Mandatory Indoctrination for BBC Officials who Broke Climate "Rules"

bbc_green

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The BBC broadcast an obscure programme on state radio on August the 5th, on Radio 4, called “what’s the point of the MET office?”, which allowed the voice of climate skepticism onto British broadcast radio. As a result of this massive breach of BBC policy, there has been a major internal inquiry, and several BBC officials have been sent on mandatory climate re-education courses.

The Telegraph reports on the outcome of the internal hearing into this failure of editorial control;

A Radio 4 programme that claimed that the Met Office had exaggerated the threat posed by global warming as part of its “political lobbying” has been found guilty of serious breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines.

The BBC Trust said that What’s the Point of the Met Office?, broadcast on August 5 and hosted by the journalist Quentin Letts, had “failed to make clear that the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science were supported by the majority of scientists”.

Criticising the corporation of a “serious breach of the editorial guidelines for impartiality and accuracy”, the broadcaster’s governing body said “audiences were not given sufficient information about prevailing scientific opinion to allow them to assess the position of the Met Office and the Met Office position on these criticisms was not adequately included in the programme”.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12033749/Radio-4-show-that-criticised-Met-Office-stance-on-climate-change-broke-broadcasting-rules.html

Journalist Quentin Letts, who hosted the Radio 4 programme, has written a response to this ridiculous overreaction in The Spectator;

First, an apology. Thanks to me, all journalists at BBC Radio’s ethics and religion division are being sent for indoctrination in climate change. Sorry. In July I made a short Radio 4 programme with them called What’s the Point of the Met Office?, which accidentally sent orthodox warmists into a boiling tizzy. Amid jolly stuff about the history of weather predictions and the drippiness of today’s forecasters, we touched on parliamentary lobbying done by the state-funded Met Office. All hell broke out. Cataracts and hurricanoes! The Met Office itself was unfazed but the eco-lobby, stirred by BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin, went nuts. I was accused of not giving a proper airing to ‘prevailing scientific opinion’. Apostasy had occurred. I was duly flogged on the Feedback programme.

That was the last I thought of it until last week, when I was sent an enormous draft report from the BBC Trust’s editorial standards committee. This said I was likely to be found guilty of a ‘serious breach’ of ‘impartiality and accuracy’. The tone was akin to something from the International Criminal Court at the Hague or the Vatican in Galileo’s day. Did my little programme err? I certainly didn’t try to give listeners a reverential précis of ‘prevailing scientific opinion’ — didn’t think that was my remit. But we did have some fun interviewing an engagingly untidy climate-change sceptic called Piers Corbyn. His brother is now leader of HM Opposition. The BBC hierarchy’s overreaction to all this has been an education, as has the activism of Harrabin. Meanwhile, my ethics and religion mates have been sentenced to hard labour on the BBC Academy’s impartiality online training module, with ‘a substantial scenario on reporting climate-change science’. At school they call this detention.

Read more: http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/quentin-lettss-diary-an-apology-to-the-bbc-journos-who-thanks-to-me-are-being-sent-away-for-re-education/

So what was the programme which caused all that controversy? The following is a link to a recording of the programme. Half an hour of harmless fun, broadcast all the way back in August.

What’s the point of the MET Office?

You would think the BBC would have more interesting ways to spend their money and time, than conducting witch hunts to root out the last vestiges of climate skepticism within their ranks. But I guess that is a decision for the BBC Trust, and of course the taxpayers of Britain, assuming anyone bothers to ask their opinion.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
152 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latitude
December 6, 2015 5:02 pm

…and no one would have noticed
unless they made a BIG DEAL out of it

Editor
Reply to  Latitude
December 6, 2015 5:07 pm

🙂

Bryan A
Reply to  Andy May
December 6, 2015 9:39 pm

It does rather set a precedent though. If a skeptic can be reprimanded for presenting dissenting views of climate data analysis without granting equal time to the “preferred warmist opinion” then it only stands to reason that warmist opinion pieces MUST therefore so present Equal Time to the skeptic viewpoint

Insufficiently Sensitive
Reply to  Andy May
December 7, 2015 2:25 pm

then it only stands to reason that warmist opinion pieces MUST therefore so present Equal Time to the skeptic viewpoint
Not so. Skeptic viewpoints are of course equal, but warmist viewpoints are equaler. Therefore no reciprocity.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Latitude
December 6, 2015 5:16 pm

It’s the only reason I am going to watch that little show — heh. BBC will, apparently, do ANYTHING to get viewers.
What? They would rather I did NOT watch that show? What kind of illogical nonsense is that??!
Hm? Oh.
Anything to keep Big Wind, “Sustainable,” & Solar, Ltd. in business, hm?
THAT is logical. Follow the money… .
#(:))

BallBounces
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 6, 2015 6:25 pm

“Anything to keep Big Wind, “Sustainable,” & Solar, Ltd. in business, hm?”
That reference to Al Gore is a low blow 😉

Lawrie Ayres
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 7, 2015 12:19 am

Would the BBC pension fund have investments in wind and solar? The way the BBC campaigns for such things should send a warning that maybe it has an interest in them.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 7, 2015 2:23 am

Janice: It was radio. But very good radio as Quentin is one of our leading parliamentary sketch writers with a wicked turn of phrase.

George Tetley
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 7, 2015 9:52 am

And where is the BBC pension fund millions invested !!!! something more than 30% in renewable energy !

Mike
Reply to  Latitude
December 6, 2015 10:31 pm

Clearly the programme should have shown both sides of the argument: the global warming orthodoxy AND that alarmists.
The next programme in the series is entitle: “What’s the point of the BBC”.

DougUK
Reply to  Latitude
December 7, 2015 8:43 am

Streisand effect, Streisand effect, Streisand effect………………
Do these Muppets ever learn?
Are they ever likely to develop sufficient maturity such that they understand that people with synapses that fire actually take note of such bullying twaddle and react against it?
Only the brain hard-wired, truck no dissent warmists would see this as some sort of sensible notion.
Mind you I am not complaining – those of us with genuine concerns about the warmistas and the dodgy science they peddle simply have to point out such idiocy to get our point across.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Latitude
December 8, 2015 12:55 am

I thought the BBC was dropping the Met Office?

Mycroft
December 6, 2015 5:10 pm

The words impartail and Harribin should tell all that is to tell about this Facism!

Tom Yoke
December 6, 2015 5:20 pm

This article is a perfect example of the insanity of the “appeal to authority” argument. It is a positive feedback mechanism that drives toward the limit without any regard to external evidence.
60% of observers agree on a point, so that group puts pressure on the undecided remainder. After all, the rest of us are in agreement. What makes you special? That argument persuades some of the weak-minded so 70% agree.
70% agree on the point so they begin to get pushy. Who are you to think that you should go against the consensus? That peer pressure persuades some of the remainder and now its 80%.
80% agree and now the pressure becomes severe. Are you some kind of nut to oppose that which the rest of us all see is true? Who will resist pressure like this? Not many, the consensus is now 90%.
90% agree and now you are a complete wacko who must be ground down. It is outrageous that you deny what is evident to all. The consensus goes to 97%.
97% agree and now it is flatly unacceptable to disagree. You will be fired from your job and excluded from polite conversation. No excuse or answer for this misbehavior is acceptable. We INSIST that you conform.
This is mob psychology 101. Conform or be eliminated.

