Hypocrisy of the BBC

BBC: loves Gore, hates Lawson

BBC: loves Gore, hates Lawson

Censorship now rules at the British publicly funded broadcaster, the BBC.

On a current affairs programme in February of this year, Lord (Nigel) Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) was brought in to debate Sir Brian Hoskins of the (ultra alarmist) Grantham Institute, home of the odious Bob Ward.

Subsequently, a Greens activist (naturally) complained that the BBC was guilty of giving ‘false balance’ to the flat-earthers. Hugh Muir of the Grauniad takes up the story:

It still sends a frisson down the spine of certain producers to give airtime to the former chancellor Lord Lawson so that he can chip away at the widespread scientific agreement over the causes and impact of climate change. The temperature is always a little higher with a heretic in the room. And yet this route towards excitement has its dangers. As the go-to guy in the thinktank of his own creation, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Lawson was called in February to the studios of the Today programme for debate with Sir Brian Hoskins, a climatologist from Imperial College London.

Things did not go as they should, and the broadcast became the subject of a complaint from Chit Chong, a Green party activist. Reviewing the broadcast, the BBC’s head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel, took a dim view. “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research,” Steel says, “and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience … Furthermore the implication was that Lord Lawson’s views on climate change were on an equal footing with those of Sir Brian.”

And they aren’t. Sceptics have their place in the debate, Steel says in his provisional finding, but “it is important to ensure that such views are put into the appropriate context and given due (rather than equal) weight.” Chong is only partially satisfied. He’d like a right of reply and perhaps a balancing programme. And others say “due weight” should mean not having Lawson on at all. Still, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Furthermore, the Telegraph reports:

Lord Lawson wrote that Fraser Steel, head of the unit, apologised to Mr Chong “for the fact I was allowed to appear on the programme and to make clear this will not happen again”.

In other words, they won’t be inviting Lawson back, effectively censoring his contribution to the debate.

But let’s look at whether the BBC sticks to its own rules, and, guess what? Surprise! The ‘false balance’ argument only applies to sceptics.

A Google search of “Al Gore” and climate on the bbc.co.uk site reveals nearly 12,000 hits, and top result is from just three days ago! Didn’t they get the memo? You can’t have unqualified people speaking about climate! We all know that Al Gore has no science qualifications and therefore has no right to speak on climate change, apart perhaps from having made a ludicrous and inaccurate propaganda video in 2007.

But that doesn’t stop the BBC giving Gore a platform to spout yet more propaganda, unchallenged.

See? It’s not a question of false balance, it’s a question of getting the right message out – the alarmist message. As Lawson rightly says:

“If there is to be a ban on non-scientists discussing climate change issues (which I do not, of course, support), this should in the best BBC tradition be an even-handed one. That is to say, they should also ban non-scientists such as energy secretary Ed Davey, Ed Miliband, Lord Deben (chairman of the government’s climate advisory committee), Lord Stern (former adviser to the government on the economics of climate change and development) and all the others who are regularly invited to appear.”

Let’s have a look at the ABC (the Australian Bolsheviks Collective) here in Australia. Top of the list must be cracked-crystal-ball-wielding Tim Flannery, he of the many and varied dud predictions. A Google search of his name on the ABC web site reveals nearly 7,000 hits with ‘climate’. Just last week, the ABC spruiked Flannery as a ‘climate scientist’ (see image).

Flannery a 'climate scientist'?

Flannery a ‘climate scientist’? [click to enlarge]

He is nothing of the sort, of course. He’s a mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist (whatever that is), and… ta da! … ‘global warming activist’. Thus spake Wikipedia. So it doesn’t matter if you’re not a climate scientist, global warming activist will do just as well.

We can add to our list other favourites of the ABC, Stephan Lewandowsky (psychologist), Clive Hamilton (no idea, but certainly not climate science), Robyn Williams, etc etc. So it’s all fine and dandy for our public broadcaster to drag in unqualified persons to rattle on about climate change, as long as it’s the approved message they’re spouting.

But think about the reverse – if engaging Lawson to debate Hoskins is false balance, how about the BBC get on the phone to Dr Roy Spencer, or Pat Michaels, or Richard Lindzen? They are as distinguished climate scientists as you could hope to get, so that should satisfy the ‘false balance’ conundrum, right?

Er, no. Roy Spencer manages a tad over 300 mentions on bbc.co.uk, and only one in the last 12 months… and a fair amount of those hits may also be reader comments.

Surely Lindzen will do better?

Nope. The learned professor manages just over 200 mentions, and in the last four years, just three…

How about Pat Michaels?

Zero. Nada. Zilch. Zippo.

Clearly the BBC isn’t trying very hard to find any kind of balance on climate, and would rather censor debate in its own Stalinist fashion.


  1. ALbert Bresca ( Australia) says:

    Sigh….. Seems no matter how ludicrous it is ( the treatment received by the sceptics) or how obvious the bias the people dont seem to care as they are happy to be told ( it seems) what is right and wrong and have experts ( well they are told they are experts by the people in charge so they must be…like that TIM flannery is a climate scientist and ss such we should pay him a LOT of money … Becsuse he can solve this problem for us….LOL…as if ) spruke a common theme….. And make fun of sceptics….sigh…

    I remember as a kid in primary school in the 70’s everyone was convinced the world was going to end by nuclear weapons – not just thought but knew…. And kids were terrified that this woukd happen ( i wasn’t as i dudnt think this would happen and if it did…so…we were either gonna die fast or slow.. if it happened at all) making people scared about it seemed the goal…. And this seems so like the global warming scare… Some kind if fear and lies…..that is one very good reason I am sceptical about this as it is just another lie to scare the peasants and/or the ignorant…..

  2. Just read this headline by the BBC: Beds shortage for child mental health patients


    No mention of its own role in promoting Climate Armageddon and “end-of the world” scenarios in prime time as a possible cause of childhood mental stress.

  3. Stephen hawkins says:

    BBC has invested nearly all its Pension funds in Carbon trading schemes. It will go bankrupt if GW proves not to be true so it promotes its cause at every opportunity. Every program nearly has something in it blaming or mentioning GQ even if totally irrelevant to the topic

  4. Video on demand is about to do to the BBC what the internet did to the printed press and what supermarkets did to the highstreet.

    The old days of some “expert” spending their time deciding what us plebs are going to watch on TV will soon be dead and those organisations that specialist is deciding what we should watch will be a dying breed.

    The BBC never got the internet revolution because they never understood the concept that the internet revolution was about us having our say about what we wanted to talk about and not them dictating what we must talk about.

    Likewise as video on demand takes over, the BBC just won’t get it. They just won’t understand that in a world where we decide what we watch, we don’t need them deciding for us what we should watch.

    And did I mention – this global warming non-science – is just academia telling us what we should believe, whereas now we can decide, based on viewing all the evidence and opinions what we think is right to believe.

  5. All they have is lies and cover ups, all they want is that the true believers keep topping up the coffers. N

  6. “Clive Hamilton (no idea, but certainly not climate science)” is (supposedly) an ‘ethics’ professor, but one who thinks nothing of using very colourful language when talking about ‘deniers’! Not very ethical, or professorial/professional.

  7. Ah, but Tim Flannery has been invited to the Australian Academy of Science…

    The problem in Australia, although fanned by the ABC, runs deeper.
    Fixing it will require a government that has the guts to do what it and the public believe.
    Judging by this government’s soft glove treatment of the ABC,
    despite the ABC’s conspicuous failings,…

%d bloggers like this: