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.
“climate deniers” are sometimes not properly challenged on air.
Uh, when are “climate d*niers” ever on air? Certainly not on the British Broadcasting Communists (BBC). Not on the American Broadcasting Communists (ABC). Not on the National Broadcasting Communists (NBC). Not on Communist Broadcasting System (CBS). Not on Communist (Fake)News Network (CNN). Not on Communists Broadcasting (of)Canada (CBC). Not on Australian Broadcasting Communists (ABC).
The BBC, as a proponent of clear communication, should be ashamed of how they butcher language in using the phrase, “climate denier”.
Surely, educated newscasters know the definition of “climate”, and yet they use it in an absurd phrase that means a person who denies the existence of climate. That’s what a “climate denier’ is — a person who denies the existence of climate. Ridiculous !
BBC= Brainless Butchers of Common usage
Say what you mean, BBC!
Use the language correctly. “Climate” has a specific meaning. “Denier” has a specific meaning. Put the two together, and they, as a unit, have a specific meaning that does NOT fit any known human outlook. There is no such thing as a “climate denier”.
From the Tips and Notes page:
“Follow WUWT via Email”
“You are following WUWT via email”
BUT, I don’t get email and it doesn’t go to SPAM. Any help?
Edit – using Firefox Quantum
Einstein’s theories would have had more difficulty being accepted, it took from 1906 until 1919 anyway, had the BBC been around at the time. With their Oxbridge English graduate, Harabin, commenting on climate change, the drama is more important than the facts.
Of course, it all supposes that its audience is too stupid to judge for themselves what constitutes interesting information, or that any of the lower classes might research the matter further.
I wonder if they broadcast “An Inconvenient Truth”. It was almost completely free of correct facts but it had the all important “received viewpoint”. One assumes Albert Einstein in 1905 or Charles Darwin in 1870 would have been treated similarly. Yet Brian Cox can come on and blather about string theory like it’s real.
Whereas the media is all too happy to highlight controversy and even to inflame it in most cases, the BBC is aghast at the notion of courting a little controversy over the weather.
Never mind Aunty. It’s the same as always. Wet and rainy and dull.
…. and in addition to the stupid ones, you can add the scientifically uneducated ones, the lazy ones and, peculiar to the UK, the mustn’t grumblers. In total, that’s a large swathe of the population.
We are the priests
Of the Temples of Syrinx
Our great computers
Fill the hollowed halls…Rush 2112
“speaking with authority”
Respect my authoritah
The template is Andrew Montford’s The Propaganda Bureau which tells of Horrorbin’s disgraceful conspiracy in 2009 to deny sceptics airtime as a matter of BBC policy. Collaboration between BBC high ups and Green institutions. Thousands paid to lawyers to deny FOI requests about composition of the meetings. Not what I paid my licence fee for.
I don’t think BBCnicans or CNNites should be hounded from public or harassed, but I would not want to go to their places of worship and either participate in their ceremonies disingenuously or mock their traditions, no matter how strange.
I do object to them trying to turn everywhere else into their places of worship, that’s all.
+97
Yeah, the irony of where the useless human gene pool is as intelligence (term used in a loose sense) vastly outpaced reproductive evolution. My religion’s better than your religion ner ner, because I have a degree in political science or English literature or PPP or PPE.
Can it all be boiled down to the fact that they need to find and hold on to a job?
But will they? If they believe that they’re entitled to heaps of cash and/or shouldn’t have to work who will stop them from staying on the dole their whole lives? As the genepool gets more and more stupid because they need as many idiot voters and cheap labor as possible who will be smart enough to value work? Hard work is so undervalued ethics and/or morals are the only reason to want to work in this country at the moment. Who will be capable of understanding the miniscule ratio of warming created by society in the future? We must teach every chance we get.
“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”
So when we expect a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen whenever Roger Harrabin files a report?
If Lord Lawson shouldn’t have been allowed because of alleged inaccuracy, what about the drivelling Wadhams and his absurd Arctic predictions who was given repeated space? Or that girly little scientist who was ‘scared’ by the 2016 El Niño. And the awful Hoorrorbin and Shukperson who serially lie on air?
I have withdrawn to a distant part of Morrison Towers of late to try to contemplate and understand why hypocrisy lies at the heart of modern liberalism and the BBC. Maybe it would help me understand the fake climate science the BBC has peddled for years bolstered by its seeming hatred for the real stuff. Isolated in my retreat I can’t help feel that two pipes and a half decent burgundy has not been quite enough to help solve this complex mystery, but here goes.
The BBC and its cast of elites have wrapped themselves in a cloak of moral authority that accepts no argument. It despises the indigenous culture of Britain and regards with barely concealed contempt the majority of people who live in the country. They are in the unguarded word of former “Labour” prime minister Gordon Brown “bigots” while shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry sneers at their flags, houses and white vans parked outside. The BBC needs their money and the Labour party wants their votes, but that is it.