Just Steve
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 6, 2015 6:54 pm

You. Will. Be. Made. To. Care.
I love Big Brother.

tomdesabla
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 6, 2015 6:56 pm

Tom Yoke, this is an excellent comment. I’ve never heard it broken down that way.
It makes things even clearer than they already were.
Thanks for this
+100

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 6, 2015 7:05 pm

And, to conclude (hope you don’t mind, Tom Yoke): the remaining 3% are fired or “resign in lieu of” and… VOILA! 100%! Al1ahoo Ackb@r! (mirthless laugh)
…. for instance…. hold a closed-door “press conference” where the Lynch squad-of-one stands in the wings, ever-vigilant… (this instance is from the recent Is1am!c terror-murder “one-off” in San Bernardino County, CA).

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 6, 2015 7:08 pm

Edit: “… for an instance {of what you can do with 100% consensus, you can …”

the73rd
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 7, 2015 4:35 am

apply the same steps to grant funding and the process repeats itself at the academy and at the bank.

rogerknights
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 7, 2015 7:14 am

“It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it.”
—A. Hodge

Tom T
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 7, 2015 10:20 am

Slight correction its not appeal to authority, argumentum ab auctoritate, its appeal to popularity, Argumentum ad populum.

Tom Yoke
Reply to  Tom T
December 7, 2015 10:43 am

The distinction you raise is an unpersuasive one. Much (nearly all) of the point I’m making is that the official pronouncements of so-called “authorities” are very much subject to peer pressure. Authorities are swayed by popularity.
Even scientists with strings of letters after their names are still human, and don’t want to be ostracized by taking positions that are “unpopular”. Thus they take the easier route, and thus become part of the consensus that then applies even harsher pressure on the hold-outs.

powersbe
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 7, 2015 11:55 am

Resistance is futile. You shall be assimilated.

Number 6
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 8, 2015 11:22 am

‘Why did you resign?’ asks #2
“I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, breifed, debriefed or number” replies #6
Which is why he was classified as ‘un-mutual’ and sent to The Village.

William
December 6, 2015 5:20 pm

The Streisand effect???

Physics Major
Reply to  William
December 6, 2015 7:45 pm

Exactly.

Bryan A
Reply to  Physics Major
December 7, 2015 10:12 am

Barbara Streisand complained that Google Images showed her house in too much detail and was highly vocal in having the overhead images pixilated over her property. This tidbit in the news created a Google Storm from everyone wanting to SEE what she wanted scrubbed while it was still available.
Streisand effect: Complaining about something and making it worse by drawing unwanted attention to it.

Frederick Michael
Reply to  William
December 6, 2015 8:02 pm

But will the BBC even notice that “What’s the Point of the Met Office” has gone viral?

Tom Harley
Reply to  Frederick Michael
December 6, 2015 8:28 pm

More to the agenda, ‘What’s the Point of the BBC?”.

ferdberple
December 6, 2015 5:26 pm

the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science were supported by the majority of scientists
==============
references? I’m not aware of any study showing that the majority of scientists support the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science. Has such a study even been published?
I seriously doubt that the majority of mathematicians for example support the Met’s underlying views on climate science. I expect the majority of mathematicians are not even aware of the Met’s underlying view on climate science, so how could the majority be in support of something they are not even aware of?
I believe this will hold true for any of the hard sciences such as Physics and Chemistry. The majority of scientist have little or no knowledge or opinion about the Met Office’s underlying views on climate change science, and thus the majority cannot be said to be in support.
The BBC Trust should be asked to supply the supporting documentations for their claim, because common sense says they are not correct. I believe that British Citizens can make such a request under FOIA whereas those of us in the colonies cannot.

Smart Rock
Reply to  ferdberple
December 6, 2015 5:50 pm

What they should say is “the underlying views of the Met Office on climate change science are supported by a majority of scientists who agree with the underlying views of the Met Office on climate change science”
This would at least have the merit of being true, if a little obvious.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  ferdberple
December 6, 2015 5:55 pm

Perhaps the Chinese military will hack them and tell us all what they really believe.
Last time I heard they were carefully covering for a cold Summer and muttering about a quiet sun.

cassidy421
Reply to  ferdberple
December 6, 2015 5:57 pm

The BBC doesn’t support Met Office climate science and replaced UKMet as its weather/climate reporting agency months ago.

blunderbunny
Reply to  cassidy421
December 7, 2015 1:55 am

They won’t be using the Met Office in future. But they are still using them now…..

michel
Reply to  ferdberple
December 6, 2015 11:50 pm

Under UK FOIA anyone anywhere in the world can apply.

mikewaite
Reply to  michel
December 7, 2015 12:43 am

If anyone has a FOIA request in mind they should submit it as soon as possible . The Govt have plans to effectively destroy the ability of mere taxpayers to question those in authority or seek out corruption in high places, according to stories in the press.

anng
Reply to  ferdberple
December 8, 2015 7:53 am

Unfortunately, almost all climate & weather scientists are paid by the Met Office. They are both branches of Government, doing what they feel like, and asking for more money from the tax-payers.
Quentin Letts series “What’s the point of … ” is quite obviously taking ‘the Mick’, and the Met Office idiots have risen to it.
Quentin’s question of Piers Corbyn was the title of the program, giving him lots of room to remind them of all their obvious errors. Very amusing.
Also interesting that none of the other institutions in the series complained. The Met Office has really thin skins. Don’t they know it’s British to laugh at yourself?

Duster
December 6, 2015 5:27 pm

Shades of George Orwell wince.

Brian H
December 6, 2015 5:28 pm

The BBC is evidently run by goofs, who have no clue that they are.

petermue
December 6, 2015 5:28 pm

Long live freedom of the press… or?

clipe
December 6, 2015 5:31 pm
Winston Smith
December 6, 2015 5:32 pm

If B =2 and C = 3 then B + B = C.
Doubleplusgood

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Winston Smith
December 6, 2015 10:57 pm

For small values of 2…

cassidy421
December 6, 2015 5:40 pm

Gee, blasphemy IS A Big DEAL, you #$$^ oil company shill.
Really, the story sounds like the BBC telling a BBC joke, an evil one.but Phillipe Verdier’s firing still get’s my fascist thug award.
Lett’s reply wouldn’t have made it into the news in the US. Reporters Without Borders ranks the US #49 in freedom of the press.
At least in the UK and France the media is honest enough to publish an admission that climate science is politics.

Logoswrench
December 6, 2015 5:42 pm

The BBC complaining about lack of accuracy and impartiality. Hilarious. No shortage of irony apparently.

Smart Rock
December 6, 2015 5:44 pm

There once was a time when the BBC was a beacon of light for the oppressed and the downtrodden, for those who lived in countries where there was no freedom, no free press or anything like it. If they could get hold of a short-wave radio they could hear unbiased and factual reporting of world events, even about stuff in their own countries that their own rulers suppressed.
And now look at it.

Reply to  Smart Rock
December 6, 2015 10:19 pm

I remember those days, sadly.

Bryan A
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 7, 2015 10:17 am

Almost lyrical Smart Rock

Jfisk
December 6, 2015 5:47 pm

The warmest police are everywhere, they will do anything to promote their view, regardless of the truth.

Lewis P Buckingham
December 6, 2015 5:59 pm

Perhaps there is an opening for this journalist covering the COP in Paris on Russian TV.

601nan
December 6, 2015 6:03 pm

BBC is a little cog in the Political-Industrial Complex.
Funny. In three years my FB mates have never shared a post on anything related to “Climate Change” or “Global Warming.”
There were some posts regarding the boy (formerly in Texas) who assembled a comical looking clock in a brief case. Many FBs were concerned that the Teacher at the school who reported him to “authorities” was attempting yet another sexual lesion with the boy this time by using his lover the Chief of Police to sequester the boy in County Detention locked cell so that the Teacher could enter and get his “desert” from the boy.
After all. Texas is “Malboro Man” Country, not “Brokeback Mountain” Country.
Ha ha

Kev-in-Uk
Reply to  601nan
December 7, 2015 9:16 am

@601nan Seriously, if you have FB friends like that, you really need to do some unfriending!
As for that particular clock boy (aka, son of an pro-islamic group – and complete fraudster – taking a clock apart and ”unintentionally” making it look like a bomb) he is apparently now suing the state/police for some 15million bucks! But of course, it wasn’t a carefully planned ruse……..

pat
December 6, 2015 6:04 pm

ABC in Australia is similarly totalitarian when it comes to CAGW:
5 Dec: Bolt Blog: Don’t believe what (ABC Managing Director) Mark Scott says about the ABC’s “plurality”, just look at who he hires
This is how The Australian reported Mark Scott’s response to the evidence at the Senate Estimates:
Mr Scott said that the ABC was not obliged under its charter to provide equal time to both sides of a “contentious” debate, only to present divergent views.
“There is nothing in the editorial policies that say a stopwatch needs to be out on this matter, or climate change, or a range of contentious issues in the community,” he said, adding that the ABC had “robust” processes to ensure its editorial coverage was balanced…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_believe_what_mark_scott_says_about_the_abcs_plurality_just_look_at_who/
AUDIO 8mins47secs: 5 Dec: ABC The Science Show: Touch the emotions to communicate science – Ramakrishnan
Venkatraman (Venki) Ramakrishnan is an Indian-born American and British structural biologist and from November 2015, president of the Royal Society…
He works at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge. In this discussion with Robyn Williams, he describes the challenge in communicating science when people are sometimes irrational and not open to evidence. He says our modern society is based on science and people need reminding of the great achievements made in just 200 years.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/touch-the-emotions-to-communicate-science—
ramakrishnan/7002698
it’s the usual nonsense about scientists being relutant to speak out, being dreadful communicators.
at 6mins25sec in: ABC’s Williams asks: have you ever had any vigorous exchanges with people who deny aspects of science – be it evolution, or, OBVIOUSLY, climate change?
Ramakrishnan: oh yes, I have in-laws who I think are often engaging in all sorts of irrational beliefs. for instance,
some of them believe in homeopathy – they think it’s not such a bad thing, and they’re generally suspicious of any mainstream idea. it’s very hard to convince them because they believe it at an emotional level, as you say. but I keep trying…etc

Oatley
December 6, 2015 6:04 pm

Unfortunately, the Brits gave into State liberalism years ago. Their state run tv is right out of Orwell.

Janice Moore
December 6, 2015 6:11 pm

Okay. Just finished listening (no video provided that I could easily find). Now, I am almost CERTAIN that the BBC just wants more people to watch that show — for their charges are not backed by the facts (i.e., the content of “What’s the Point… ” to ANY significant degree:
Charge:

“… audiences were not given sufficient information about prevailing scientific opinion to allow them to assess the position of the Met Office and the Met Office position on these criticisms was not adequately included in the programme”.

1. Throughout the programme, Mr. Letts inserted such careful, AGW-appeasement remarks as: “not uncontroversial position on climate change” and that natural events “may be caused in part by mankind” (or words to that effect).
2. His main expert testimony came from a lukewarmer who actually ended up HELPING the AGWers by stating conclusively that he was certain that laboratory properties of CO2 meant that human CO2 necessarily has warmed the earth (just a little…. oh, brother, Thank you, Neville (the AGWers will take ANY amount of warming from humans, no matter how small and run with it).
3. His only true skeptic witness was a man known for his over-confidence (not that his ideas are not plausible, just that he asserts them with far too much certainty) in sunspots (and the like)-as-causation of climate; i.e., Piers C.’s testimony did more to damage the skeptics than to help.
4. The woman who with idiotic internal inconsistency blathered on at the end about “… the atmosphere is chaotic… we forecast weeks, months, years, in advance” (or essentially those words) — GAVE A VERY ACCURATE AND COMPLETE synopsis of the Met position on the criticisms mentioned by Mr. Letts.
Conclusion (just a guess…):
Met Office, feeling a threat of funding cuts coming, is using Mr. Letts to create the VICTIM (Met) — PERSECUTOR (Mr. Letts) — RESCUER (Taxpayers/public: “Support our Met! Support our Met! Great is the Met of the Ephesians, er, Englishians!!” (it’s in the book of Acts) triangle. (and, lurking behind it all are Big Wind, Big “Sustainability,” Big Solar, and Big Disaster Insurance — whose puppet the Met has become, v. a v. human caused climate change …).
*************************************************
Applause for the wrongfully accused Mr. Letts who is bright, articulate, intelligent and talented. He will do well no matter what the biased BBC does to him.

Warren in Minnesota
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 6, 2015 6:38 pm

Janice,
The program was on radio. No video, only audio.
Warren

Janice Moore
Reply to  Warren in Minnesota
December 6, 2015 6:40 pm

Thank you, Warren.

Reply to  Warren in Minnesota
December 7, 2015 6:05 am

Janice it was not the Met Office who complained
… It was the BBC’s own in-house chief Eco-warrior himself : Harrabin
Whose own reports are constructed disinformation. Just check them.
For instance the one about the Pope’s visit to congress was edited 24 hours after publication cos it described events that could not have happened.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Warren in Minnesota
December 7, 2015 11:19 am

Mr. Green,
Is that not a distinction without a significant difference? The BBC are, effectively, the alter-ego of the Met Office these days. Mr. Harrabin is merely the agent of the BBC. Thank you, nonetheless, for your correction.
Correction: “{The} Met Office BBC, speaking on behalf of its ally for the promotion of Big Wind, “Sustainability,” Disaster Insurance, & Solar, Ltd., the Met Office, feeling a threat of funding cuts coming, is using Mr. Letts … .”
Janice

catweazle666
December 6, 2015 6:13 pm

Balen report…

Janice Moore
Reply to  catweazle666
December 6, 2015 6:31 pm

Thanks for that, catweazzle. I hadn’t heard of “The Balen Report” travesty. This is for others who would like to know what it was about:

“The BBC has won an eight-year battle to keep an internal report on its coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict secret. ***
The saga began in 2005 when London lawyer Steven Sugar made a Freedom of Information request asking to see the report. The BBC refused, citing the fact that it is only subject to FOI requests “in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”.
After hearings and appeals before the Information Tribunal, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, the case reached the Supreme Court, which finally found in favour of the BBC, stating that “once it is established that the information sought is held by the BBC to any significant degree for the purposes of journalism, it is exempt from production under the FOIA, even if the information is also held for other purposes”.
Sugar, who died in 2011, was quoted in 2009 as saying: “This case is about making the BBC accountable for its journalism.”

