The BBC Trust has confirmed why it is unfit for purpose having just published a review of its of its review of its science coverage:
When the BBC Trust is setting the BBC’s editorial policy on climate change and at the same time is the final arbiter on complaints should you wish to complain about the BBC’s climate change coverage it’s not hard to work out that you are not going to get an independent and impartial decision.
The Trust states that:In 2010 the Trust decided to review the accuracy and impartiality of BBC science coverage…….. The Trust commissioned an independent report from Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London, together with content analysis from the Science Communication Group at Imperial College London.
Now Professor Steve Jones is far from independent being an ardent clmate change fanatic who owes his living to the BBC and so is unlikely to be impartial.
The BBC is busy brainwashing its staff to accept the line the wish to push:The coverage of science by the BBC continues to be a hotly debated issue. The Trust notes that seminars continue to take place and that nearly 200 senior staff have attended workshops which set out that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, but depends on the varying degree of prominence (due weight) such views should be given.
Just who runs those seminars? They sound remarkably like the green ‘black propaganda’ seminars run by Harrabin and climate change campaigner Dr Joe Smith in their CMEP guise…with money from a climate change ‘communications’ group.Once again hardly impartial.Ironically the Trust says that:Audiences should be able to understand from the context and clarity of the BBC’s output what weight to give to critical voices...and yet the Trust itself is prescribing who and what is to be allowed on air….the only conclusion you can draw is that the BBC has decided no climate sceptics should be allowed any airtime at all.It goes on:
Judging the weight of scientific agreement correctly will mean that the BBC avoids the ‘false balance’ between fact and opinion identified by Professor Jones.
The trouble is the Sceptics aren’t just giving their ‘opinion’, their scepticism is based upon the science, or the lack of science.
For instance they proved that the infamous ‘Hockey Stick’ graph was wrong. There is still no proof that CO2 is the driver of climate change. There is no evidence to show that ‘extreme weather’ is caused, or even being generated, by climate change. There is no evidence that the oceans are absorbing all the heat. There is no science to show why global warming has paused for 17 years.
The ‘science’ proves absolutely nothing as of now…..which is why the climate change ‘communicators’ want to concentrate on ‘risk’…yes we can’t prove such and such but what if….? We just can’t take the risk you know!
The Trust states that:
“This does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded. Nor does it mean that scientific research shouldn’t be properly scrutinised.”
Unfortunately it means precisely that…..Harrabin and Co are pushing one message and do not publish anything that goes against that message…the ‘inconvenient truth’.
The BBC is no longer a reliable and trustworthy reporter of the ‘science’, instead it has become nothing more than an organisation that has succumbed to political and green lobbyist pressure and compromised its own principles to sell the Public a line, it has become a PR outlet for the Greens.
That has become ever more important as other publications succumb to the green lobby pressure leaving people with few genuinely impartial and accurate sources of information.
BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes
The Daily Mail also seems to have surrendered its integrity and given in to either financial inducement or political pressure to change its tone when reporting climate. Recently it has been far more ‘on message’ reporting events wihtout any hint of doubt or criticism.
Communication Group at Imperial College London.