BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

I’ve become increasingly convinced that the BBC is part of an international conspiracy about ‘climate change’. It isn’t simply that the reporting is so biased; it’s also because there seems to be a concerted effort to make sure that whatever so-called sceptics discover, for example over Climategate, the warmists bounce straight back with a new set of warped theories or bent facts to support their arguments. The feed of material is relentless, as if it is coming from an organised source. Over the holidays, I’ve been doing some digging on this, and I wanted to share one of my first findings.

A BBC journalist called Peter Thomson is not a household name in this country, but he’s the environment editor of the BBC programme (made jointly with WGBH Boston and RPI) The World, which on a daily basis pushes out climate scare stories to millions of people. Mr Thomson, it turns out, is also the secretary of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a US organisation, the main purpose of which is to spread alarmism through a ‘guide’ about ‘climate change'(masked of course, under the cloak of ‘objectivity’). There can be no doubt that this is a campaigining organisation which wants to achieve political change because it believes that the world needs to reduce CO2 emissions.

Mr Thomson’s activism does not stop there. He’s also a member of the advisory board of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, yet another international organisation with alarmist goals. It, too, publishes a guide to how journalists should cover ‘climate change'; in truly chilling McCarthyite terms, the introduction explains how anyone who disagrees with “the consensus” should be ignored and that journalists should frantically pester editors to publish ‘climate change’ scare stories.

So, to recap. One of the BBC’s most senior editors responsible for environmental reporting has formal roles at the epicentre of a worldwide coinspiracy among ‘climate change’ alarmists. Not only that, he is assisting in the international propagation of so-called science communication guides, the main purpose of which are to enlist other journalists to spread the same lies in which he also believes. I suspect there’s a whole phalanx of Peter Thomsons, all feeding the BBC’s insatiable appetite to feed us with moonshine.

Update: Richard North, of EU Referendum, has kindly provided further information about BBC propagandists. Nik Gowing, a prominent – and rather humourless – BBC World Service presenter, has a no-doubt lucrative sideline in chairing ‘climate change’ conferences convened by the alarmist-in-chief, IPCC head Dr Ravendra Pachauri.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to BBC EDITOR IS CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVIST

  1. George R says:

    Peter Thomson’s CV; don’t blink-

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterthomson

       0 likes

    • Jack Bauer says:

      Explains a lot. Never had a real job in his life. Never worked anywhere that isn’t described as NON-PROFIT.

      Like NON-PROFIT is some sort of “good” things. Instead of being a particularly BAD THING.

      These entitled people. Enough to make a skunk vomit.

         0 likes

  2. Chris says:

    I notice that the Society of environmental journalists get a lot of their ‘Information’ from Realclimate a website run by the same people in the climategate scandal, who also give advice to The Metcalf Insitute.
    It really is a ‘closed shop’ in the climate science world!

       0 likes

  3. Kevin Humes says:

    If anyone is in any doubt, at all, then I think you should have taken more notice of Atlas Shrugged. Read the book and take notice of everything it prophetises.

    It’s even got Pirates in it.

       0 likes

  4. ryan says:

    Do BBC editorial staff need to disclose professional associations? I’d be interested to know that. If so, I wonder if he disclosed this association.

    Under the “Skeptics and Contrarians” section, the “journalists” are told:

    “As scientific evidence has accumulated that the planet is warming and that humans are behind it, many previous skeptics have been won over. There remains a vocal cadre of critics, however, at least some of whose arguments have shifted over the last several years from outright denial that the earth is warming to insisting it’s unrelated to human activity — and even if it is, likely nothing much to worry about.”

    http://www.sej.org/publications/climate-change/skeptics-and-contrarians-climate-change-guide

       0 likes

  5. ryan says:

    Just been looking up the SEJ, of which Mr Thomson is the secetary ..

    Back in October we had this: http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/sej_accused_of_protecting_gore.php

    “An independent filmmaker accused the Society of Environmental Journalists of “protecting” Al Gore on Friday after the filmmaker’s mic was cut while challenging the former vice president to acknowledge alleged errors in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth.”