(Source: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-02-15/bbc-wins-fight-to-keep-israel-palestine-bias-report-secret )
In memory of Steven Sugar, a William Wilberforce for truth in journalism.

clipe
December 6, 2015 6:28 pm

Quentin Letts

It may not be ‘prevailing scientific opinion’, but you sometimes hear vegetarians blame climate change on flatulent cows. This irks my neighbour Will Edwards, a dairy farmer. ‘Cows don’t fart,’ says Will. ‘They burp a bit but you never hear them let off. They are physically not capable of it.’ Here is a story for Roger Harrabin to stick his nose into. He’s an expert in this area, I believe.

Nnorm Beazer
Reply to  clipe
December 6, 2015 11:41 pm

Cows don’t fart ? Fascinating.
Is that corroborated someplace ?
I would love to know.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  clipe
December 7, 2015 1:25 am

Having been at the rear end of cow…I can tell you they DO fart (If farting is just the passage of gas).

Reply to  clipe
December 7, 2015 12:00 pm

Having worked on a dairy farm; just ask Mr. Will Edwards how high the marks are, on the wall behind the cows in the barn?
Or that great piece of advice the farmer gave me, “If you see a tail rising, don’t stand behind the cow”.
Gas pressure helps some of the less solid feces propel forcefully. Yes, the cows do look relieved after a good gaseous ejection; while I thank my lucky stars to be cleaning behind a different cow at that moment.

bh2
December 6, 2015 7:05 pm

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Reply to  bh2
December 7, 2015 12:03 pm

Roger did do a remarkable example of Torquemada, in his comment attack on Quentin and in his hissyfit about Quentin’s show to the BBC trust us not.

dp
December 6, 2015 7:10 pm

What a horrid place to live. Obama is trying to duplicate that madness in the US, and scientists pleading for RICO law to be applied to free speaking citizens reveals a global leftist movement the likes of which we haven’t seen since the death of Joseph Stalin. We are about to learn how defenseless the US Constitution really is against the three coordinated branches of government with complete support of a heavily biased press. The education system has been telling our children what to think for decades – the consensus government is going to call that in. I think it’s too late to think an election will be able to change course.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  dp
December 6, 2015 9:14 pm

One way that a new, non-lefty U.S. president could start a change, is to not only rescind past left-leaning presidential orders, but also issue his/her own common sense-leaning presidential orders.

dp
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
December 6, 2015 11:09 pm

The programming of our youth is insurance against that non-lefty being elected, but crazy things happen and change people’s minds. Trump is riding that wave at present. Don’t think it’s enough of a wave, though.

Chris Hanley
December 6, 2015 7:15 pm

Quentin Letts’ mistake (in scare quotes) was to make fun of the creed and its adherents.
That’s the one counteraction they can’t handle, it sends them into paroxysms of rage.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 6, 2015 7:25 pm

The devil, that proude spirit, hateth to be mocked. Sir Thomas More

Aphan
December 6, 2015 7:17 pm

” Cataracts and hurricanoes”!
Phrase of the week!

Mike Smith
December 6, 2015 7:33 pm

I think we need to establish a “Safe Zone” for all of these climate scientists, broadcasters and other progressives who are so easily offended by skeptical viewpoints.
Since they hate anything warming and love to fret about glaciers, ice melt, polar bears and so on, I would like to propose that we nominate the Arctic as a safe zone for the exclusive use of these sensitive individuals. Perhaps we should start a fund to help finance their relocation expenses?

Reply to  Mike Smith
December 6, 2015 10:43 pm

Thats too much area.
Coats Island is plenty big enough.
No fund, they need to pony up the cash by selling all their oil and carbon based extravagances.
The Cult of Calamitous Carbon will only need one way tickets.
For the Cause of course.

Alan Robertson
December 6, 2015 7:35 pm

Actions like this one from the BBC are now commonplace in free western democracies. The 4th estate has become a 5th column.

Joel O'Bryan
December 6, 2015 7:46 pm

US Progressives hate the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the US constitution.
The main strea media enforces partissn purity, just without direct gubment control.
The US taxpayer-funded NPR is in some ways like BBC. When Juan Williams, an NPR reporter suggested in 2010 his wariness of muslims in the US on-air, he was summarily canned. And he’s is a Lefty.
Now he probably makes 3x’s as much as a Lefty fair and balanced counter commentator on Fox News.
ain’t America Great.Rupert Murdoch was quite a gift from Down Under to the Colonies.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 6, 2015 10:34 pm

Wouldn’t Murdoch be a colonist himself?

Dog
December 6, 2015 8:15 pm

Both the BBC and NPR are guilty of left wing extremist ideologies. I’d like to think of myself as a centrist, and so I’m completely open to all arguments so long as they remain in the realm of reality. But these days, I really cannot stand the amount of *shit* spewing from these mainstream sources of so-called ‘unbiased’ mainstream mediums.
I live in Boston and every morning, on my ride to work, I have to listen to NPR (National Public Radio) screaming non-sense on-behalf of CAGW extremists…It’s truly sickening.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Dog
December 6, 2015 9:10 pm

NPR is government radio.

Hugs
Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 6, 2015 9:58 pm

But the problem is not government telling what they publish, rather than their tax-paid jobs are safe and drag people who are leftish and want to do the world better for them.
The goverment sponsored radios all over the world are very very similar. People who want goverment paid job and love to hear their voice online have tendency to think about e.g. social justice but be incapable to estimate how uncertain some famous Nasa scientist is on sea level rise or Antarctic ice sheet mass balance.

Jack
December 6, 2015 8:34 pm

The main problem is that the BBC Trust refers to balance but does not show how the BBC ever gives a sceptical point of view. In other words, the BBC Trust is hoist by its own petard.

Lauren R.
December 6, 2015 9:39 pm

BBC – Pravda for the U.K.
It doesn’t occur to the poor Brits that their beloved state-run media isn’t a free press. It’s simply Pravda Lite. Maybe we could introduce them to our Establishment Clause. State religions are troublesome things.

Reply to  Lauren R.
December 6, 2015 10:39 pm

And try to establish a “center” or “right” of center Radio or TV company! This was shown here in Canada with “The Sun ” TV network, they were denied licensing by the CRTC (Canadian regulator run by the Gov) and had to fold, now it streams on the net under the name “The Rebel”, I wonder how long that’s going to last!

Nigel S
Reply to  Lauren R.
December 6, 2015 11:05 pm

Lauren R. the BBC isn’t state run which makes it much worse. All those beeboids doing the right thing and bringing culture and education and correct thinking to the masses.
You might find this site helpful.
http://biasedbbc.org/

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nigel S
December 7, 2015 1:28 am

May not be state run but sure is state funded.

Reply to  Nigel S
December 7, 2015 7:05 am

It is NOT state funded the TV tax is collected directly by the BBC. If they can convinvince people to stop moving over to only watching TV online, they’d stop losing revenue.
The government does sent a period ceiling for the annual tax.
Politicians need to be on the telly so they can’t upset the BBC.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nigel S
December 7, 2015 11:30 am

Mr. Green — you’ve gone a petty picky bridge too far. And to what purpose, one wonders… .
There is no true “state” funding. You are meaninglessly pedantic.
“State” funds are taxes (i.e., there is no other “state funding” but taxes).
The BBC is publicly funded by taxes.
Further, the “state” is directly involved in the funding of the BBC, for, its officers will enforce those TV taxes with coercive force if need be (watch what happens if a citizen refuses to pay taxes, and then, what happens if he or she refuses to go quietly along with the police to prison when convicted… .)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nigel S
December 7, 2015 9:58 pm

“stewgreen
December 7, 2015 at 7:05 am
It is NOT state funded the TV tax is collected directly by the BBC.”
Until very recently the TV license fee was paid at a Govn’t agency called The Post Office, now privatised as I understand. I never paid ANYTHING directly to the BBC.

Gregg C.
Reply to  Lauren R.
December 9, 2015 5:25 am

It still is interesting to me that Britain lets its major media outlet be run by the state. NPR exists in the USA, of course, but it is such a minor player, it doesn’t have much ‘power’. The BBC rules with a big stick, as far as I can tell.
The press should be private; separation of powers and all that. Quite as important as having judicial, executive and legislative be independent.

SAMURAI
December 6, 2015 9:42 pm

Consensus means absolutely NOTHING in science; a concept seemingly unknown to the BBC..
The ONLY metric capable of confirming or disconfirming a hypothesis is whether or not hypothetical projections match reality in a statistically significant manner.
Under the rules of the Scientific Method, CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Since CAGW is already dead hypothesis, Leftist organizations like the BBC have no choice but to push the logical fallacies of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam to keep the deceased CAGW myth alive….
And so it goes….

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  SAMURAI
December 6, 2015 11:59 pm

Note the amusing similarity to this meme cartoon:
http://imagefiltr.com/11850-what-the-hell-was-that-my-mind.html

Michael
December 6, 2015 9:58 pm

The program has too much science and balance- that’s clearly against its charter to be a government mouthpiece.

ArtB
December 6, 2015 10:13 pm

I think I might have enjoyed being sent to re-education camp, because I couldn’t resist the urge to demand scientific evidence, data, actual science.

Hivemind
Reply to  ArtB
December 6, 2015 10:56 pm

You’re forgetting Pol Pot’s re-education camps. Not a lot of people survived. Likewise, Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Don’t imagine that the BBC’s re-education camps are going to be any different.

Mjw
December 6, 2015 11:18 pm

If the BBC claims the majority of scientists support global warming ask for their names.

Berényi Péter
December 6, 2015 11:29 pm

Finding of the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust
What’s the point of… the Met Office?
BBC Radio 4, 5 August 2015
Finding of 4 December 2015

David Cage
December 6, 2015 11:39 pm

I had just paid my licence before I read this and am wondering is anyone knows if it would be possible to put in a small claims court demand for a refund of even a small part of my licence fee for failing to uphold the charter obligations which I see as being part of the contract.
I do not see blackmailing employees to conform as being justified within the charter and the costs of both “instructors” and victims is a violation of the charter and blatant theft of licence payers money to spend on something clearly against the charter obligations.
I do hope that everyone who reads this will take the trouble to write and complain to the BBC.

Nigel S
Reply to  David Cage
December 7, 2015 12:11 am

Stop paying and watch the few things that are worthwhile on catch-up sites. You’ll feel much better for it.

Reply to  David Cage
December 7, 2015 12:09 pm

Perhaps it is different in the UK, but shouldn’t it be possible to sue the BBC for violation of equal or honest representation?
Your position as a TV tax payer should give you legal standing for the lawsuit. Publicize it, and perhaps you can turn it into a class action law suit?
Someone needs to take them to court.
Also don’t forget to identify roger (harridan) harriban as a primary person in this disgusting bias. Try to establish him as personally liable for his deleterious and reprehensible personal actions.

richardscourtney
Reply to  ATheoK
December 7, 2015 12:30 pm

ATheoK:
In Britain people who think they have been libeled or slandered can sue for damages. But in this case no person could claim to have been damaged except perhaps Quentin Letts.
I am not a lawyer and I am not aware of any British law that enables one to sue anybody for “violation of equal or honest representation”. Indeed, here in the UK such a law would be considered to be an attack on free speech.
This is why the BBC Trust exists to ensure the BBC fulfills its Charter but – as I here explain in this thread – the BBC Trust refuses to conduct its duty.
Richard

oakwood
December 6, 2015 11:46 pm

This programme was not presented as serious science, but as satire. Satire, especially poking fun at the Establishment, is part of BBC history and culture. Monty Python is a prime example. Today we have ‘Have I Got News for You’ (on TV for > 15 years), and ‘The News Quiz (Radio 4). These routinely have fun at the expense of the Prime Minister, and anyone in the government of the day, the Royal Family, rich millionaires, celebrities, etc, etc. While they must be careful not to be libelous, they are not required to offer a ‘balanced defence’ for each of their victims.
So according to the BBC, climate change has now joined that list of subjects potentially so offensive (along with race, religion, disability, paedophilia, etc), that it is politically incorrect to make jokes about it.

indefatigablefrog
December 7, 2015 12:07 am

Every other mention of alarmist viewpoints via the BBC, whether they be the beliefs of Charlotte Church, or Prince Charles, or President Obama, or Ban Ki Moon, or Laurent Fabius, fails to inform viewers or listeners that the views are delusional beliefs held by imbeciles who are talking complete donkey shit.
And yet, when Nigel Lawson makes a disputable claim then all hell breaks loose.
The BBC, is worse than Pravda.
In the former USSR, the majority of citizens knew that Pravda was an instrument of the state and served to promote disinformation.
Here in the U.K. the larger number of people are still bamboozled into believing that the BBC is serving the people and has good intentions.
See – worse than Pravda.

richardscourtney
December 7, 2015 12:11 am

Eric Worrall:
You say

You would think the BBC would have more interesting ways to spend their money and time, than conducting witch hunts to root out the last vestiges of climate skepticism within their ranks. But I guess that is a decision for the BBC Trust, and of course the taxpayers of Britain, assuming anyone bothers to ask their opinion.

