BBC slammed by listeners and criticised by its own compliance unit after Radio 4 Today programme gave 'undue prominence' to climate change sceptic

Today programme gave 'undue prominence' to climate change opponent

BBC's Editorial Compliance Unit considered the controversial interview

BBC criticised for giving an 'equal footing' to minority views

Successful complainant accused the BBC of 'acting irresponsibly'



The BBC's Editorial Compliance unit has blasted its flagship Today programme over its failure to provide balance on a debate on climate change.



The show's editorial team was found to have given minority views and opinions 'equal footing' to those of the scientific consensus.



The programme, broadcast in February during the major flooding crisis featured climate change scientist Sir Brian Hoskins from Imperial College London who was debating the issue with a founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is sceptical as to its impact.



The interview by Justin Webb, pictured, was criticised for giving an 'equal footing' to minority views on climate change during the Today programme broadcast in February during the major flood crisis

The main complaint for made by former Green Party councillor and low-energy specialist Chit Chong who said the BBC acted irresponsibly in allowing the debate to consider the existence of climate change.



Speaking today Mr Chong said: 'Dismissing climate change today is the same as trying to argue that smoking is not harmful. The science has proved the existence of climate change.



'By broadcasting programmes that question the existence of climate change, the BBC is confusing people, allowing them to deny what is actually happening. It is not responsible journalism.



'Politicians look at the public mood when considering policy and if sections of the population are sceptical to climate change, the government's policy decisions will reflect that.'



A BBC spokesperson said: 'The BBC is committed to impartial and balanced coverage of climate change. We accept that there is broad scientific agreement on the issue and reflect this accordingly.



'Across our programmes the number of scientists and academics who support the mainstream view far outweighs those who disagree with it.'

Ceri Thomas, the then editor of the Today programme admitted they should have 'clarified in the audience's minds the ideological background to the arguments'

Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson appeared on the show as a founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.



During the show, Lord Lawson claimed that 2013 was 'unusually quiet' for tropical storms and that 'nobody knows' about the true extent of climate change.

Lord Lawson said that investing in green energy was a waste of money and those resources should be focused on improving defences against bad weather.



Several listeners complained to the BBC's Editorial Compliance unit who, according to The Independent, will criticise the show's approach in a report due to be released later today.



According to Fraser Steel, head of the unit: 'Minority opinions and sceptical views should not be treated as if it were on an equal footing with the scientific consensus.



'Lord Lawson's views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research and I don't believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience.

'I do not believe it was made sufficiently clear that Lord Lawson's views on climate change are not supported by the majority of climate scientists, and should not be regarded as carrying equal weight to those of experts such as Sir Brian Hopkins.'



Today's then editor Ceri Thomas said: 'Whilst there may be a scientific consensus about global warming - that it is happening and largely man-made - there is no similar agreement about what should be done to tackle it; whether money should be spent, for example, on cutting carbon emissions or would be better used adapting our defences to the changing climate.



'Lord Lawson is not a scientist, but as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer is well qualified to comment on the economic arguments, which are a legitimate area for debate.