The BBC has launched an internal investigation into the woeful shortcomings of its climate coverage. Did the Director-General read Paul Homewood’s article documenting 50 instances when the BBC has published or broadcast climate misinformation? The Telegraph has more.
The broadcaster has decided to review its climate and energy policy reporting after a string of controversies. It has been forced to make a series of corrections, with some programmes being removed altogether.
It comes with the BBC at the centre of a bias row after the Telegraph published a leaked letter, which had been sent to members of the BBC board by Michael Prescott, a former standards adviser.
He wrote of his “despair at inaction” by executives over widespread evidence of skewed reporting. …
Now the broadcaster will face fresh scrutiny on its climate coverage, with its Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee deciding to carry out a “thematic review” of its coverage of “energy policy in the UK and climate change”.
This would make it the latest in a series of reviews on impartiality carried out by the BBC in recent years.
They are part of its 10-point impartiality plan which was introduced in 2021, following an inquiry into the scandal surrounding the 1995 Panorama interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, involving Martin Bashir. …
Earlier this year, the BBC quietly edited an episode of Question Time after allegedly making a false claim about Net Zero. The corporation has defended the move, saying it is “normal practice to edit the programme before broadcast for audience clarity”.
Last year, a complaint was upheld when a BBC News article presented as fact the claim that “human-induced climate change made recent extreme heat in the US South-West, Mexico and Central America around 35 times more likely”.
In May 2022, Justin Rowlatt, the BBC’s Climate Editor, was found to have made misleading claims about extreme weather in a Panorama documentary.
In October 2020, Ofcom upheld a complaint by the National Farmers’ Union about the documentary Meat: A Threat to our Planet? and the documentary was later removed from BBC iPlayer.
Worth reading in full.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I forecast that nothing will change in the BBC’s alarmist reporting of global warming. The entire top echelon of the BBC has been pushing climate alarmism for decades and they have absolutely no intention of reining back the propaganda.
There is nothing to forecast as it already happened.
Haven’t the climate guys investigated themselves in terms of climate gate – and found nothing?
BBC is heavily biased in every single domain of every new big mandatory narrative.
Be it LGBT,Gender,Mass Invasion etc.
and they are not only biased but leading these Agendas( Whatever new value the NYT and BBC comes up with and repeat 3 times in the headlines becomes mandatory for the rest of the west)
and they actively attack those who don’t go along with it.
It’s like a drug cartel investigating its own weedtrade while they keep on selling crack,cocaine and heroine.
They will admit as much as they have to.
Yeah, they’re drug dealers with their own addictions.
The fox guarding the hen house is in charge of inspecting the locks?
The decline of the UK started after WW one, and is has been steadily downward since then, with more downward trend to come under the supreme idiot, called Starmer
The BBC would have to help take down the MET office in the process of exposing the whole set of lies. So, I guess that is a tall order. UK leadership is not on board with truth and reconciliation, not even close.
I am working on that angle!
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/10/03/paisley-dcnn6366-and-largs-dcnn6527-collapsing-the-house-of-cards/
Its in their genes – they can’t help themselves.
The BBC is all over the place this morning.
The staff are in denial over the blatant bias and there are claims that the board staged a coup.
Pass the popcorn – better than their TV!
It seems to me that the BBC has been captured by activist groups, who’ve decided that they can ignore senior management because their cause is just, and have been allowed to do this for many years.
Until this changes, nothing changes.
In these increasingly polarised times, the BBC is of unique value and speaks to the very best of us. – Tim Davie
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tim-davies-memo-bbc-trump-b2861777.html
Of unique value to the establishment.
The very best of us ???
Who defines “the best of us” – who are they ?
Smacks of elite cronyism disguised by smarmy wording.
Nothing will change unless an awful lot of heads roll.
Who defines “the best of us”
Timbo does
It took me a while to actually find anything relevant from that link (not you’re fault, just saying they’ve already ‘buried the lead’ so to speak). And the ultimate take away is that the BBC simply will not change, calls to ‘defend themselves’..really? Only a total propaganda arm ‘defends itself’ after running with a lie. It’s direct out of the Goebbel’s playbook.
It’s run by the staff as a Collective.
Management becomes intimidated, frightened to exercise the proper practices required for the organization to fulfill its charter and obligations to taxpayers.
The ABC in Australia and the CBC in Canada are carbon-copy staff Collectives.
From the reactions of newspaper staffs to new management reigning in the far left propaganda during the recent US election, you can include major newspapers in those collectives as well.
