The BBC College of Journalism – the fulcrum of BBC indoctrination of its reporters – has recently undergone a re-vamp of its website. At the heart of this vastly expensive concatination is a section which instructs staff how to report science. Here – this defies belief – it becomes clear that the corporation has now fully sub-contracted its responsibilities to the Science Media Centre, an organisation, which as I have pointed out before, is run by Fiona Fox, a man-made climate change fanatic with no real journalistic experience. At the heart of the instructions of how to report science is a major homily on how those who “deny” climate change should not be granted airtime (about seven minutes into the video). And meanwhile, the so-called “Science” Media Centre continues its own multi-pronged rubbishing of the hated deniers, featuring prominently this disgraceful ad hominem attack on Peter Sissons. one of the corporation’s most distinguished journalists:

The former newsreader, Peter Sissons, claims in his autobiography that the BBC Trust report was commissioned in January 2010 as a response to blog campaigns by self-proclaimed ‘sceptics’ against the Corporation’s coverage of climate change. But one major response to this important report should be for the BBC to make stronger efforts to uphold the public interest by challenging the inaccurate and misleading claims of bloggers, campaigners and politicians who reject and deny the findings of mainstream science for ideological reasons. The BBC is required by law not to sacrifice accuracy for impartiality in the coverage of controversial scientific issues such as climate change. Yet, it is well known that there are particular BBC presenters and editors who allow self-proclaimed climate change ‘sceptics’ to mislead the public with unsubstantiated and inaccurate statements. For instance, the BBC TV programme ‘The Daily Politics’ recently allowed one ‘sceptic’ to assert, unchallenged, that “pensioners will literally die” as result of the UK’s climate change policies…

I have news for the BBC. Severe hardship is being caused because of green policies. The corporation’s nakedly political activism on this subject is beyond contempt – and an insult to genuine science and scientists.

Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to AD HOMINEM

  1. john in cheshire says:

    As usual, the bbc is using words, that on first glance, appear to be rational and logical. It is only when one considers what is being said, and the consequences of accepting their logical thought processes, that one can come to a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to everything the bbc holds dear. They’d make good muslims in  their ability to lie and deceive.


  2. Cassandra King says:

    The BBC is spitting in the face of science, using and abusing science in order to pimp a rancid and ugly political agenda.

    Ecofascism is causing increasing hardship to ordinary people, it is swiftly becoming impossible to live within a working persons means, add inflation into the mix and it becomes tantamount to a crime. The depths to which the BBC is prepared to sink is clear, they are even censoring cold weather events out of the rolling weather forecasts while increasing estimated temps as much as they dare. Another angle is to portray the debate about the validity of CAGW theory as a conflict between scientists on the one side fully supporting CAGW and non scientists attacking scientists, to that end the BBC is actively blackballing all sceptical scientists and any scientist who dares to stray from the prescribed narrative. The BBC is going USSR, this is a clear case of Lysekoism run riot in the desperate attempt to defraud the public.



    • cjhartnett says:

      Lysenko waving airily as wind turbines that need Chinese slave labour to extract the rare earth metals.
      Said turbines won`t turn come the first cold snap…don`t see Chinas interior or the USSRs seeing them as nothing more than accessories for kids prams.
      Still…to continue the theme…the BBC are busy getting Barrosa, Mandelson etc to parade in front of all the Potemkin villages as Prince Charles goes past in an ice cream van!
      Great post as ever Cassandra…Lysenko would have been the Harrabin of his day! 


  3. john says:

    Hang on a minute, what’s wrong with the statement that, “Pensioners will literally die as a result of climate change policies”? I don’t know the exact figure, but I remember reading stories in the press that several thousand pensioners die per year from hyperthermia.

    With gas and electricity prices rising by up to 20% recently, and tarrif rises being imposed to pay for useless windmills, then additional pensioners will surely die thanks in part to the bBC propaganda in support of additional government taxes. What’s controversial about this observation? 


  4. George R says:

    -from ‘Climate Realist’ (Jan 2011):Christopher Booker: How BBC warmists abuse the science “[Excerpt]:“The timing was immaculate. Last Tuesday, across a two-page extract from the memoirs of Peter Sissons, the senior BBC newsreader, was the headline: ‘The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots – I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent.’ The previous evening the BBC had put out a perfect example of the zealotry which had made Mr Sissons, as a grown-up journalist, so angry. Horizon’s ‘Science Under Attack’ turned out to be yet another laborious bid by the BBC to defend the global warming orthodoxy it has long been so relentless in promoting.

    Their desperation is understandable. The past few years have seen their cherished cause crumbling on all sides.”


    • George R says:

      BBC-NUJ’s ‘College of Journalism’ is worst sort of MADRASSA, where ‘students’ are instructed in ‘THE TRUTH’ about, e.g. –

      1.) ISLAM (via Muslim, Ahmed head of INBBC religious broadcast)

      2.) CLIMATE (via Greenpeace, Fiona Fox)

      3.) EUROPEAN UNION (via Patten, Kinnocks)

      4.) CONSERVATIVES (via Milibands/Peston dynasties)

      5.) OBAMA (via Mardell).


  5. London Calling says:

    It seems standard Green Practice to slander, libel, insult and ridicule anyone who questions their faith. Take the ugliest academic in the US, “Social Historian” Naomi Oreskes, and her disgraceful cowardly attacks on the reputation of decent proper scientists in Physics -many whom can’t defend themselves as they have passed away.

    Sissons is the latest to get hate-treatment for breaking BBC climate ranks. He has to be damned, as a warning to any other Beeb eco-droid who might consider endorsing scepticism. 

    Anyone who questions the liberal establishment view, like Starkey did, is vilified. Including by politicians on “the Right” trying to prove they are not Right, by singing along with the leftist lynch mob.

    Climate fraudsters and their  allies always shouted down the opposition, because on careful examination of the facts and evidence, the alarmists generally lose.

    At least the Luton Muslim Radicals put their views, however unacceptable, honestly

    Perhaps bBC’s Climate Fanatics might consider showing their true colours instead of hiding behind weasel words.

    BBC College of Journalism – a completye oxymoron if ever there was.


  6. David Preiser (USA) says:

    If they’re so concerned about accuracy, why do they censor information?


  7. cjhartnett says:

    Another mainstay of this great blog returns!
    Thanks Robin…the only environmental/science correspondent that I bother with unless its Booker/North/Plimer and their ilk! 
    Will someone remind me why we even think we`re helping them when we pay the license fee?
    Non-payment is a duty to rational objective scientific enquiry.
    Time to stop being catalysts…time to be actual enzymes!


  8. Span Ows says:

    On that Peter Sissons thing:

    “The BBC is required by law not to sacrifice accuracy for impartiality in the coverage of controversial scientific issues such as climate change.”

    Opening themselves up to arrest and trial as they are clearly NOT impartial nor acurate?


  9. John Horne Tooke says:

    The most dishonest part of all this is labelling people “climate change sceptics”. It proves that the people who use such terminology are using propaganda to push a political agenda.

    The term is  “AGW sceptics”.

    The problem for the BBC is that they do not convince anyone and the more shrill they become the less people will believe it.
    Read the most recommended responses to this Guardian bit on a “Climate Change Denier”.

    This seems to be the most recommended.

    “Perry is well aware that climate changes! It`s the AGW that he takes exception to.” (224)


  10. London Calling says:

    Latest eco-lunacy from the bBC. Never let an opportunity to push the Agenda go to waste. This time it’s Jellyfish.

    “According to research there is strong evidence that an increase is linked to three main factors – pollution, overfishing and possibly climate change”

    However note the “possibly climate change”. Sounds a bit weak to me, “possibly”. Stalin had a better grip on such weakness. When a village was found to have voted only 99% in favour of the Communist Party, he had the entire population of the village deported to Siberia.

    Way to go bBC.


  11. George R says:

    ‘Elephant in the room’ spotted? – greenie BBC notices the SUN:

    “Sun storms ‘could be more disruptive within decades'”

    (as reported by the appropriately named Judith Burns)


  12. RGH says:

    The BBC has beome a parody of a secular  Inquisition in which the science must conform to the theology.  Those who persist in the stubborness are, of course, deniers….the latter day heretics. The accursed who must not be allowed to confuse the people the BBC is guiding through the snares of this world.


  13. Richard Pinder says:

    The BBC sites the documentary Climate Wars as its premier documentary on Climate Change. The word War clearly proves that the BBC sees it as an ideological War and that the lefties won the war when the Democrats won the election in America. A Mensan who made a complaint to the BBC Trust about another documentary called Hot Planet has had contact with two prominent BBC Journalists since the strange result of the BBC Trusts conclusions given to members of the Space Special Interest Group of Mensa in which the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee

    s findings bore little resemblance to the communications with us members who complained. Both Journalists protest that they are not responsible for BBC policy. So no mention on the BBC of the CERN CLOUD Experiments finding that Cosmic Rays effecting the Earths Cloud Albedo must have a bigger influence on Climate Change than Solar Irradiance, or that Miskolczi calculated that the Greenhouse effect on Mars added 3 Kelvin to an Atmosphere with 18 times more CO2 than the Earth, he then produced a theory to explain this. The warmists are attacking the theory when his findings are enough to demolish the AGW theory, especially his finding from Observation not theory that CO2 displaces water vapour, therefore additional Greenhouse warming on the Earth has is and always will be zero.


    • London Calling says:

      Yeah. Amen to that, Richard.
      I note you favour long sentences. Something we can agree on, though perhaps in different contexts.