We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made.’” [my emphases]
I can discern no rational basis for that author’s claim that 97% of the 4014 abstracts that had stated a position on the “scientific consensus” had “said that recent warming is mostly man made”. The author’s claim, like the claim made in the conclusion of the paper itself, is false.
The authors had not adhered throughout to the definition of “scientific consensus” that their introduction had stated was the basis of their inquiry. They were implying, in effect, that since 97.1% of the 4014 abstracts had stated or implied that Man could cause some warming (categories 2-3), those same 97.1% were also stating or implying that Man caused most of the global warming since 1950 (category 1).
I am disappointed – and so should you be –
- that the paper had erroneously and gravely over-claimed 97.1% “scientific consensus;
- that the authors had tried to conceal that they had had categorized only 64 abstracts out of 11,944 as explicitly endorsing the “scientific consensus” as they had defined it;
- that, even then, the authors had miscategorised 23 of the 64 abstracts as endorsing that “scientific consensus” when the 23 had not in fact endorsed it;
- that the authors had failed to disclose that their effective sample size was not 11,944 nor even 4014 papers but just 119, rendering the entire exercise meaningless;
- that, on the basis that one of the authors now says was intended, that author says they had meant 87% consensus (not 97%) among just 73 abstracts (not 4014);
- that the true “scientific consensus”, after correcting an obvious error in the newly-asserted (and still strange) basis for calculation, would be 34% of just 119 abstracts;
- that the authors had failed to admit that only 1% of the 4014 abstracts they marked as expressing an opinion had endorsed the “scientific consensus” as they had defined it;
- that the authors had failed to disclose that only 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts had endorsed that “scientific consensus”;
- that the authors had not adhered to a single definition of “scientific consensus”; and
- that one of the authors, in a public scientific forum, continues in defiance of the truth to assert that 97.1% had “said that recent warming is mostly man made”, when very nearly all of the abstracts had neither stated nor implied any such thing.
The paper you published is not merely defective: it is deceptive. It claims that 97.1% endorsed a “scientific consensus” that at most 1% had endorsed. You cannot let it stand.
I submitted a corrective commentary to you. Upon request, I subsequently shortened and resubmitted the commentary, but I received no further reply.
In the circumstances, to protect your journal’s reputation and those of its Board members from any allegation of scientific misrepresentation, you must withdraw the paper forthwith. Please make an early announcement to that effect, and let me know when you have done so.
Copies go to all members of your board. I await your reply.
Yours truly,
cc. Professor Myles Allen myles.allen@ouce.ox.ac.uk
Professor Maohong Fan mfan@uwyo.edu
Dr. Peter Gleick pgleick@pipeline.com
Dr. Jose Goldemberg cominicacao@iee.usp.br
Professor Giles Harrison r.g.harrison@reading.ac.uk
Professor Tracey Holloway taholloway@wisc.edu
Professor Klaus Keller klaus@psu.edu
Professor Jakob Mann jmsq@dtu.dk
I’m in 100%.
Add me, please.
I’m in via Contact Us page
Please add my name.
Myrna Sales, PhD
Please add my name to the Request. Nicholas Tesdorf
Please add my name as well,
Andy May
Petrophysicist
Please add my name: Michael B. Combs, MBA, CPA, Gualala, California
Proud to join you: Patrick J Brennan, PE
I’m up for it!
Anthony, please forward my email address too – if a full name is required it is Kevin Armstrong Engineering Geologist, M.Sc, B.Sc(Hons)
Please add my name:
Susan Oliver BSc (Hons)
I’m late to the show but I’m solidly behind this initiative.
Jan Christoffersen, PEng
Jan, just get off the golf course?
Add me.
Ian Bilquist
BSc (Geology)
Please add my name as well.
Daryl Bergmann
Please [add] my name.
Thank you for the privilege, add my name, please!
Pls. add my name to the list.
And my name also…Benjamin Douglas
Please add my name — Jon Jermey.
email sent with name and address .might be an idea for those using other social media outlets to post a link up to this.i am sure there would be a big response.
This petition should also be sent to every member of the BBC Trust, the BBC Executive Board and the Non-executives.
“Dear BBC, we, the taxpaying public, have had enough of the lying propaganda you publish and broadcast on a daily basis about “global warming”, or “climate change”, or whatever you are calling it this month.
One of the most persistent lies you disseminate is that of the so-called “98% consensus” of climate scientists who agree with the assertion that changes in the Earth’s climate are largely driven by man-made carbon dioxide, or “carbon emissions” as you prefer to call it.
This lie is repeated by every broadcaster you employ, including your so-called “Environment Analyst” Roger Harrabin, and no effort is spared in spreading the misinformation via selected guests on your various programs, such as Radio 4’s Saturday Review on Saturday September 14th.
In view of the information attached, which proves conclusively the lie about the “98% consensus” we demand you either stop deliberately disseminating this deception to your audiences and readers or provide a comprehensive explanation to the public as to why you refuse to do so.
—
BBC HQ
BBC Broadcasting House
London
W1A 1AA
Tel: +44 370 010 0222
Tel: 020 7743 8000
Tel: 08700 100 222 if you want to complain about a programme
info@bbc.co.uk
—
BBC BOSSES AND COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES
If you want to email them direct, then it is usually firstname.lastname@bbc.co.uk
THE BBC TRUSTEES
Lord Patten
Chairman
Diane Coyle
Vice Chairman
Sonita Alleyne
Trustee
Richard Ayre
Trustee
Anthony Fry
Trustee
Alison Hastings
Trustee for England
David Liddiment
Trustee
Bill Matthews
Trustee for Scotland
Aideen McGinley
Trustee for Northern Ireland
Elan Closs Stephens
Trustee for Wales
Suzanna Taverne
Trustee
Lord Williams
Trustee
—
The Director-General of the BBC
The Director-General is the Chief Executive Officer and the Editor-in-Chief of the BBC. He is the editorial, operational and creative leader of the organisation, with responsibility for the Corporation’s global workforce and all of the BBC’s services across television, radio and online.
The Director-General chairs the BBC Executive Board, which consists of six other executive directors, and four non-executive directors.The Executive Board manages the BBC. It is responsible for operational management and for the delivery of BBC services according to the plans that have been agreed with the BBC Trust.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Tony Hall, Director-General
Helen Boaden, Director, Radio
Danny Cohen, Director, Television
James Harding, Director of News and Current Affairs
Lucy Adams, Director, HR
Anne Bulford, Managing Director,Operations and Finance
James Purnell, Director, Strategy & Digital
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Simon Burke
Sally Davis
Dame Fiona Reynolds DBE
Brian McBride
—
MAKING A COMPLAINT TO THE BBC
Complaints page
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Complain online
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/
The Feedback program (quite a useless program, really)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/
feedback@bbc.co.uk
Phone:
03700 100 222*
03700 100 212* (textphone)
*24 hours, charged as 01/02 geographic numbers
By Post:
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UR
How the BBC handles complaints
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/
How and when to complain:
To help us report and handle complaints efficiently, we ask you to contact us using our central website, phone number or postal address. If you do not, we cannot guarantee your complaint is seen by the right people or that you will receive a reply. If you need access assistance please contact us.
If you have a complaint about a BBC item which was broadcast or published, either online or in a BBC owned magazine, you should normally complain within 30 working days of the transmission or publication (there are some exceptions to this time limit so please read the full procedures). Please make one complaint rather than multiple issues which may complicate any investigation and delay our reply. For the full complaints procedures please visit the BBC Trust website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/). You can also complain to Ofcom – details at Where to complain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/where-to-complain/)
If you complain online, we ask you to complete a webform instead of contacting an email address. This is because we need to capture all the information to classify, report and handle each complaint as efficiently as possible.
What happens next:
We will investigate possible breaches of standards, but in order to use your licence fee proportionately will not reply in detail to other points such as comments, further questions or matters of opinion. For consistency and to minimise costs, if we receive other complaints about the same issue we will send the same reply to everyone and may publish a response on our website or in Corrections and clarifications (http://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/corrections_clarifications/index.html) We email or post over 90% of replies within 2 weeks (10 working days) but cannot always guarantee this. It will also depend on what your complaint is about, how many others we have and practical issues such as whether a production team is on location or otherwise away.
If you are dissatisfied with our reply you should re-contact us in writing within 20 working days explaining why. You may be able to take the issue further to stage 2 and if so we will explain how. This is normally either to the independent Editorial Complaints Unit or relevant senior management. We publish the findings of complaints upheld or resolved by the Editorial Complaints Unit and those considered at stage 3 on appeal by the BBC Trust in Complaints reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/reports/)
In order to use your licence fee proportionately we do not investigate minor, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious complaints which have not suggested evidence of a breach of standards, or are gratuitously abusive or offensive. When handling your complaint we will treat you courteously and with respect. We expect you to show equal courtesy and respect towards our staff and reserve the right to discontinue correspondence if you do not, and in some cases we may use your personal information to stop such behaviour.
More details:
The BBC Trust upholds standards and represents the interests of licence payers and full details of the complaints procedures are available on the BBC Trust website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/). Please scroll down for further information and answers about the handling of complaints. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/#faqs)
—
Further information about the complaints service
What does the BBC do with my complaint?
We analyse all complaints overnight and also take into account other reaction, audience research and BBC Editorial Guidelines. People have different views or expectations about programmes which can differ from our editorial standards or the public service obligations we must meet. So our reply to a complaint may not always be what someone might wish. But if we get something wrong we will apologise and, if necessary, take steps to avoid it happening again.
How does the BBC act on complaints?
The BBC’s Complaints Management Board meets monthly to review issues arising from complaints, BBC Trust or Ofcom findings and other broadcasting developments. Chaired by the Chief Complaints Editor it is made up of senior executives and ensures lessons are learned and fed into BBC Editorial Guidelines and compliance processes. It reports to the BBC’s Editorial Standards Board. The BBC Trust is the BBC’s governing body which holds the Executive to account and represents the interests of licence payers. It monitors editorial standards, compliance and complaints handling. It reports on these in its Annual Report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/) to licence payers and on the BBC Trust website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/)
What if I remain dissatisfied with the BBC’s reply?
You should re-contact us in writing within 20 working days quoting any case number and explaining why. You may be able to take the issue to stage 2 and if so we will explain how. This is normally either to the independent Editorial Complaints Unit or higher management. For the full complaints procedures please visit the BBC Trust website.
Do the numbers of complaints make a difference?
No. We are always concerned about high numbers, but what matters is whether the complaint is justified and the BBC acted wrongly. If so we will apologise. If we do not believe we breached our public service obligations or Editorial Guidelines we will explain why. We sometimes come under pressure from organised lobbies or the press but defend our editorial independence and standards as necessary.
How does the BBC define a complaint?
It isn’t possible to define the difference between a comment and complaint. If you say it is a complaint we count it as one. We generally consider a complaint to be a criticism which expects a reply and would ideally like things changed, even if we are unable to respond as the complainant might wish.
What does the BBC publish about complaints?
We publish public responses to issues of wide audience concern if they cause significant numbers of complaints or raise a significant issue. We do not publish public responses to every single complaint. Our responses are available in Complaints reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/reports/) for up to six months and include any explanation, apology or action taken as a result. In Complaints reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/reports/) we also publish:
1. monthly summaries of the main editorial complaints received at stage 1
2. findings of editorial complaints later upheld or resolved by the Editorial Complaints Unit (stage 2)
3. findings of subsequent appeals to the BBC Trust (stage 3) including non-editorial complaints
What if I have not had a reply?
Please call us or contact us through our website.
What happens if I opt not to ask for a reply?
Your complaint is normally still circulated to BBC staff to read in our overnight report of reaction.
Please add me.
Mike Gee BA (Maths), Bsc (Maths & Physics)
I’m ‘in’, via the Contact form under the ‘About’ tab at top of page.
And proud to be in such company as above!
MtK
Please ad my name Phineas Sprague Jr. BA Geology, MBA
Add my name.
Jiri Moudry