“human-induced climate change made recent extreme heat in the US South-West, Mexico and Central America around 35 times more likely”
How can it be made “more likely” when “extreme heat” is already a normal occurrence there. Climate change might also make extreme cold more likely in Alaska. Of course this kind of aggrandizing should be removed from publications. But if it bleeds, it leads, so they must make everything sound dramatic.
How can something be 35* more likely when at least every tenth day is an extreme heat day.
It can be at best 10* more likely or the years need 1000 days.
“How can it be made “more likely” when “extreme heat” is already a normal occurrence there.”
Yeah, we get extreme heat in this area about every year. Like clockwork. Claiming it is any worse now than in the past is not consistent with the facts.
I won’t hold my breath.
An organisation that convened a coven of climate alarmists to set climate reporting policy; and has repeatedly described anyone, or their views, that isn’t at the extreme end of the climate orthodoxy, as “false balance”; and immediately bends to the complaints of alarmists to never let it happen again whenever the slightest contrary opinion on climate or energy policy is aired; is not going to change.
Besides, they are doing the bidding and have the support of the political elites. They are their facilitators. The current immensely self-harming western climate and energy policies would have been impossible without the relentless propaganda of the MSM and especially the BBC.
Big thanks to Paul Homewood (& lots of others), who’ve been after the BBC for years,
we applaud your tenacity.
I’d call it hard labour
Can the leopard change its’ spots? I guess we’ll find out.
AI says, a skunk cannot change its scent, but the smell of its spray can change in intensity and character over time, especially after contact with water.
If the leopard identifies that way or
after a visit in the local tattoo shop.
The BBC is proud of its membership (leadership?) of Covering Climate Now. See Kip Hansen article on WUWT for a full picture of this slimy lot. Briefly, they exist to push climate misinformation to news organisations all over the world, so they all report in lockstep, even using the same phrases in their fake climate reports.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
RE: UK Temperature Check
I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-kingdom/average-temperature-by-year. The Tmax and Tmin data are displayed from 1901 to 2024. Here are some selected data:
Year—-Tmax—-Tmin—-Tavg Temperatures are ° C.
2024—12.9——6.9——9.9
1901—11.8——4.7——8.2
Incr.—–1.1——2.2——1.7
After 123 years there only slight increases in the temperatures. I have concluded that there really is no or very little climate change in the UK.
NB: Be sure to check out http://www.extremeweatherwatch.com. On the home page there are links in light blue to a great many sites located around the world. Temperature and climate data are obtained from NOAA’s data base.
And that change could be caused by more buildings and pavement.
Also less aerosols and clearer air generally. Not to mention record manipulation.
A time during which we were still coming out of the Little Ice Age.
You may like to follow my work over on the Talkshop. Here is the hard evidence you are looking at
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2025/08/14/wye-addendum-a-detailed-look-at-what-the-actual-data-tells-us/
Thank you..
One correction, Harold. The average UK temp states at the top that the coldest ( low) year was 1962. But it was colder in 1919, according to the graph (i think 4.3 as opposed to 4.4 in 1962).
Waiting…. I wonder what the BBC (Big Booger Club?) will say about Starmer’s vow, at the COP30 (COP is Collection Of Prostitutes?), to “double down on Net Zero”? How do you double down on zero? Is this some kind of AI New Math?
How do you double down on zero?
00
President Trump just sent a demand letter to the BBC, offering a chance for them to correct and apologize for the false report on his Jan 6 speech (the BBC left out the part about demonstrating “peacefully and patriotically”, and suggested he directed the following event at the Congress), or face a Billion Dollar civil lawsuit.
Trump has lately been getting paid by lying Leftwing Media outfits for lying about him. ABC News and CBS News have paid up for their lies and distortions.
Now BBC is on the list.
I think it should cost the BBC a billion dollars to lie and claim President Trump is a traitor to his country.
BBC should focus on real traitors to the United States like Barack Obama and Joe Biden and members of their administration who illegally used the power of the federal government to try to put their political opponents in jail.
Would that politicians could o any math at all.
A good read: Remainers in Blame Game Meltdown Over Tim Davie Resignation
as they attempt to blame anyone but the BBC for its failings.
tweeting about the “populists” and “cabal of toxic plotters”, declaring it a bad day “for our values [and] our country”.
Guido Fawkes
Labour (Lisa Nandy) has been plotting to get GB News via the regulator and failed. She hasn’t given up, but as they say: it doesn’t help the cause…
Donald Trump’s team calls for UK to watch GB News as they blast ‘dying’ BBC
Donald Trump’s press secretary has issued her support for GB News while slamming the BBC.
Daily Express
The anti-midas touch isn’t going to go away
Didn’t the head of BBC have to resign because they edited a Trump speech to say the opposite of what he actually said?
