BBC backing climate change alarmism - official

The Harmless Sky blog has discovered that support for the catastrophic global warming case is official BBC policy. Tony quotes a BBC report as follows:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The details of the seminar are, as one might expect from an organisation like the BBC which holds the public in such contempt, a secret. An FoI request has revealed that uber-warmer, Lord May, was the driver behind the decision, but the rest of the details are only going to be revealed if the Information Commissioner can force them to toe the line.

Update: Interesting also to remind ourselves that as recently as a year ago, the head of BBC news was claiming that the Corporation had no line on climate change. Well, what did you expect from a BBC man? The truth?

Comments

[Dodgy Geezer]

I have been complaining to the BBC recently about bias (an uphill task if ever there was one!!).

This July I received this response to one of my e-mails:

"...I take your point that assuming there is a connection between a breaking glacier and climate change is potentially controversial... We appreciate the importance of presenting information fairly and your email underlines the fact that many licence fee payers suspect the BBC of having an agenda. I can assure you that is not the case - we try to report all opinions and facts..."

I wonder how that fits with this report? Just today I received another e-mail suggesting that I look here for the BBC's view of Global Warming:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/11/climate_sceptics.html

This is indicated to be the current policy - it is approximately 1 year old.

[Bickers]

It's an outrage that Durkin's documentary the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' wasn't broadcast by the BeeB, however are we surprised when most of the BBC managers are closet socialists/marxists and therefore see the benefit of propogating the AGW hoax as a cloak to support their political agenda. The sooner the BBC has to compete as a private organisation the better; they've failing to live upto their public service/educational remit.

[Katy]

To be fair, Dodgy, the response only contains two typing errors. It should read 'we try to report OUR opinions AS facts'.

[alex]

there was quite a comment-fest on this over at the BBC site. It's an interesting debate, as there are clearly very strong views within the BBC, and up high too, trying to negotiate their way towards what Roger Harrabin calls the 'modern sense of impartiality' in his BBC article. Just blogged about it at http://www.alexlockwood.net (hi there Bishop, Dodgy Geezer) with some info from a paper published back in 2005, which is useful for seeing how the BBC has moved (or not) on this.

[James Pickett]

I wonder how long Prof. Philip Stott will remain on R4's Home Planet? At least he has provided some balance thus far..

http://parliamentofthings.info/

[Bishop Hill]

James

Yes, I've always been amazed that the BBC tolerates Prof Stott.

Alex.

Interesting link. Where is the BBC thread though. I can't see it (or do you mean the old one about "No line on climate"?

[DennisA]

Whilst I agree entirely about the BBC, I find ITV news and Ch 4 news are just as bad.

[TonyN]

I've put a little more about the BBC FOI Act application here:

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=117

[dredo]

hello