The BBC Trust has a statutory duty to ensure that the BBC fulfils the BBC Charter but it is refusing to conduct that duty, and I find myself in a ‘Catch 22’ in my attempts to get the BBC Trust to do its job. My experience demonstrates that there is no legal recourse available to me – a ‘taxpayer of Britain’ – in seeking to obtain compliance of the BBC with its Charter.
The facts of this matter are as follows.
Earlier this year, on 4 March, I provided a complaint to the BBC that the program titled ‘Climate Change by Numbers’ breached the BBC Charter by providing biased and untrue political propaganda.
I recorded the complaint on WUWT here.
Having had no reply of any kind from the BBC, I appealed to the BBC Trust and recorded that appeal on WUWT here. The reply I obtained from the BBC Trust I recorded as the immediately following post in that WUWT thread.
Weeks later, having obtained nothing from the BBC or the BBC Trust, I sent the following email to the BBC Trust on 8 April 2015 08:51:23 GMT.
Re: BBC Complaint – Climate Change by Numbers
Dear Ms Seehra:
Nearly a month has passed since I received your reply to me that I copy below. It reported that the BBC Audience Services had “advised that they will send you a response to [my] concerns as soon as possible and the complaints manager has asked [you] to pass on his apologies for the delay”. Since then I have heard nothing from them.
Please note that my complaint was and is that the BBC clearly breached its Charter by broadcasting blatantly biased and factually inaccurate political propaganda in the form of the programme titled ‘Climate Change by Numbers’ broadcast on BBC4 at 2100 to 22:15 hours on Monday 2 March 2015. My complaint consisted of clear and accurate information and argument supported by all necessary references.
It seems from your reply to me that I am in a ‘Catch 22’.
You say;
“I should explain that the BBC complaints process requires that complaints must be dealt with in the first instance by the BBC’s management; the Trust’s role in this process is only at the final stage, hearing complaints on appeal.”
But the BBC’s failure to reply to my complaint means there is no formal reply for me to appeal.
I am now writing to you to assert that
(a) the BBC’s failure to reply to my complaint is a response to my complaint
and
(b) the BBC’s failure to reply to my complaint is a tacit admission that they cannot dispute my complaint.
Hence, I am requesting that
(1) you accept this email as being my appeal against the BBC’s response to my complaint
and
(2) you call upon the BBC to correct its Breach of the BBC Charter by making a public declaration that the programme was blatantly biased and factually inaccurate political propaganda.
I am continuing my practice of making a public record of all my correspondence on this matter at WUWT and, therefore, I am copying this email to that record.
Richard S Courtney”
I have had no reply of any kind to that email.
Clearly, there is no legal recourse available to this ‘taxpayer of Britain’ when seeking to obtain compliance of the BBC with its Charter.
Richard

richardscourtney
December 7, 2015 12:17 am

Mods:
I have made a post to this thread that has vanished. It is about the BBC Trust having put me in a ‘Catch 22’.
Please be so kind as to check the ‘bin’ and to recover it if it is there, or tell me if it is not so I can resubmit it.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Richard

combyne
December 7, 2015 12:25 am

Quentin Letts is a renowned Political Sketch Writer, and writes for the Daily Mail where David Rose also hangs out.
In addition the often biased BBC is often caught out by other political commentators, since the aforementioned Piers Corbyn got an airing on This Week late last Thursday night, which is hosted by Andrew Neil. Quentin Letts is a regular contributor too on this programme.
Now this particular week was a by election programme, so lots of Labourites were featured within prior to switching to Oldham and Royton to hear the result and the election of Jim McMahon a new Labour MP.
Quentin Letts and Andrew Neil are known as right wing.

Bryan
December 7, 2015 12:30 am

The BBC reflects the views of the London elite.
It cannot hide its contempt for Jeremy Corbyn.
Any programme mentioning him must have at least two or three right wing ‘Blairite’ MPs to explain what a disaster he is.
No analysis of why the vast majority of Labour grassroots members and public back him.
They have long since abandoned any attempt to give a balanced outlook and instead push the consensus of the London elite.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 7, 2015 1:39 am

Eric Worrall:
You say

I’m not a Jeremy Corbyn fan, but I agree the establishment is grossly underestimating his potential appeal.

I doubt they are “underestimating his potential appeal”. I think they are frightened by his demonstrated appeal and are acting to counteract it.
Firstly, the ‘establishment’ failed to recognise that Corbyn would be elected Labour Leader by a landslide, but they remember how the Tories won several successive elections when a similar ‘outsider’ (i.e. Thatcher) unexpectedly became leader of the Tories. Secondly, the Labour Party Membership has increased three-fold since Corbyn’s election as Labour Leader, and this numerical growth of a UK political party is unprecedented since WW2. Thirdly, Corbyn ‘wipes the floor’ with Cameron at each session of Prime Minister’s Questions although this is mostly a result of Cameron’s incompetence as PM.
Opponents of Labour had hoped Corbyn’a appeal was restricted to a small left-wing fringe of the electorate and would reduce support of the bulk of Labour supporters. Failure of that hope is demonstrated by the result of the Oldham West and Royton by-election which Labour won on Thursday.
The media had proclaimed that Corbyn’s leadership would induce a collapse of the Labour vote in the by-election. This media campaign induced such fear in the Labour Party’s ‘machine’ that they dissuaded Corbyn from visiting the constituency during the by-election campaign.
Upon the vote, Labour’s Jim McMahon won the by-election with a majority of more than 10,000 and provided Labour with an increased share of the vote since the General Election in May that was obtained by swings from both UKIP and the Tories. The following morning, Corbyn raced to the constituency to share in the victory celebrations.
I think the ‘establishment’ can see the actual “appeal” of Corbyn and the ‘establishment’ is mounting their anti-Corbyn media campaign because they fear the electoral potential of that “appeal”.
Richard

oakwood
December 7, 2015 12:32 am

Meanwhile, listening to news reports (eg. BBC Radio 4 Today), on the flooding in the north of England, there is refreshingly little mention of climate change. Just heard an interview with the Environment Agency’s new Chief Exec. He said the floods are caused by Nature, and will recur from time to time, and that its impossible to protect all the people all the time. And while this was described as ‘probably a record’, no mention of ‘this is getting more common’, or even ‘this is what climate science predicted’. I recently heard an unchallenged interview with Matt Ridley on the same programme. So despite the nonsense of the Quentin Letts progamme, the BBC does seem to be moving to more balance, in my view.

decnine
Reply to  oakwood
December 7, 2015 6:49 am

The Beeb just wheeled out ‘Professor’ ‘Dame’ Julia Slingo to correct that omission.

Steven Swinden
Reply to  oakwood
December 7, 2015 7:02 am

Now removed from the BBC website reports on the flooding in Cumbria, John Leyland, deputy director of operations at the Environment Agency commented that the models the UK EA used to trigger flood warnings did not take account of persistent heavy rain.

Reply to  Steven Swinden
December 7, 2015 7:17 am

He’s quoted in the newspapers

John Leyland, deputy director of operations at the Environment Agency, has rejected criticism over the failed flood defences in Cumbria.
He told BBC Radio Cumbria: “We warned hundreds of residents and communities about the impending rain. What nobody could have predicted is the amount.
“Unfortunately the flood defences were just not going to be able to protect every single property.”
He said the amount of rainfall was an “unprecedented event” which was “beyond the forecasts and beyond the models”.

December 7, 2015 12:44 am

It is pathetic in the extreme. However, the BBC is not really a “state” broadcaster. The state has no control over what it produces.

Clovis Marcus
Reply to  David Johnson
December 7, 2015 4:22 am

Charter renewal is decided by Parliament. Auntie knows who her bosses are.

dp
Reply to  David Johnson
December 7, 2015 5:41 pm

That it produces at all is at the whim of the state. That it produces badly is with the blessing of the state. That it is getting worse with time is expected by the state. That all this is aligned with the agenda of the state is not a coincidence.

GregK
December 7, 2015 1:00 am

it was light hearted poke at the Met Office…..nothing more than anyone in the street , or at the water cooler in the office, would say every day.
http://cliscep.com/2015/12/06/do-not-read-this-blog-post/
All fundamentalists lack a sense of humour and that they worked themselves into hysteria over this is telling…
But worse is the fact that the fundamentalists have infiltrated the BBC to such an extent that it is now theirs…
First we take Manhattan then we…….

December 7, 2015 1:15 am

The text of the radio programme that so upset the BBC management can be read here, thanks to the hard work of Alex Cull who transcribed it.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Paul Matthews
December 7, 2015 9:24 am

Alex Cull is a true internet hero.

