The Unbiased BBC
Recent news on energy

The BBC’s behaviour grows ever more bizarre. Committed by charter to balanced reporting, it has now decided formally that it was wrong to allow balance in a debate between rival guesses about the future. After interviewing Nigel Lawson on the Today programme about man-made climate change earlier this year, it issued a statement saying: “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research.”

The evidence from computer modelling? A model cannot provide evidence. It can only provide a prediction to test against evidence. (summarized from an article by Matt Ridley, writing in The Times, 7 July 2014 - ND)

12 Jun 14

    The powers that be at the BBC seem to have decided that they want to put their considerable weight behind Mr Gore’s campaign. Gore was left free to propagate some wholly new errors, declaring that we have seen nothing like recent Australian droughts before.

    We can now begin to see how the BBC’s editorial policy is going to pan out.

    Sceptics are wrong even when they are right; politicians who question alarmism will therefore be introduced as being “wrong” and will be challenged on everything they say.

    Greens are right even when they are lying; they will be given a free pass and no challenge of their views is to be permitted.

    --Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill website, 13 July 2014

      ...and comments by NIGEL LAWSON, in The Daily Mail, summarized by ND:

      .... I was asked on to discuss the recent bad weather, which had caused widespread flooding in parts of England, the extent to which this may have been connected with man-made climate change, and what should be done about it. My opposite number was the scientist Sir Brian Hoskins....he is chairman of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, an alarmist pressure group, and a member of the Government-appointed Climate Change Committee, which exists chiefly to promote the abandonment of fossil fuels by the UK.

      Following the programme, on February 13, all hell broke loose. The BBC was overwhelmed by a well-organised deluge of complaints — many of them, inevitably, from those with a commercial interest in renewable energy, as well as from the Green Party.

      During the discussion, I made two principal points.

      First, that rather than spending untold millions on subsidies for wind farms and solar panels, which provide unreliable energy at exorbitant cost, we would do better to spend more money on protecting the country from whatever nature throws at us, e.g. improved flood defences.

      Second, that forecasts of global temperatures over the next 100 years are highly uncertain.

      The first is a matter of judgment. The second is a matter of fact, which Sir Brian did not contest.

      I might have suggested, too, that 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.

      The truth is that the BBC’s outrageous behaviour is nothing whatever to do with whether I am a climate scientist or not. Indeed, it is not about me at all.

      Matt Ridley, for example, is arguably this country’s — indeed, the English-speaking world’s — leading science writer who has researched the climate change issue and reached a conclusion which is very close to my own. Not once has he been invited to discuss any aspect of the issue on Radio 4’s Today programme.

      The fact is that, on this issue, the BBC has its own party line (indistinguishable from that of the Green Party) which it imposes with quasi-Stalinist thoroughness. This amounts to a policy of outright political censorship.

      It is hard to imagine a more blatant breach of its charter, which commits it to political balance, or a more blatant betrayal of the people’s trust, on which the continuation of its licence fee depends.

      14 Jul 14

Comment by ND .... One wonders what would happen if a person decided not to pay the licence fee on the grounds that the BBC was breaching its charter.

For those who are unaware: here are details of the BBC propaganda seminar in 2006.


Back to top

Energy Policy
Nuclear Power
Wind -
big turbines
Wind -
small turbines
Diversity Website