    Make your own mind up, here is a video: http://www.vimeo.com/7088053

       0 likes

  6. John Horne Tooke says:

    Harrabin seems to make quite a lot of money from AGW too.

    http://www.gordonpoole.com/default.asp?artistID=1849

       0 likes

  7. cassandra king says:

    I put forward the theory a little while ago that the BBC is not just a supporter and sympathiser with the alarmist ecofundamentalist AGW cause, it is in fact one of the leaders of the man made global warming anti carbon dioxide cult.
    There can be no other logical explanation for the pure fanatical drive and concerted AGW output from the BBC, no other media empire has the financial clout to do this.
    The BBC has a near unlimited bank account, it has been able to weaken its control mechanisms to the point that the BBC now feels able to attempt to pervert the coming election and poison the minds of the electorate.
    The man made global warming scare mongering could have never become so widely pimped and peddled if the BBC were neutral or not directly involved, the BBC is the voice of the fake consensus, without the BBC playing a leading role the AGW cult would be laughed out of court.
    I hope the BBC are made to answer for EVERY false scare story they have ever peddled, I hope they are made to pay for their lies and fraud. I hope every bought off BBC stooge is made to answer for their complicity from Attenborough to Paxman to harrabin, they should all be made to confess or face losing their pensions.

       0 likes

  8. Backwoodsman says:

    Off topic, but same beeboid modus operandi : On Mondays PM programme, there was a discussion with Eric Pickles and a scrote from the libdems, about Tory ‘love bombing ‘ lib dems in marginal constituencies. Apropos of nothing , the beeboid then proceeded to read out a letter from a constituent in a marginal constituency in the Cotswolds, saying although he didn’t support labour ,he couldn’t possibly vote Conservative or limpdim , because of their supprt for hunting. This from a location where one of the local hunts drew 6,000 supporters to their boxing day meet in the local town square – something the bbc studiously avoided mentioning.
    There’s nothing accidental about bbc bias, its very sinister and very planned !!!

       0 likes

  9. thomas.arnold17 says:

    When I travel abroad and have the misfortune/need a good laugh- to watch BBC World, I cry in paroxysms of Laughter, I have renamed it ‘Global Warming channel’.
    The reporting is a farce and quite unbelievably biased, I would be correct in assuming that Thompson is responsible, no doubt.
    This is what the war is about, not the extremely flawed AGW science but the conspiracy of the alarmists and the fact that they do not countenance dissent or rational argument.
    It has become a political football and the beeb being Marxist in outlook have swallowed the ‘orthodoxy’ of AGW totally.
    It fits their controlling and ‘we know best’ raison d’etre, the luvvie/lefty elite have always been this way, AGW alarm-ism is another manifestation of the lefts controlling and BS pumping obsession.
    Appalling, like Connolley on Wiki and so many other bullshit sites and Google is complicit as well, the war will be long and don’t forget the children when they grow up have been brainwashed into AGW dogma, it will take a long time to cauterize and then heal.
    Cassandra King in the above post is correct, the BBC has been at the forefront of AGW BS and it is culpable in the scam, it has a remit to educate not propagandise people,the BBC are a bane and their Marxist sycophantics.
    The science is ‘settled’ my a**e.

       0 likes

    • Backwoodsman says:

      Did anyone else see the re-runs of the ‘Seven Ages of Man’ series on satelite last night ? The earliest two ages coverered the stone age and iron age periods and dealt with the early emmergence of the hunter gatherers and their transition to a settled farming based life style.
      Dartmoor was a thriving settled area, with a stable population, which apparently over a short time space upped and went, with no sign of violence.  Carbon dating of tree ring samples showed that for a period of eighteen years, there was virtually zero growth, indicating a change in weather pattern to a continuous cycle of wet seasons. Other tree ring samples from round the globe showed exactly the same disruptive growth pattern for the same period. The apparent cause was a comet dust storm. Once it faded away, the situation returned to normal.
      Presumably this is the sort of factual event that didn’t fit the jolly hockey sticks narrative and had to be eddited out by UEA !

         0 likes

  10. Kevin Humes says:

    There is no such thing as an un-biased media. This forum is living proof of the topic in hand. The sooner ordinary people wake up to this fact, the better.

    The battle for freedom and truth is actually very simple now.

    This forums sole purpose should be to DESTROY the BBC and throw its employees into the street. There is NO other way of redressing PURE EVIL.

       0 likes

  11. John R Smith says:

    The BBC often smugly uses the mere existence of its Charter to defend any action it decides to take no matter how biased. It just claims it is being “fair and impartial” (by its own standards of course) and carries on with the propaganda.

    I’m not an expert but is there any way the Charter can be used legally to get an outside opinon (forget the bBBC Trust, they’re just another part of the scam) on its actions?

       0 likes