D.I.
December 7, 2015 1:34 am

Extracts from B.B.C. ‘Pensions Report and Accounts 2015’
“the Scheme has committed to an investment in UK renewable
energy assets with BlackRock” (page 8).
“The Trustees have signed up to the UK Stewardship code and the UNEP Finance Initiative principles for Responsible
Investment (UNPRI) and is also a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)” (page 9).
Published online here.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/report_and_accounts_2015.pdf

Reply to  D.I.
December 7, 2015 7:50 am

#1 OK That Blackstone is a future investment, but how much?. In previous years we know the BBC has Green investments cos they shout about the ethics codes etc, but most of the pension fund is not in direct equities but via other investments funds, so at a glance we haven’t been able to work out how much is in BBC pension is in Green.
#2 The pension shortfall has to be extracted from the PROGRAMME BUDGET

The actuarial valuation of the Scheme as at 1 April 2013 reported a shortfall (liabilities (calculated on the
technical provision basis) minus value of assets) of £2,054m.
To eliminate this funding shortfall, the Trustees, have agreed with the BBC that additional contributions will be
paid to the Scheme by the participating employers in accordance with the table shown in note 12 in the financial
statements on page 24.
The funding shortfall is expected to be eliminated within 13 years of the valuation date, which is by April 2026.

OK “The market value of the Scheme’s assets rose during the year by £1,946.5m” but they have a lot of people paying in AND in each future year they have more pensioners to payout, so it must grow much more than inflation (currently close to zero).

Malcolm
December 7, 2015 2:05 am

No wonder our University campus are shunning speakers on a range of topics (if they do not seem to concur with the local view) when you have a national broadcaster engineering that stance. What else has the BBC formed an opinion about? The employment of zealots to proselytise rather puts one in mind of the fulminating ranters that were produced by the English Civil War. Once this errant form of confirmation of the ‘official perspective’ or the adoption, normality and protection for a singular view takes hold there are more than enough willing dupes to act upon its behalf heralding an end to scepticism, doubt, contrariness, even enquiry. Why do we need to think at all when an opinion, a postulation, cannot be opposed and fact is whatever the authority deems appropriate? And worse, a power that has assumed authority by what seems to be a quiet, calculated, revolution?
We are not at the high tide of the Global Warming swell alone. We are at a stage in our comfortable imagining of a world view where it is slanderous, dangerous, to oppose that which is self-evidently wrong or even cast a light on doubt, contestable or so ill-defined as to be dangerous of itself. What was considered, entertained, at the Enlightenment is now disallowed at a time when words, concepts and imaginings are policed and power exercised by proscription. We see ideas and the lexicon being owned and only employed at the behest of those that have annexed them.
What has happened to real authority rather than this dubious authoritarianism that is practised by the BBC? In so many ways the Corporation has taken upon itself the mantel of governance and assumed a right to deflect, groom and castigate its audience, to be the fountain-head. The inquisitorial moral stance which it is want to constantly perpetuate, if it were benign, would be a Godsend to all right thinking people it would at least be enquiry. However, what it has chosen to do is to follow the narrow path of self-righteous liberalism and to use its position to promulgate the Metropolitan view, to become so introverted as to be a dangerous element in a progressive society. (Dear reader, there is something you have to understand: when people abroad speak of Britain they casually call it London but rightly estimate, unwittingly, that ‘London’ describes the hegemony that the capital represents in Britain’s life).

December 7, 2015 2:54 am


This was on BBC TV last week superb counter blow against mind control central. The Gulag beckons for Andrew Neil.

Ex-expat Colin
December 7, 2015 2:58 am

Criticising the corporation of a “serious breach of the editorial guidelines for impartiality and accuracy”,
The two terms “impartiality” and “accuracy” is in UK something to be desired. And there is little chance where science and engineering subjects are concerned.
They have sunk themselves into “the consensus” and as such no other view, light hearted or otherwise can be tolerated (broadcast). Just imagine someone taking on Christopher Monckton in a series of programs whereupon all evidence is made available from both sides of the argument. It is a very important topic…but the state broadcaster just won’t do it. Easy way, easy money!

December 7, 2015 3:53 am

Heard this programme. Thought it was a bit of harmless tongue in cheek fun. Seems there are people in the met office and global warming camp who are so insecure that they raise such a stink. The BBC is also so worried that they give in to this intimidation that it, as has previously been stated, gives up it’s impartiality.
The logical outcome of this is that any programme on climate change should also present the sceptical view. And pigs will fly!

Venter
December 7, 2015 5:33 am

BBC is shamelessly riding on the devastation, deaths and losses in Chennai due to flooding after heavy rains, attributing it to ” climate change “.
They are shameless slimeballs, worse than vermin, using deaths and devastation to further their climate activism. Charlatans. May they all rot in hell.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35024115
The flooding was due to very heavy monsoon rains exacerbated by politicians – real estate lobby nexus allowing construction in low lying areas, marshlands, lake beds and river beds, leaving water nowhere to drain, resulting in water flooding the city. That was due to sheer corruption and reckless constructions. Nothing to do with ” climate change ” as meant IPCC and BBC verbiage which equals climate change to man made warming caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide.

CheshireRed
December 7, 2015 6:14 am

The BBC absolutely HATE anyone offering their own opinion on so-called ‘climate change’. Last week they had the Green party’s only MP – Caroline Lucas, on Question Time (a leading current affairs programme) and she was bemoaning the lack of ANY discussion on Paris COP 21. The reason was obvious – the BBC couldn’t control questions or responses from the audience or panel, so refused point-blank to discuss the matter. That oversight ran contrary to the BBC’s hysterical wall-to-wall coverage on their own website. Very revealing.

Resourceguy
December 7, 2015 7:20 am

So bad predictions and predictors must receive equal air time to balance out fact checking and evil model questioning? At least we are getting further proof that government monopolies behave the same everywhere. Perhaps they can be modeled too.

James Griffin
December 7, 2015 7:24 am

If we are right and they are wrong then the repercussions are enormous for the “Warmist” scientists, politicians and journalists…..Organisations such as the .BBC, Guardian and Independent would also be in big trouble.
Legal action against organisations and individuals would probably end in prison sentences. The claims for compensation on Carbon Taxes could bankrupt the UK….in fact we simply could not afford it.
Worst of all the “Guardianista’s” will come off worst…..as they have spent well over a decade informing all and sundry of the AGW scare…and how we have to change our lives etc. How on earth could they face a dinner party????….hahaha. Fellow guests would have a field day!!!
The fact that the BBC and all the AGW crowd have no tolerance with those of us who take a different view is a clear indication that they are on shifting sand….and sooner or later the truth will win out.

John Moore.
December 7, 2015 7:40 am

I’ve just listened to Julia, the Chief Scientist at the Met Office (UK) giving an emotional answer that the Cumbria floods are all due to Global Warming….if she looks at a report of previous floods of the area she will see that there is no proof whatsoever. See http://www.mangeogsoc.org.uk/pdfs/watkins_whyte.pdf

Reply to  John Moore.
December 7, 2015 10:31 am

John, my recollection of what she said does not fit with the paper you quote where “Eighteen
of the floods resulted from intense convectional storms, mostly in summer. Sixteen were due to precipitation associated with slow moving or stationery frontal systems.”
What happened here was a ribbon of rain moving along its length that was the cause of the large amount of rain, this stretched back to South America as she suggested. Not summer, not slow moving and not stationery. That would imply that what we have here is a 1 in more than 415 year event since it appears nothing like it has occured since 1600. Now I would suggest that there is nothing in AGW theory that would predict an increase in frequency of such a “sideways” moving storm, simply a freak of chaos.