Yep… and here’s the consequence…
”Donald Trump threatens legal action over BBC’s edited January 6 speech”
BBC Verify: Earthquake video proven fake gets millions of views – BBC Verify
What they missed…
Trump video proven fake gets broadcast to millions of viewers in UK and elsewhere.
The new fictional refugees are welcome hero – Paddington Bear
You won’t see this on the BBC – and youtube is busy removing it, too.
Go to 7:17 and 9:30
Starmer getting six seconds of irrelevance was the most cutting six seconds.
…. and this just in: Trump has sent the lying scumbags a letter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLmd2w6YVgI
Well, well, well, BBC iPlayer is everywhere. I hope he can sue them in Florida.
BBC is the bias.
Paul Homewood is am amateur when it comes to complaing about the BBCs appetite for joyfully misrepresenting weather related incidents as evidence of Co2 induced climate crisis.
After 350 complaints the BBC banned me from making any more complaints “(a) are trivial, misconceived, hypothetical, repetitious or otherwise vexatious” “) ” In January 2016 our records show you made 13 complaints, 12 in February and a further 6 since then. Over 140 have been made in your name since 2011.”
For Gordon Rayner to hyperventilate about the Donald Trump issue is the pot calling the kettle black. Since Christopher Booker – and the Telegraph management campaigned against Booker because the Telegraph wanted to be green – passed away the Telegraph Sky News Guardian Independent Observer, ITV CH4 and 5 all embarked on the wholesale demolition of Co2 and they all twisted inverted manipulated misrepresent every hostile planet normality in a grossly distorted campaign to vilify what was in fact keeping them alive and safe in the beds at night.
Now in the UK because of the media – Sky News Australia v Sky News UK – we have to face the UK environment being further defiled by wind solar and battery installations aided and abetted by the Telegraph in particulare Ambrose Pritchard Evans who said “that ship has sailed you cannot stop it now” just let the bulldozers get to work and transform the way in which we live.
Just a few examples of my complaints to the BBC: Rod Liddle has said that the BBC deliberately sets up interviews with people it knows will say exactly what the BBC wants us to hear so that subsequently it can disassociate itself with what has transpired whilst in secret rejoicing at the outcome of its contrivance believing that we are too thick to recognise and understand its deceit.
“We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side. With a big story, like shale gas for example, you would choose the aspect where your case was strongest: the dangers of subsidence and water pollution, say, rather than the transformation of Britain’s energy supplies and the abandonment of wind farms and nuclear power stations. And you could have a ‘balanced’ summary with the view you favoured coming last: not “the opposition claim that this will just make the rich richer, but the government point out that it will create 10,000 new jobs” but “the government claim it will create 10,000 new jobs, but the opposition point out that it will just make the rich richer.” It is the last thought that stays in the mind. It is curiously satisfying to find all of these techniques still being regularly used forty-seven years after I left the BBC.” (Sir Anthony Jay)
“This deep hostility to people and organisations who made and sold things was not of course exclusive to the BBC. It permeated a lot of upper middle class English society (and has not vanished yet). But it was wider and deeper in the BBC than anywhere else, and it is still very much a part of the BBC ethos. Very few of the BBC producers and executives have any real experience of the business world, and as so often happens, this ignorance, far from giving rise to doubt, increases their certainty.” (Sir Anthony Jay)”
Just give them enough rope…
This is typical of the media but relates specifically to the BBC: There is so much more: CAS-3843673-020C5J. Full Complaint: CAS-3837243-N96JZ9, CAS-3823472-HT8CS0, CAS-3834353-KBPPY8, CAS-3804754-4BMKZY, CAS-3707407-MRSKS8, CAS-3691043-KX56F2, CAS-3690744-8XQ0C7, CAS-3689289-XM732K, CAS-3687285-F089K2, CAS-3713299-CL8QKP, CAS-3691043-KX56F2, CAS-3690744-8XQ0C7, CAS-3695656-171GHJ, CAS-3710768-ZYQG6K, CAS-3613914-Q54SVR, CAS-3695656-171GHJ, CAS-3689289-XM732K, CAS-3687529-2X2FSK, CAS-3687285-F089K2, CAS-3686266-9S0NN0, CAS-3686007-3L35KX, enough or do you want more? BBC weasel words: – can, clearly, could, conjectured, considered, expected, may, might, perhaps, possibly, projected, robust, unprecedented. – “Experts suggest…” “It has been said that …” “Research has shown…” “Science indicates …” “It can be argued…” “Scientists believe….” “A high level of certainty” “Models predict….” Catastrophic, apocalyptic, dangerous warming, rising sea levels, typhoons, cyclones, flood, drought, extreme weather and tornadoes. What the BBC and its paid contributors never say is what exactly constitutes extreme weather, where did it happen and when and why is it extreme now when before Co2 mania it was just weather. If sea levels are rising, then the BBC should say by how much over what time period and the same with temperature otherwise the BBC is just guilty of scaremongering. Leonardo dicaprio accused of hypocrisy because of a private jet round trip of 8,000 miles to collect am environmental award. Al Gore, Attenborough, Klein, Figueres, Neil Oliver, David Suzuki, 40,000 COP delegates then all fall into the same category. Yes or No?
“Neil Oliver”
This Neil Oliver?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Oliver
Somehow, I doubt it.
Yeah it’s a bum rap, officer.
CAS-3689289-XM732K: Let me get this right your belief is that the BBC needs to debauch and misrepresent science fact in order to appease the whim of a specific minority who believe that the only way to impose and enforce their belief upon the majority is to deny us evidence that fundamentally contradicts their belief? That the BBC yielded to pressure from this minority to the extent that it was felt reasonable to pay 2 geneticists to rewrite its editorial standards to ensure that the BBC’s allegiance to this minority was set in stone to the extent that the BBC is now 100% committed to the imposition of belief instead of accurately reporting simple scientific fact? That the BBC believes that its allegiance to this minority overrides and exceeds its clear obligation to educate inform and entertain its licence fee payers. That the BBC believes it is right and proper and to our benefit that the BBC is allowed to deliberately manipulate the way in which it exploits its broadcasting spectrum to make false representations that diminish our understanding to our detriment and to the absolute benefit of reputation privilege and profit of that specific minority who believe that it is their absolute right to distort and manipulate the behaviour of the BBC to achieve their specific political ambition? That the BBC is 100% ideologically committed to the notion that its allegiance to broadcasting data which directly benefits specific vested interests is legally morally and ethically justifiable in the promotion of their cause even though it is against the public interest and fundamentally contravenes our human rights? If the BBC wants to behave like the political wing of the IRA so be it. But if so it needs to end its reliance on the licence fee and face the world as it is and maybe then it will recognise exactly what its obligations and allegiances should be. Bob Ward & RS do not pay your wages we do.
CAS-3690744-8XQ0C7: 3670225 “We’ve reported on the various views surrounding climate change over a long period. However, it is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.” So you want me to believe that the BBC having paid Jones & Nurse to rewrite its editorial standards in an attempt to legitimise its deceit related to AGW imposing due impartiality to ensure that only the “views” of those with a vested interest in the promotion of AGW were given air time now wants me to believe that it quoted a Met Office/NASA press release without attribution and that this was just an accidental act of innocents at large naive gullible unable to comprehend the significance of its malfeasance, really? It is the BBC that always every time in response to a complaint that chooses to conflate scientific fact to views & opinions in the hope and expectation that this assertion will nullify & neutralise the context of the complaint allowing the BBC to avoid censure for false representation and deceit. The BBC knows that every prediction made by the Met Office – including no more snow – has failed to manifest itself. AGW morphed into climate change simple because the Met Office & NASA recognised it could not contradict the validity and accuracy of satellite data. If the BBC were innocents at large there would have been no reason to pay Jones & Nurse to legitimise their desired deceit and use heavy weight lawyers in an attempt to silence an OAP who intended to release the names of those attending a conference organised by Harrabin. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf Just quote satellite data in future and then no more complaints, what is so difficult??
The BBC must not be allowed to mark its own homework.
The BBC is under attack not just for their biased reporting, but for the increasingly aggressive and abusive tactics they use to collect TV license fees. See here for one of many examples. Resistance is mounting as people stop watching broadcast TV and halt their license payments.
The BBC may be forced to change not from pressure on the top but by loss of funding from the public.
Given that the BBC’s most egregious lie about Trump’s speech came out- perhaps it’s going to take a big fall? Who could possibly trust them after their twisting of Trump’s speech?
“…most egregious lie about Trump’s speech came out…”
What do you mean ‘came out’? It was publicly broadcast…in other words its not like nobody knew about it, presumably millions of people saw it…and it made NO impact on the US election and clearly didn’t get to Trump or he didn’t bother to worry about it when broadcast…so why would this be a big deal now just because of some memo published by The Telegraph? If people really took this stuff seriously there would have been a public outcry at the time not almost a year later. So nothing will come of this except a couple of elites changing jobs.
Whatever the BBC says, the opposite is true. Same as CBC. They are propaganda arms.
A ray of truth is shining today among all the overcast in the world.
It was the threat of legal action on the political video splicing of DJT that started this. They did not come out willingly-jerks.