SandyS. This issue goes round and round. I think the BBC is like a mirror, it reflects what is the current political mood is (there was a fascinating programme this week on the way TV chose to portray Russia and how this changed especially before, during and after WWII). Currently the BBCreflects the predominant political and established scientific view about climate change. That is why I have argued here in the past that it would be more profitable to go after bodies like the Royal Society than constantly bemoaning the bias of the BBC on this subject.

ACK
It would be fine if one or two people gave the "other side" (including Harrabin an equally hard time), just I'd expect them to give any politician of whatever hue a hard time

Harry Passfield
Fortunately for my Blood Pressure I didn't hear it, lot's of "Say It Ain't So Joe" in the green media. We had French TV on in advance of Sunday's second round Right-Centre election. We can't vote but it affects us. Fillon seems to be gaining popularity even in Juppe's home turf around Bordeaux.

Harry Passfield

"Justin Web was determined that she must have a message to sceptics to tell them that it didn't mean that the Arctic was safe or that AGW was not still a concern. Talk about unbiased reporting. He sees the warm Arctic as a climate problem, not a weather anomaly."

Biased reporting yes but have you ever considered that he thinks he's just doing his job? Reporters and commentators not only have to present a news story but put it into context. The context that politics, the scientific establishment and the BBC (reflecting this input) have is that climate change caused by humans is real and poses a threat. So someone like Justine Web hears a story that might be "misinterpreted" and attempts to put it into the currently accepted context.

I don't think people like Justin Web are maliciously biased, they merely fit into the current environment. More insidious is the banning of people like Bellamy or Jonny Ball because they express contrary views. It is this deliberate exclusion of contrary viewpoints (or if they are allowed to appear to deliberately stack the deck against them) that is so abhorrent.

stewgreen
Don't forget aircraft

Nitrogen Oxides and Their Impact on Ozone and Methane

Nitrogen oxides are produced in aircraft engines under high temperature and high pressure conditions by the reaction between oxygen and atmospheric nitrogen. Nitrogen oxides catalyze the following chemical reactions which lead to both warming and cooling effects:
1. NOx (and hydroxides (-OH) produced from water vapor and volatile organic emissions) catalyze production of the short-lived greenhouse gas ozone (03)

2. NOx emissions also lead to indirect destruction of methane (CH4) through the creation of ozone.

3. Lastly, NOx emissions and the resulting reduction in methane in turn lead to a longer-term decrease in O3

Does No3 let CFCs off the hook I wonder, or is it worse than we thought?

Sandys: Re the Antarctic ice not melting. Did you catch the interview on R4's Today this morning? The (female) scientist from Reading was merely trying to report the outcome of her novel research. Justin Web was determined that she must have a message to sceptics to tell them that it didn't mean that the Arctic was safe or that AGW was not still a concern. Talk about unbiased reporting. He sees the warm Arctic as a climate problem, not a weather anomoly.