Have you noticed how you can’t debate anything with liberals these days, especially science? Whatever facts or figures you bring to the table their mind is already made up from the Guardian they read and the BBC they watch. They run universities where they indoctrinate the young with fake knowledge and encourage them to close their minds. And then they profess injured innocence when the students start banning speakers and declaring “safe spaces”. Of course the indoctrination starts much earlier in the public sector schools. Every long-standing employer knows that standards of literacy and numeracy are well down on previous generations. Seemingly there is little time to teach such mundane stuff when there are only so many hours in the days to discover how we are killing the planet and how appalling our ancestors behaved.
You can go to Cuba or Venezuela and see how communism can wreck a state. You can denounce terrorism in all its forms as evil and beyond civil acceptance but the leader of the main opposition party says he is a “friend” of Cuba and Hamas and was sympathetic to the IRA. Every decent person knows he is unfit even to sit in the British parliament but Jon Snow, the main newsreader from Channel 4, sings his praises at Glastonbury and shouts “fuck the Tories”.
The Right Charlie flies in a private jet to pick up an environmental award and calls for an end to consumerism. BBC presenter Jane Garvey says that a white theatrical audience in London is a “problem” while her employer indulges in similar racism by advertising for “non-whites”. But of course it is not hypocrisy or racism because we are right and you are wrong. We are morally just and whatever you say, you are still bad and we are still good.
Smug “comedians’ spend a subsidised lifetime spilling out self righteous dross, designed to display their higher moral authority. Every now and then one gets outed for not paying tax, abusing other people or has to disappear for six months while they clean the Bolivian marching powder out of their system, but hey, just remember they are good and you are bad.
The crusades around climate change science say it all. Long ago the BBC took the precaution of banning all skeptical inquiry. Instead of a sensible discussion about future energy use and efficiency, we are being forcibly marched towards an uncertain future of renewable power. Not that it applies to the elites at the UK’s “National” Theatre who recently asked for an exemption from new EU green lighting regulations.
Do as I say, not as I do. I am right and virtuous, you are wrong.
And further how dare you question my right to save the planet. This is my new religion since I don’t care for all those outdated Christian values. If the poor have to pay higher energy prices, so be it. I make so much money I will not notice and I am blessed in my new anti-science priesthood. If your light bulbs are a bit dim, come to my theatre where the sun continues to shine out of my fundament.
The BBC can never be wrong when all the poor plebs are forced to pay for its antics with a compulsory poll tax.
This is a comment which should go to the BBC complaints division, copy to your local MP. Note that you are only allowed 300 odd words to complain, while they are allowed any number to respond.
…Isolated in my retreat I can’t help feel that two pipes and a half decent burgundy has not been quite enough …
I can’t help thinking that two pipes should be quite enough. That’s around 300 gallons of Port….
For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring to the suggestion by Mr Sherlock Holmes, consulting detective, that he might need two pipes of tobacco to solve particularly difficult cases. Sadly the case of the BBC and the Purlioned Science Reputation is beyond fixing.
The BBC is obviously a part of the climate problem…
Everyone knows that the climate is changing, it has always been, this is hardly a focal point. How far these changes are caused by humans, on the other hand, there are clear disagreements about. With today’s empirical climate research it’s hard to find pointers for the anthropological global warming …
So the BBC admits it is no longer a news organization.
This part of the piece was pretty amusing.
“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.”
The match in question took place on Sunday. Quite an apt metaphor for the whole climate debate really isn’t it? The BBC being 100% certain that they are right while at the same time being wrong.
“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.”
— Alarmists are generally ignorant of the mainstream skeptics positions. Here, even the BBC defines a “denialist” in a way that excludes every mainstream skeptic I can think of, but I suspect they’ll apply that label to anyone they want.
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. -or attract new costumers when they’re already:
taxpayer funded.
The BBC itself is living in the last chance saloon so simply sitting by admiring their stupidity will see the end of such nonsense.
So what else is new?
Media censorship has been going on for decades. Some have figured that out, and others suspect it.
Most people do not know what “science” is. They think it is politics: Consensus, InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change; or religion: “Deniers.”
We need something new. Here are some
BUMPER STICK DREAMS:
My tailpipe feeds the hungry
Tree Food –>
(Sinclair’s green dino) Burn me back to Life
CO2 –> Longevity
USA is carbon sink
EU/ UK/Australia/Canada/etc. is a carbon sink
Organic is carbon chemistry
or 2lines: Organic Chemistry
Carbon Chemistry
That longevity one needs an explanation. We all know longevity has been rising and rising. Part of that is antibiotics to kill bacterial disease. Some is unexplained, and correlated with CO2. A likely mechanism: With more CO2, the rare input to photosynthesis, plants need less rubisco, the photosynthesis enzyme. The screamers pretend this means less nutrition, but most people get plenty of protein and our bodies evolved under conditions of higher CO2. With less energy for rubisco, plants can make more vitamins and other nutrients. I believe that enables improved health.