Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr Willie Soon – according to leaked information obtained by the Carbon Brief, the taxpayer funded BBC is very concerned that “climate deniers” are sometimes not properly challenged on air.
…
- Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.
- Be aware of ‘false balance’: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken. However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier. There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt.
- Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.
…
Read more: https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change/
Just in case you think providing a hostile reception to the occasional “denier” grudgingly allowed on air constitutes excessive leniency, the BBC provides further guidance regarding their green broadcasting initiative.
The BBC’s Greener Broadcasting strategy
In 2018, the Corporation launched a Pan-BBC strategy, Greener Broadcasting, to create a business that is environmentally sustainable and doing its part to tackle environmental factors that could impact our futures. The strategy is in three-parts: Ourselves, Our Industry and Our Audiences. Its goal, over the course of the current Charter period, is to create a positive environmental impact.
‘Ourselves’
looks at creating a sustainable workplace, including our ways of working as BBC employees and our ways of running our buildings and operations.‘Our Industry’
is about working with other organisations in the production and transmission sectors as well as in our wider supply chain to see how, together, we can reduce carbon emissions and learn best practice from each other.‘Our Audiences’
ensures that we, as the BBC, are informing and educating the public, allowing them to make informed choices about their own behaviours around sustainable living.…
Read more: https://www.scribd.com/document/388060002/Climate-Change-Crib-Sheet-for-NEWS
I think the advice to BBC employees seems clear. If they want to allow the occasional “climate denier” on air, make sure the “denier” is treated to a hostile reception, and make sure they don’t get an opportunity to interfere with the BBC’s mission to convince their audience make green lifestyle choices.
And that lovely word “potentially” in the advice – BBC journalists are encouraged to offer their own potentially unfounded opinions about how they think the guest “denier” is funded.
I don’t think Goliaths like the BBC and the once top universities can be rehabilitated since the takeover by аппаратчики (apparatchiks) after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Harvard, Oxford and other fallen institutions of higher learning have tenure for a couple of generations, old unhappy alumni are dying off and new ones are pouring out of their designer-brain factories. Competition from new universities with a dedication to quality apolitical scholarship will be needed.
BBC can have its budget chopped by a new government, I guess, but except for UKIP, there is little to choose from in the political marketplace anywhere outside of North America and Eastern Europe (who know first hand what these types are all about). I’ve been wondering where my grandchildren should go to college. Maybe Prague is a good alternative to what they are up against here.
Wake me up when Tuvalu has sunk.
Then we’ll be waking the (very long) dead.
The wording is just what one would expect from an authoritarian regime. The blind and unquestioning belief without any effort to exercise healthy skepticism, dialogue and scrutiny (bigotry) will make a laughing stock of our society (if anything survives) in generations to come.
Genuine science invites intelligent replication and that involves skepticism. Weaponised science denigrates and prohibits it. Today’s MSM is no more than reporters and presenters being recruited as propaganda mercenaries to further a political cause. Welcome to the age of weaponized science. Goodbye to any genuine news from the MSM.
Didn’t Greenpeace’s co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore quit because of the takeover of the organization by Marxists? When I see or hear “Green Initiative”, guess what comes to my mind?
“To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday.”
Unfortunately, this his how simple some of these folks think our climate system is. It’s as simple as Manchester United won 2-0. Wow!
To be more relevant to the current subject the quote should read:
There, fixed it for them.
The really scary part is that it is not just the BBC doing this. The green fanatics are taking control of all major institutions, organisations and companies in the western world. They will have total control of our lives before long. It is very worrying.
The war on plastics is the new climate change. Likewise, a lot of the claims made for plastic pollution don’t seem to be verifiable. I guess the watermelons have foreseen that temperatures might start to fall, and want to have a backup campaign ready just in case.
In Mumbai you can now be arrested for owning a plastic bag.
Meanwhile the wind energy profiteers are covering the planet in plastics of the worst, non-recyclable kind.
I read recently that most plastic is coming from afew rivers in Africa & Asia! Will try & hunt down a source asap but it is Sunday!
If media personalities expect to successfully challenge a well informed sceptic, they will need to change the subject often enough to divert the viewers’ attention from the stated sceptical evidence to the repetition of AGW dogma, combined with a personal attack on the adversary of the meme.
So business as usual for the media elites.
The Manchester United analogy is idiotic, but less idiotic than the LA Times’ editor’s basketball analogy at least 5 years ago in this multi-year Groundhog Day cycle.
Why don’t they just point the reader to whatever it is the denier is supposed to be denying?
Hold on a sec …. I know the answer to that.
The good news, I suppose, is that they’re having to lie harder (as predicted).
“To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.”
Science by referee? Are they serious?
Well, if the BBC say the referee is always right they can save a few million on paying Lineaker and his team of old footballers discussing the rights and wrongs of referees’ decisions during games.
They (BBC) are supposed to be creative thinkers and all they can up with for a metaphor is one about football and referees!!!
Harry
Footy is pretty creative for a BBC Insider, who did drama at college.
Pity physics – or even the scientific method – was not included in the Big Boss’s education post-16.
Auto
Why do posters on here refer to these people as Marxists, greens, socialist, lefties? They’re none of the above. They’re phonies, kleptocrats and kleptocrat’s useful idiots. Thieves in common parlance.
…yeah…they’re all synonyms…
Because those are the masques they hide behind.
Because that’s what they identify as. You don’t want to mis-label them, that would be as bad as not using their preferred pronoun.
Usual tripe from the natural variation deniers at the BBC
Andrew
They are deniers of rational objectivity.
To them, truth is political.
George Orwell was only inaccurate by 34 years. He didnt realize that even the left couldn’t move at lightning speed in the takeover of the media. But now in the year 2018 the left has most of the things in place that George Orwell said would be in place. The only thing missing so far is the jackboots to our heads.
https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-rogers-rogers_001&hsimp=yhs-rogers_001&hspart=rogers&p=orwell+final+warning#id=1&vid=ef290521c6ec87415c3713154da6ec38&action=click
In the U.S., “AntiFa” is filling the role of the jackbooted thugs. The fascist “anti-fascists”.
I hear there are plans to fund the BBC out of general taxation because so many people are refusing to pay the licence fee. That would be bad. It would be compulsory funding of propaganda.
just like in Aus;-(
Id like my 8c or whatever a day refunded
It already is compulsory, isn’t it? I’m from the UK, so I feel I can safely say that paying to have people lie to you is a uniquely UK concept. This would be just switching the method of payment which would ultimately be subject to the opinions of the voting public, i.e. a step in the right direction (potentially).
These people, being the smarmy, elitist, parasitic liars that they are, will always be one step ahead though, so we shouldn’t expect too much.
Some people refuse to pay, but probably most non-payers are doing so because they are watching online rather than broadcast TV.
I stopped paying the license fee more than a year ago and also stopped watching TV. Don’t like alternative lifestyles being rammed down my throat. Glad to hear I’m not the only one. A lot less bother than torches and pitchforks and very satisfying.(Oh and I found Alex Jones in spite of him being kicked off YouTube!) For local news I read UKIP Daily online. PS also cancelled Non Scientist.
It would be compulsory funding of propaganda.
It already is, and has been for as long as the BBC has existed.
Sir Cliff Richard, the singer, recently won a court case for damages after the BBC broadcast film of the police raiding his property following a phone call alleging historic sexual abuse by him. This included video taken from a BBC helicopter. Sir Cliff was never attested or charged.
The BBC reserve a specially vindictive loathing for Sir Cliff on account of his evangelical Christianity. Looking into the details of what happened that day, what is most revealing and alarming is the way that the BBC and the police worked together. Not only were the actions of the two organisations closely choreographed. The police raid and its timing actually took place under the instructions of the BBC. The BBC told the police what to do and when to do it. The BBC don’t just consider themselves a branch of government. They are.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45183421
The news supremo who ordered the helicopter coverage of the unlawful raid on Sir Cliff Richards’ house in his absence was Fran Unsworth, who after the case appeared on television to defend the A
ugust 2014, Unsworth ordered helicopter filming of a police raid on a mansion belonging to Cliff Richard. The coverage led to the singer suing the BBC for breach of privacy.[20] On 8 May 2018 The Guardian reported that, “Sir Cliff Richard is seeking a payment of at least £560,000 from the BBC following the broadcaster’s coverage of a police raid at his home in 2014”. In July 2018 Sir Cliff won his case for damages.
Moderator Please delete my submission that appeared at 11.25 – I was drafting and pressed the wrong button!
This is the revised version:
In August 2014, Unsworth ordered helicopter filming of a police raid on a mansion belonging to Cliff Richard. The coverage led to the singer suing the BBC for breach of privacy.[20] On 8 May 2018 The Guardian reported that, “Sir Cliff Richard is seeking a payment of at least £560,000 from the BBC following the broadcaster’s coverage of a police raid at his home in 2014”. In July 2018 Sir Cliff won his case for damages.
The news supremo who ordered the helicopter coverage of the unlawful raid on Sir Cliff Richards’ house in his absence was Fran Unsworth who, after the case, appeared on television to defend the BBC’s disgusting behaviour which has cost the license payers more than £1.000,000. Since Sir Cliff had already received an apology and substantial compensation from the South Yorkshire Police the BBC should never have attempted to defend the case in court.
Yet Fran Unsworth has not resigned and her latees emmision is the Climate Change crib sheet complete with her coveinr letter below:
Dear all
After a summer of heatwaves, floods and extreme weather, environment stories have become front of mind for our audiences. There are a number of important related news events in the coming months – including the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Green Great Britain Week in October – so there will be many more stories to cover. Younger audiences, in particular, have told us they’d like to see more journalism on the issue.
With this in mind, we are offering all editorial staff new training for reporting on climate change. The one hour course covers the latest science, policy, research, and misconceptions to challenge, giving you confidence to cover the topic accurately and knowledgeably.
Please book now by choosing a time from MyDevelopment (you’ll be prompted to login first), searching ‘reporting climate change’ on MyDevelopment, or emailing XXXXXX@bbc.co.uk to set up a tailored session for your team.
In the meantime, you can read the Climate Change for BBC News crib sheet, and the Analysis and Research website by searching ‘climate change’ which cover the basics.
I hope you find the training useful.
Fran
Fran has a degree in drama.
It is likely that science did not figure heavily in that course.
I may be wrong, but I understand that the scientific method may not be universally included in UK University (degree/BA or BSc ) drama courses.
Auto
Eric Blair (George Orwell) resigned from the Big Brother Corporation, having grown weary of catapulting “British propaganda.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/2b31054065d4a340b1dd2f5bf6671ca38bfcad21.jpg
The Ministry of Truth, with its hordes of actors and producers churning out propaganda tuned to different demographics, was clearly modeled on Blair’s employer, the BBC.
In fact, the BBC is often referred to affectionately in the UK as “Auntie,” as it it were a wise old loving and trusted member of your own family.
“Um…doing their job.”
-BBC fanboi, Ryan S
In the land of the blind, one-eye is king. Unfortunately in BBC land there is no king, because everybody is blind. A bunch of scientifically illiterates deciding what the people is to be told about science. It will not end well.
I think you have misread it. ‘potential’ does not qualify the funding, it qualifies the mention of it. They may, potentially, discuss sources of funding. Not they may discuss potential sources of funding.
But yes, its another example of the view that ‘the science is settled’. That there is something called climate change which is certain, and there is something which if people dispute any of it, they will be denying science.
Same thing occurred the other day on Ars, where Happer was described as someone who denies climate science. He is not someone who disagrees with some propositions or theories in climate science, no, he’s someone who denies climate science.
Imagine Einstein, or the early quantum physicists. It was not that they thought that the Newtonian account was incomplete or incorrect. No, they were denying physics. Imagine people who claimed a bacterial origin for stomach ulcers. They were denying medical science. They were not disputing a then accepted theory about the cause of stomach ulcers. No, they were medical science deniers.
Same thing with those miscreants who disputed and continue to dispute the saturated fat – blood cholesterol – CHD theory. These people are biology or dietary science deniers.
It reminds one of the former Soviet Union, in which people who dissented from the view that they were blessedly living in the inevitable Hegelian moment were denying historical science and self evident truth, something which could only be explained by mental illness.
Indeed, the attempt to characterize disagreement from one’s views on climate as a form of mental illness is alive and well in the peer reviewed literature.
Weird. We are looking at the corruption of science in our culture, and most of us are failing to recognize it for what it is.
It’s soooo painful trying to debate with the ‘useful idiots’! So determined not to think for themselves. Here’s a great example from the Guardian’s article on this story…
https://www.facebook.com/10513336322/posts/10157167516741323/
What is wrong with “The vast majority of climate scientists agree on the fundamentals of human-induced climate change, but there is healthy debate about the extent of that change and what to do about it”
Does anyone here have a problem with that? Does anyone disagree with that?
It depends what you mean by ‘the fundamentals’. You have to watch the pea under the thimble. What they actually agree on is very thin gruel with almost no policy implications. But what you will be called a denialist for doubting goes far beyond this. Its like the 97% nonsense. What they agree is that there is some human influence. Obviously there is. Some.
Whether its important is the issue, and this is what they wish to claim there is a total consensus on – that it is super important, the main driver, and that its dangerous and our causal activities should be stopped.
No, the vast majority do not agree on that.
Some local effect, to me, includes surely-undeniable local UHI effects.
Not least those around airfields, airports – and great air-transport centres like Heathrow and Gatwick. I am within thirty miles of both.
Beyond that – certainly in well-situated observation stations – I suggest that we have, certainly, had weather, quite a bit of it
I believe we have come out of the ‘Little Ice Age’ [Dates a la carte, but I think, sort of, 1500-1600 to 1800 or 1850 or even 1900. Ish. Ish-ish.]
Auto
What are the “fundamentals of human-induced climate change”? Please list them because yes, people on here are not stupid enough to buy into the (your) appeal to the authority of some undefined and possibly non-existent “vast majority of climate scientists”.
‘Tis a pity that neither Einstein or Hawking are alive to tell the BBC that science is very rarely settled – and that fact alone should make them realise that closing down debate is a typical action of a Stalanist state; not the way a free, democratic country’s national broadcaster should act.
But, of course, the BBC never admit they are wrong.
Yes exactly. I think that would solve the communication problem between the two sides.
Seems to me that they are treading on dangerous ground. They have now admitted that they are conducting a propaganda war against ‘deniers’ – we need them to spell out exactly what the definition of a ‘denier’ is. In the absence of that tight definition this policy can be used to suppress any disagreement with the IPCC.
Incidentally, I think this is a world first for the BBC, in that they state that they will unquestioningly follow IPCC statements, and that though they may allow people to disagree with those statements, such disagreement should always be challenged. I cannot think of any other body – national or supranational, which the BBC promise to believe implicitly.
Both the above points should be grounds for formal complaints to the BBC and to the UK parliament. Given the BBC’s global reach, it should be open to non-UK citizens to complain equally with UK citizens – ther is an ‘all-party parliamentary group’ which might be a useful contact – https://www.appgs.org/all-party-parliamentary-bbc-group/ UK citizens would be best advised to write to MPs…
T
“we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents”
Because the most duplicitous and well funded organizations are Government Bureaucrats and the “Experts” they enrich.
If the BBC won’t allow thinking outside the box it deserves to be in a box and six feet under.
Notice the pea and thimble trick. They say climate change deniers. They mean critics of the CAGW theory.
Two different things.
Clever.
Exactly; they purposely conflate the two as a means to dummy the public – it worked.
“Sustainability” is the word to pay attention to in the following quote from these BBC guidlines:-
“There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debate”
There is no sustainability debate because they dare not debate it.
The IPCC science reports make no mention of “Sustainability.”
Zero percent of scientists say that anything is “sustainable” ( in the sense that the BBC and environmentalists mean it). In fact I can’t find ANY scientists who voice opinions on the topic at all. It’s mostly evidence-free believers like economists and sociologists who talk about it.
And yet the political, social and economic transformations that are being enforced in its name are far more totalitarian and harmful than those of just “de-carbonisation.”
Just for one example – “One Planet Fremantle” in Fremantle, Australia is a plan for “sustainable development” that requires reducing the material standard of living of Fremantle by three quarters. That’s three quarters less food, water, housing, transport commerce etc.
“http://www.bioregional.com/one-planet-fremantle/” reveals that “Freemantle is the 2nd city to implement the “One Planet” methodology for sustainable development”
see also:- https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/one-planet
“One Planet Fremantle” is the same plan as “One Planet Brighton” which is being implemented in Brighton (UK) where I live. It is also being implemented as “One Planet Wales” throughout the entire country of Wales (UK).
I have documented “One Planet Brighton” on my blog at:-
http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/sustainable-happiness-is-no-laughing.html
“One planet” is methodology for evaluating “sustainability” that is so precise that it calculates a numerical co-efficient of “sustainability”. That numerical coefficient for Brighton is 3.2 and for all of Wales is 2.7 and it turns out to mean that Brighton is considered to be consuming material resources as if it had 3.2 planets worth of resources available. The plan is to reduce that to the “correct” amount which is One Planets worth – hence the name of the plan – “One Planet Brighton” which is a plan to REDUCE Brighton by 2/3. That is:- 2/3 less food and 2/3 less water etc..
Australians should be concerned that the methodology calculates that the average Australian consumes the resources of FOUR planets and thus needs to reduce their consumption by THREE-QUARTERS.
“One Planet Living is an international sustainability initiative based on the idea that we all need to live within the limits of one planet’s natural resources. If everyone continues to live like the average Australian, we would need more than four planets to support the current world population.”
https://www.landcorp.com.au/innovation/wgv/initiatives/One-Planet-Living/
see also
https://cofremantle.wordpress.com/2017/06/05/world-environment-day-one-planet-and-freo/
One of the things that politicians are demanding that humans hand over to them is direct control of “Happiness”
UK politicians are going to be able to put people in jail for having the wrong kind of happiness.
Brits should also check out:-
* One Planet Bristol
* One Planet Middlesbrough
* One Planet Norwich
and many other places.
“One Planet” sustainability is coming for you whereever you live.
Sustainability is poverty and slavery
Sustainability is ghetto and gulag
Sustainability is starving to death in a hovel.
Sustainability is shivering in the cold and dark so that in the future they can shiver in the cold and dark
The Age of Green is a new and terrible dark age
“The rise in CO2 is now the leading cause of pathological neurotic hysteria.” – UN IPCC
If the BBC put as much energy and concern into questioning the actualité of AGW as they put into trying to bring down a democratically elected President they’d do better (not that I can find John Sopel an example of a balanced, unbiased reporter).
The Beeb in the first quote conflates the term climate change meaning that the climate has been constantly changing for over 4 billion years with the AGW meaning of “climate change” which the CAGW croud morphed from “global warming.” The Beeb also showed their lack of understanding of the scientific method by their settled science claim.