We thought we were on the right track when we accused the BBC of being biased recently, and now we are delighted to see journalist Paul Revoir following our lead - in that highly responsible, influential and prestigious journal, the Daily Mail, no less (sarcastic? What, us?).
He writes ...
The body which oversees the BBC is to launch a full-scale review into whether its coverage of science and the environment is biased. The BBC Trust acted after a string of complaints that the corporation is acting as a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. There have also been concerns over its coverage of genetically-modified foods and the MMR vaccine.
Critics say the BBC has gone far beyond reporting the science of climate change and actively promotes an environmentalist agenda. Others say it fails to give a voice to those who believe man-made global warming is a hoax and that it has an institutionalised "soft green" bias. Global warming sceptics say BBC News underplayed the "ClimateGate" scandal in which British scientists manipulated temperature data, and after the BBC's wall-to-wall coverage of the 2007 Live Earth concert, the then editor of Newsnight, Peter Barron, accused the BBC of going too far and said it was "not the corporation's job to save the planet".
The year-long investigation will establish whether the complaints are justified – and could result in guidelines on how to treat important scientific stories. It will scrutinise the way the BBC has handled scientific debate in areas which affect ‘public policy’ and are ‘matters of political controversy’.
Richard Tait, BBC trustee and chairman of the governing body’s editorial standards committee, said: ‘Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces. Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while remaining impartial. The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that licence fee payers expect.’
A scientific expert will be hired to lead the review and it will concentrate on coverage of the issues featured in its news and factual output to see whether they meet the corporation’s Royal Charter and requirement that controversial subjects are covered impartially. The review will also focus on the way the BBC reports on new technologies including Wi-Fi wireless internet; in 2007 an edition of Panorama caused widespread panic about alleged dangers from wi-fi networks in schools and the BBC had to apologise.
The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of green issues. Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics who do not agree that climate change is caused by human action, leading to a string of complaints over coverage of the issue. Lord Monckton, a leading climate change sceptic, has claimed that his views have been deliberately misrepresented by the BBC. He said he had been made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’. "Earth: The Climate Wars", which was broadcast on BBC 2 in September 2008, was billed as a definitive guide to the history of global warming, including arguments for and against.
Last night, Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said: ‘My complaint against the BBC is not about one programme, it is that there has been a relentless institutional prejudice against the very large number of eminent climate scientists who fundamentally disagree with all the major conclusions that we are told inaccurately is the scientific consensus about climate change. It is high time the BBC examined itself.’
Well, the BBC may intend to investigate itself (and we can all imagine just how probing that investigation is likely to be, can't we?) but in the meantime it's jolly well going to carry on misleading the public whenever it likes. Here's part of a letter written yesterday (7th January) to BBC Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler ...
Further to Newsnight tonight (7th Jan 2010) where the Met Office and BBC so-called expert lied about the reality of long-range forecasting: we at WeatherAction predicted this very cold weather SIX months ago using solar activity (nothing to do with CO2) and added extra detail weeks ahead. Our forecasts of EXTREME events are consistently 85% reliable.
There is no need for the UK and Europe to be unprepared and run out of salt. The consequent suffering and road deaths are a direct consequence of the Met Office and BBC failed science and litany of lies.
Would the BBC care to hear from us as to why the Met Office fail, fail and fail again in medium and long range forecasting and when this cold weather will end and then return? I suspect not.
Would you care to consider the following ...
1. The Met Office statement on Newsnight that they ‘verify’ their climate forecasts against past dates
2. That the said past data was fraudulently produced by, for example, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and exposed in the ClimateGate files
3. It is therefore unsurprising that the Met Office's climate and season-ahead forecasts fail, fail and fail again. They are rooted in failed science and falsified data: the world has been cooling for at least 7 years while CO2 has been rising – contrary to their forecast. The floody ‘non barbecue’ summers of 2007, 2008 and 2009 and the cold winter 08/09 and now 09/10 were ALL the opposite of the Met Office forecast and ALL as predicted by WeatherAction months ahead. Met Office scored 0/5 and WeatherAction scored 5/5
4. The failed Met Office forecast for this winter and the consequent unnecessary suffering and road deaths should be laid at the feet of the University of East Anglia, the Met Office and the BBC — and charges of collective manslaughter be issued.
Piers Corbyn MSc, ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS
Our favourite bit of the Newsnight programme (which you can see here) was when the talking head from the Met Office explained "it's difficult to predict it a long way ahead because it does fluctuate through the year". Wow. Just as well he told us that, we'd never have realised. Tosser.
Piers Corbyn is absolutely justified in his anger. The overwhelming thrust of the entire Newsnight item was to patronise the ignorant peasants in the television audience by explaining to them that weather forecasting is a very complex and difficult business and we shouldn't be bothering our pretty little heads with it. They impressed us with shots of massed ranks of weather-predicting computers, all clean and shiny.
And global warming? Well, that was easy: "Fluctuations like this in the UK climate do not map very strongly onto the global mean climate", we were told. In other words, it doesn't matter what happens to the weather, they're still going to say it's global warming and it's still all our fault.
Mind you, there are cracks appearing in the united BBC/Met Office/Global Warming front. On the BBC on Wednesday, Andrew Neal interviewed John Hirst, the head of the Met Office, and asked him why he's just had a massive bonus and is earning more than the Prime Minister, when the organisation he leads can't predict whether Sunday will follow Saturday next week, let alone what the weather will be like. Hirst wriggled uncomfortably, but had no answers; it was a completely unconvincing display from one of the highest-paid public servants in the country. You can watch it here.
The GOS says: What I can't understand is why they keep doing it? If long-range weather forecasting is such a chancy business, why bother making predictions at all? They're not too bad at looking at the satellite photos and telling us what's coming over the next two or three days, so why not settle for that? - they probably wouldn't get too many complaints from the rest of us.
I mean, if you kept getting egg on your face all the time, wouldn't you stop juggling with eggs?
Oh well, I expect it's all much too complicated for my poor working-class brain. I won't bother my pretty little head about it any more.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS