BBC tells journalists that IPCC is God, can not be wrong –”No debate allowed”

If the IPCC are wrong, the BBC will be the last place to say so

Lets all bow to the IPCC — a modern God that shalt not be questioned. The Holy Sacred Climate Cow!

The IPCC is an unaudited and unaccountable foreign committee. Not only are no scientists paid to check its findings, now the publicly mandated BBC is making sure none of their journalists will check its findings either.

Carbonbrief has a copy of the BBC new internal guidance on how to report climate change.

In April, the UK regulator, Ofcom, found the BBC was guilty of not sufficiently challenging Lord Lawson, a skeptic. So in response the BBC now promises they will never sufficiently challenge the IPCC. That’s “false balance” for you.

The BBC issues a guidance to journalists

What’s the BBC’s position?

Man-made climate change exists: If the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position, set out above.

If only BBC baby-scientist-rulers knew what “proves” means in science. The IPCC can never be “proven” right, though it has been proven wrong , and many times

Be aware of ‘false balance’: As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.

These guys are supposed to be master communicators — I defy anyone to explain their definition in 25 words or less:

Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday^. The referee has spoken.

The climate is a soccer game? Geniuses. This could be the tritest reduction of a complex multivariate chaotic system ever. Is climate sensitivity 1, 2 or 4 degrees C? Score 1-nil. The BBC appoints themselves as ultimate umpire in a science debate with only Yes-No answers.

^UPDATE: GWPF point out that Actually we do deny [the Manchester claim.] And so should the BBC. The match was played last Sunday. Such is the arrogance of the BBC. They claim to be “referees” of the truth, but don’t even bother to get their own facts right. h/t Hot under the collar



Having called skeptics filthy names and made it clear the IPCC is God, the BBC then plays a safe “get out of free-speech-jail card” knowing that virtually no journalist will want to risk a trip in this minefield:

However, the BBC does not exclude any shade of opinion from its output, and with appropriate challenge from a knowledgeable interviewer, there may be occasions to hear from a denier.

There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective – in short, making their affiliations and previously expressed opinions clear.

If the BBC must report “group funding” will it also warn the audience that government funded climate scientists will lose funding and status if the climate turns out to be controlled by the sun and not your car?

Helpfully, the BBC is offering training for journalists so that they can learn to spot goals:

…we are offering all editorial staff new training for reporting on climate change. The one hour course covers the latest science, policy, research, and misconceptions to challenge, giving you confidence to cover the topic accurately and knowledgeably.

After the extensive one hour program, BBC journalists will be qualified to dismiss PhD holding skeptics and ignore nobel prize winning scientists.

The document concludes with a list of “common misconceptions” produced by the Science Media Centre (SMC). The list appears to be an adapted update of a document (pdf) published by the SMC in 2012.

There are no surprises here. All publicly legislated media outlets end up being mouthpieces for Big-Legislators.

The Brits are paying for propaganda. Will they protest?

h/t Willie Soon, Pat.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait... Rating: 9.7/10 (84 votes cast)