December 7, 2015 8:55 am

You can read the transcript of the program at
http://cliscep.com/2015/12/06/do-not-read-this-blog-post/
In the comments I added some choice quotes from the BBC Trust report.

December 7, 2015 8:57 am

OK Was this decision made judiciously ? Did the BBC Trust follow some rules with perhaps warped evidence ? Or did Harrabin just write the whole thing ?
Seems to to me we have 2 choices :
#1 – Fight on principle, not for Letts, but the next person not to be denied of his/her voice due to the precedent.
#2 Leave the decision to stand ? cos to anyone not brainwashed it is just so obvious how ridiculous the BBC is ..as within the hour somewhere on its networks there be obvious climate disinformation : some ridiculous claims with be made to the but because it’s an alarmist claim it will just be let thru unchallenged.
– And you can say to children “Look just don’t take the BBC seriously it’s just barking mad on climate banning any skepticism whilst lionising the looniest claim of any alarmist.

richardscourtney
Reply to  stewgreen
December 7, 2015 10:17 am

stewgreen:
You say

Seems to to me we have 2 choices :
#1 – Fight on principle, not for Letts, but the next person not to be denied of his/her voice due to the precedent.
#2 Leave the decision to stand ? cos to anyone not brainwashed it is just so obvious how ridiculous the BBC is ..as within the hour somewhere on its networks there be obvious climate disinformation : some ridiculous claims with be made to the but because it’s an alarmist claim it will just be let thru unchallenged.

OK. Please say how we can “Fight on principle” and/or not “Leave the decision to stand”.
Please note that – as my above post in this thread explains – there is no legal action we can take to fulfill either of your “choices”. And please read the links from that post before deciding on an answer.
Richard

bobl
Reply to  richardscourtney
December 7, 2015 5:41 pm

Richard,
FOI any internal correspondance mentioning you or the the letters you sent. My understanding is that even in the UK failures to abide by FOIA are actionable.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
December 7, 2015 11:13 pm

bobl:
Thankyou for your comment that says

FOI any internal correspondance mentioning you or the the letters you sent. My understanding is that even in the UK failures to abide by FOIA are actionable.

Yes, I could frame and present a FOIA request but if successful that would not induce the BBC Trust to do its job so would not enforce the BBC to abide by its Charter.
At issue is the lack of any possibility of effective action. The ‘Catch 22’ I am in demonstrates that the BBC and BBC Trust are happy when people waste effort on ineffective activities.
Richard

Hot under the collar
December 7, 2015 9:23 am

If teachers in the UK now have a duty to report to the police students who they think may have been radicalised, perhaps the BBC should be reporting their own staff who have been radicalised and are now indoctrinating the public about climate change?

Grockle
December 7, 2015 9:32 am

I listened to the programme and it was a refreshing change from the usual pro AGW propaganda from the BBC. The beeb usually peddle the man made global warming meme as if it were a fact. The propaganda is included in programmes about gardening, the countryside and even in light entertainment. This is direct breach of their charter for impartiality. They appear, inter alia to be influenced by the secret meeting reported in several newspapers including the Daily Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10566952/Row-over-BBC-climate-change-conference-cover-up.html#disqus_thread

Steven Swinden
December 7, 2015 9:54 am

What is depressing about this is that it was not a one-off programme. ‘What’s the Point of…’ is now in its seventh series. Its subjects are an eclectic mix – recent programmes have asked the question of the Book of Common Prayer; the Army Reserve; the British obsession with lawns; and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. They are all hosted by Letts, and the intention seems to be a light-hearted attempt to puncture the pomposity that can develop in well-meaning organisations. To provide a flavour – one programme considered the National Trust, a charity which owns and maintains historic buildings. The tag line was:
‘Maintaining our heritage; pickling our history; or a job creation scheme for the retired.’
Several religious themes – including ‘What’s the point of the Chief Rabbi’ have been broadcast without a referral to the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee.
Harrabin is being suggested as the agitator behind this referral. His output appears to be little else than the uncritical regurgitation of press releases from the latest ‘its all doom’ paper. BBC journalism at its ‘finest’.

tadchem
December 7, 2015 10:29 am

Ever sine Swift wrote “A Modest Proposal”, the Brits have had a problem accepting satire for what it is. They seem to have taken Orwell’s “1984” as a guidebook to programming not only propaganda but their own staff.

December 7, 2015 1:32 pm

Daesh it all, the ‘so called’ BBC won’t even use the correct term for the people we truly need to fight…

ralfellis
December 7, 2015 2:55 pm

To all those here that like to denigrate the Daily Mail – Quentin Letts is the Daily Mail’s political editor.
R

ralfellis
December 7, 2015 3:00 pm

BTW, you have the wong logo. The BBC changed to this logo about ten years ago.
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/BBC_Sharia.gif

H.R.
December 8, 2015 5:41 am

They should have just caned the offenders. It’s faster and assuredly much less painful than sitting through the “[…] BBC Academy’s impartiality online training module, […].”
Caning seems more humane to me, IMO.

Number 6
December 8, 2015 11:24 am

‘Why did you resign?’ asks #2
“I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered” replies #6
Which is why he was classified as ‘un-mutual’ and sent to The Village.

Darkinbad the Brighdayler
December 9, 2015 4:46 am

The light of reason is going out all over Europe and indeed the world.
The BBC is no longer viewed as impartial.
The internet makes it possible to bury the truth with a barrage of noise.
Soon we will make the full circle back to Bruno & Vaninni

Sunk
December 10, 2015 7:27 am

“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. It remains important that programme-makers relish the full range of debate that such a central and absorbing subject offers, scientifically, politically and ethically, and avoid being misrepresented as standard-bearers.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf

Sunk
December 10, 2015 7:41 am

Revised link to “Wagon Wheels” BBC Trust report:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
It would seem Mr Letts is entirely in line with the Trusts policy and should raise this with his management.

P Wilson
December 10, 2015 1:33 pm

Living here in the UK, we ought to be more aware of the subjective junior common room attitude of the BBC.

barry
December 10, 2015 6:23 pm

Balanced reporting is so last millennium. Minority views must now be presented as authoritative.

Gloateus Maximus
December 11, 2015 5:51 am

It has recently come to my attention that the perpetrator of the infamous spots with exploding heads of schoolkids, “No Pressure”, for the 10:10 climate alarmism campaign was Richard Curtis, the Czech-Australian screenwriter of “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “Bridget Jones’ Diary” (adapted), “Love Actually”, etc., and of the Blackadder, Mr. Bean and Vicar of Dibley British TV series.
Glad I never paid to watch any of those movies or shows.

JMW
December 12, 2015 5:26 am

It didn’t end with the 2re-education”:
“Last week, after a bizarre and focused lobbying campaign from environmental activists, the programme was removed from the BBC’s iPlayer playback facility.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3355441/QUENTIN-LETTS-vaporised-BBC-s-Green-Gestapo.html#ixzz3u72e8wiU
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

%d bloggers like this: