Before I write further on the issue of the BBC’s neutrality in regards to climate change, let me first state my position: I am a climate change sceptic. I will accept that the climate of the Earth may be changing, just as it has always changed. But I do believe it is an issue fueled by political agenda, rather than true science. And I do feel that scientists who offer alternative views for climate change are generally ignored. The scientific pursuit of ‘truth’ in the issue of climate change is therefore not being achieved.
– – – – – –
A few years ago, I watched a series of fascinating programmes on the Natural History Museum in London. The series gave excellent insights into the museum’s history, exhibits and the scientific research it continues to do. Then Jimmy Docherty ruined the entire series by mentioning ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’. It had no relevance to any part of the series, and it felt to me as though I was being preached to.
Many BBC programmes touch on the subject of climate change, to the point that it’s almost inescapable. Even if you do believe wholeheartedly in it, it is enough to make you switch channels. ‘Frozen Planet’, the new BBC series narrated by David Attenborough has been truly wonderful, but the final episode has been rejected from the package in the USA because of its focus on climate change, and the fact that many people in the US would not accept it because of their climate change scepticism. I wish they wouldn’t ruin such a fascinating series with a whole episode dedicated to the assumption that the Earth as we know it will soon turn into something out of The Day After Tomorrow.
It has recently been revealed that the BBC has been accepting money from environmental organisations to produce programmes that follow their agendas. For example, a Mauritus-based company selling ‘carbon offsets’ had given the BBC money to make a programme, and it is evident that the BBC is forcing the issue on wind farms. The issue has been present on shows including The One Show and Countryfile.
It has already been decided on the BBC that the consensus on global warming was so overwhelming that it should be their policy to to actively promote it. In doing so, their aim was to keep doubters off the airwaves.
This position is equally evident in the BBC’s enviornmental correspondent Richard Black’s recent article on the climate emails. The title ‘Climate emails: storm or yawn?’ suggests an impartial and neutral article, as generally expected on the BBC. What actually exists is accusations of email theft and the suggestion that the emails could have been doctored by the hacker.
One of the emails exposed by someone simply called FOIA, is from Alex Kirby, a correspondant with the BBC. He says:
But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
Kirby seems to think the BBC’s impartiality is a joke, and it is clear that the BBC is not aiming for neutrality in the case of global warming.
If the Climategate emails tell us anything, it is that climate change is not as clear-cut an issue as the BBC promotes, and that even the scientists are aware that there isn’t always enough data to prove it comprehensively. The BBC however, refuses to represent this view, and instead remains a staunch promoter of climate change, despite the remaining doubts in the public, and most important, the scientists themselves.
Metaphorical Elephants 