How And Why The British Broadcasting Corporation Spreads Climate Alarm

Posted on Fri 04/22/2022 by


By Dr. John Happs ~

Sir Humphrey Appleby (Cabinet Secretary): I have returned with the answer to all your problems. Global warming.

Jim Hacker (Prime Minister): I thought you were against it?

Humphrey: Everybody’s against it, Prime Minister. I suddenly realised that is the beauty of it. We can get a unanimous agreement with all of our European partners to do something about it.

Jim: But how can we do something about something that isn’t happening?

Humphrey: But it doesn’t matter what we think. If everyone else thinks it’s real, they’ll all want to stop it. So long as it doesn’t cost too much. So the question now is, what are we going to do about it?

Jim: But if it isn’t happening, what can we do about it?

Humphrey: Oh, there’s so much we can do, Prime Minister. We can impose taxes, we can stiffen European rules about carbon emissions, rubbish disposal. We can make massive investments in wind turbines. We can, in fact, Prime Minister, under your leadership, agree to save the world.

Extract from Yes Prime Minister:  2013, Episode 6, “A Tsar is Born”.

Extract from Yes Prime Minister:  2013, Episode 6, “A Tsar is Born”.

Why has the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) failed to tell the general public and politicians that, since 1998, more than 31,000 scientists, including geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists, signed the Oregon Petition, that rejects climate alarmism.  Included in the petition signatories were over 9,000 scientists with PhD’s?   Those more than 31,000 of scientists have supported the statements that: “The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”   And: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”  

Why has the BBC failed to tell the general public and politicians that atmospheric carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature at any time over the last 500 million years?

Why has the BBC failed to tell the general public and politicians that there are now more than 1,300 peer-reviewed, published papers promoting skeptical arguments that demolish climate alarmism?

Why has the BBC failed to tell the general public and politicians that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not an impartial body of the world’s best climate scientists? Rather it is a political/ideological group, spawned from the United Nations (UN) to persuade developed nations to de-industrialise and transfer their wealth to those developing countries that simply want it.

These problems rest with reporters that are encouraged to promote climate alarmism for various reasons. Sadly, there are few investigative journalists today, rather we have television, radio and newspaper reporters always looking for the next dramatic headline that might get the attention of politicians and members of the public who are unable to recognise the gross exaggerations about climate change they are being served.

Donna Laframboise

By contrast, Donna Laframboise is one of those rare investigative journalists who has been doing what media hacks have shied away from. She has looked closely at the alarmist climate claims made by the UN and its off-spring, the IPCC.  She has also exposed the many scientists and other vested interests that have jumped on the climate hysteria bandwagon for personal gain.

Laframboise has written two books exposing the corruption within the IPCC and how this organisation has masqueraded as an independent, highly-qualified body comprising the world’s top climate scientists. As Laframboise points out – neither claim is true.

Her first book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, looked into the IPCC that was promoting, without any empirical evidence, the imaginary global warming danger that was being quoted without question by media around the world.

Her second book, Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize, looks closely at the railroad engineer who was elected IPCC Chairman in 2002. The late Rajendra Pachauri lied about the IPCC only using experts at the top of their profession and he lied about the IPCC using only peer-reviewed, published source material. He knew that the IPCC used climate activist materials, magazine articles and newspaper reports.

Why has the BBC failed to mention that many former IPCC contributing scientists who pointed to the fraudulent nature of the IPCC resigned from the IPCC process?  Many of their statements can be found here:

Why has the BBC failed to mention that the IPCC issues a Summary for Policymakers that is made available to politicians and the media but that summary fails to accurately reflect the findings found in the scientific reports?

Dr. Andrew Lacis is a climate scientist at NASA and IPCC contributor. He made clear:

“There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

Dr. Roy Spencer

Why has the BBC failed to point out that Dr. Roy Spencer is a climate scientist and Principal Research Scientist at the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville and that Spencer has exposed the political/ideological intentions of the IPCC.

Spencer said:

The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-caused global warming are only a means to that goal.

The BBC has access to the large volume of reliable material on the internet that completely destroys any arguments by climate alarmists about dangerous global warming, extreme weather, rising sea levels and any number of equally fatuous predictions of doom and gloom. The BBC also has access to the many scientists who resigned from the IPCC process, accusing that organisation of fraud. So why do we rarely hear or read about these facts from the BBC?

Sir David King

In 2004 the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir David King, who has neither qualifications nor expertise in climate science, managed to persuade the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to place action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy.

Blair obliged and created a climate propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group and it wasn’t long before the UK’s government policy on climate change became BBC policy with the legally enforced taxpayer-funded BBC’s coverage of climate issues abandoning any pretense of impartiality.   Does the BBC have a financial interest in promoting climate alarm?   There appears to be a connection between the BBC’s pension fund and the broadcaster’s coverage of climate change. The BBC has invested significantly in the promotion of anthropogenic climate change through the billions of dollars that have been placed in the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change (IIGCC).  The group’s objective appears to be the promotion and investment in a low carbon (dioxide) economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The IIGCC made explicit its mission to:

“Support and enable the investment community in driving significant and real progress by 2030 towards a net zero and resilient future. This will be achieved through capital allocation decisions, stewardship and successful engagement with companies, policy makers and fellow investors.”

Details of the BBC’s “My Pension” scheme can be found at:

Perhaps we can now appreciate why BBC personnel are so eager to promote the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming meme since it appears there are many contributors to the BBC’s pension fund.

How did the BBC kick-start its promotion of climate alarm?

In 2006, the BBC had a high-level meeting to define its position on climate change. The meeting agreed unanimously to promote the mantra of dangerous anthropogenic climate change despite there being tens of thousands of scientists that completely reject climate alarmism. Such rejection is hardly surprising since there is no empirical evidence to support it.

The seminar was held between 28 senior BBC staff and 28 outsiders whom the BBC Trust later described as “some of the best scientific experts”.  Following this seminar, the BBC reported:

“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change]”.   (My emphasis)

It transpired that most of the participants at that meeting were political activists, journalists and commentators who supported, for various reasons, the notion of dangerous climate change. It is likely that those participants had a vested interest in the promotion of climate alarm.

Brian Monteith described that meeting, held on 26 January, 2006, with the BBC claiming it consisted of the 28 “best scientific experts” to decide the BBC policy on climate-change reporting. Monteith discovered that, although the BBC is an organization funded by taxpayers and has a charter to be impartial, there was no evidence of impartiality:

“The participants included arguably only three or four genuine scientists (all supporting anthropogenic climate change dogma), the rest being political activists, journalists and commentators who not only supported the man-made cause of climate change but often had a vested interest in it being propagated.”


“Greenpeace had two people attend, including its head of campaigns, and other well-known climate-change supporters were Stop Climate Chaos, Npower Renewables, E3G, Tearfund, Television for the Environment – and to try and ensure God was onside, the Church of England was represented too.”

John O’Sullivan listed the attendees and commented:

“Other eco-zealots in attendance were Robert May (a zoologist) who is on record declaring the world was on a “calamitous trajectory” due to global warming. The BBC was recently forced to admit that the seminar was organised by the Cambridge Media and Environment Programme (CMEP), established by pro-green activist Joe Smith and BBC reporter Roger Harrabin (co-founder of CMEP). Harrabin is also on the UEA’s Advisory board of the Tyndall Centre – raising serious conflict of interest issues. Pointedly, not one of the attendees deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming.”

How does the BBC continue to promote climate alarm?

In 2017 the BBC’s Clive Lewis told Amanda Ashmore that he deliberately broadcasted biased news, stating:

“I was able to use bias in my reports by giving less time to one than the other. I reported on both but the angle and words and the language I used — I know the pictures I used — I was able to project my own particular political positions on things in a very subtle way.”

In 2019, Lewis still showed no inclination towards reining in his bias, saying:

“Politicians must persuade consumers to make dramatic lifestyle changes if devastating climate change and mass extinctions are to be averted … “

Dr. Matt Ridley

Dr. Matt Ridley commented:

“The BBC bends over backwards to give air time to minority campaigners on matters such as fracking, genetically modified crops, and alternative medicine. Biologists who think GM crops are dangerous, doctors who think homeopathy works and engineers who think fracking has contaminated aquifers are far rarer than climate sceptics. Yet Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth spokesmen are seldom out of Broadcasting House.

So, the real reason for the BBC’s double standard becomes clear:  dissent in the direction of more alarm is always encouraged; dissent in the direction of less alarm is to be suppressed.”

Andrew Montford complained to the BBC saying:

“This is not the first time that BBC has received adverse publicity as a result of clandestine links to environmental organisations: in 2011 it was revealed that BBC World was taking free programming from environmental NGOs. It is now clear that the corporation has become inextricably linked with the environmental movement

There is now an urgent need for an independent inquiry into the links between the BBC and green groups. Despite direct representations, the BBC Trust has shown no interest in examining these issues; nor is there any likelihood that it would do so in a fair and transparent manner. Previous scandals involving the BBC have shown that the first instinct of the Trust is to protect the corporation rather than the public interest.”

David Rose from the Mail on Sunday reported:

“The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming.”


“The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting. “…n-the-bbcs-28gate-coverup-becomes-mainstream-news/#more-32707

James Delingpole provided more information about the BBC bias:

“So now we know yet another reason why the BBC is so biased in its reporting on climate change: because in 2006 the Labour government effectively paid it to be so. It was a £67,000 grant from the Department for International Development (DFID) which paid for the notorious, secret high-level seminar at which the BBC was persuaded to abandon all pretence at neutrality on the global warming issue. I expect the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin just can’t wait to get his teeth into this major scandal.”…lair-government-paid-for-the-subversion-of-our-state-broadcaster/

North Wales pensioner Tony Newbury lodged a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to find out which “scientific experts” would be advising the BBC on its scientific view of climate change.

The names were not revealed so, in 2007, Newbery referred his application to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for adjudication and in 2008 an investigation was started.

The BBC claimed that the 28 attendees were “representatives from business, campaigners, NGOs, communication experts, people from the ‘front line’, scientists with contrasting views and academics”.

The BBC defended its decision not to disclose the names of the “scientific experts” that attended a BBC climate change seminar held in 2006, called: “Climate Change – the Change to Broadcasting.”

 The Global Warming Policy Foundation later found that only two of the outsiders were scientists. The rest were mainly environmentalists or “non-scientists with a vested interest in promoting renewable energy.

Conservative MP, Peter Lilley commented:

“The BBC has taken the position that the views of ‘climate sceptics’ will not be given airtime since the science has been settled by the IPCC. Inevitably the BBC lays itself open to the charge not just of inconsistency but of backing the side of the argument which gives ammunition to those on the statist, liberal left persuasion who want to control every aspect of the economy – a position with which the BBC has allowed itself to be associated”.

Lord Nigel Lawson

Lord Nigel Lawson wrote to Lord Patten, chairman of the BBC Trust to call for an investigation following the complaint made by Mr Peter Lilley and also to look into the BBC’s wider problem.

Lawson says it is:

“Namely the case for the BBC to migrate from its one-sided reportage and propaganda of the conventional wisdom on climate change and climate change policies to a more balanced and objective coverage of this complex and important range of issues”.

In 2012 the BBC was accused of “rank dishonesty” over climate change by an influential body of sceptics. Lord Lawson, Lord Donoughue and Baroness Nicholson sent an open letter to Lord Hall (Director General of the BBC from 2013 to 2020) saying:

“We suggest that you might start by convening a new high-level seminar, this time a more balanced one, whose BBC participants would be qualified climate scientists, energy and environmental economists, and experienced policy-makers whose names, would be made known. The Global Warming Policy Foundation would be happy to be represented in any such seminar.”

In 2014, Lord Lawson said that he is now banned from the BBC since he became an outspoken and influential climate change skeptic. Lawson commented:

“The BBC was overwhelmed by a well-organised deluge of complaints — many of them, inevitably, from those with a commercial interest in renewable energy, as well as from the Green Party — arguing that, since I was not myself a scientist, I should never have been allowed to appear.”


“The head of the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, a Mr Fraser Steel, whose qualifications for the job are unclear and whose knowledge of the complex climate change issue is virtually non-existent, has written to a little-known but active Green Party politician called Chit Chong to apologise for the fact I was allowed to appear on the programme and to make clear this will not happen again.”…ment-approved-spokesmen-allowed-to-discuss-science/#more-37007

Mr Chong trotted out the usual lame arguments:

“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.”

The BBC’s Richard Black, gave his melodramatic opinion of those thousands of scientists who reject climate alarmism, saying:

“If you accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus view of climate science, humankind is involved in an unprecedented and highly risky experiment with the only ecosphere it has, and climate sceptics are simply vandals laying a tree trunk across the train tracks which society must traverse to escape its fiery grave.”

Fran Unsworth

The BBC’s director of news and current affairs, Fran Unsworth issued the following guidelines (in bold) in a letter to BBC staff:

Man-made climate change existsIf the science proves it we should report it. The BBC accepts that the best science on the issue is the IPCC’s position.

Except that we now know that the IPCC is a political/ideological body established by the United Nations to use climate alarmism in order to de-industrialise developed nations and transfer their wealth to developing countries. The IPCC does not provide the best science on the issue.

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

Except that no scientist denies that climate change is happening. It always has. The term “denier” is offensive since it deliberately equates those tens of thousands of scientists who disagree with climate alarmism with holocaust deniers.

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.

Evidence over the years has shown that the BBC has deliberately excluded well qualified climate scientists from most of its presentations/discussions about climate change.

The late Christopher Booker commented:

“The BBC is committed by its charter to report with ‘accuracy and impartiality’. Yet on climate change, it has adopted a clear ‘party line’, which has run through almost every aspect of its broadcasting.”   And:   “The BBC’s journalists and producers were let off the leash — to line up with the more extreme environmental pressure groups, such as Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Friends of the Earth, in pushing their global warming agenda for all it was worth.”

Dr. Keith Briffa

In 2006 the BBC ran a program called “Meltdown” with the presenter pretending to be a little skeptical and wanting to look at both sides of the climate debate.

Prior to a future filmed interview, the BBC’s Jonathan Renouf sent an email to the IPCC’s the late Dr. Keith Briffa, the scientist who was involved in the construction of the thoroughly discredited “Hockey Stick” graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann and quickly dropped by the IPCC.

Renouf explained to Briffa:

“Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul (Rose) that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.”


“ … flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within reason!) and elaborate the point that what’s happening now is unprecedented compared to these historic records.”


“Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve. Look forward to tomorrow. All best Jonathan [Renouf, Series Producer, BBC]”

Ironically, Dr. Keith Briffa had already made clear in the “Climategate” emails his view that his research showed it might have been as least as warm a thousand years ago as it is today.

Melanie Phillips explained that the BBC’s opinions about climate change are not only the result of ideological bias. Rather:

“The leading UK research unit on global warming, the UEA’s Tyndall Centre, had spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves.”

David Rose added:

“The BBC was so deeply in the pocket of AGW scientists that its reporting of AGW was utterly compromised.”–game-shows.html

The BBC’s Jeff Randall

Jeff Randall, former BBC Business Editor pointed out where some of the BBC’s “climate inspiration” came from:

By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent.  ­Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told “It’s all in there.”

The BBC’s Sir Antony Jay

The late Sir Antony Jay was an English writer, broadcaster, producer, director and creator of the series “Yes Minister”. He worked with the BBC and explained:

“We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side. With a big story, like shale gas for example, you would choose the aspect where your case was strongest: the dangers of subsidence and water pollution, say, rather than the transformation of Britain’s energy supplies and the abandonment of wind farms and nuclear power stations. And you could have a ‘balanced’ summary with the view you favoured coming last: not “the opposition claim that this will just make the rich richer, but the government point out that it will create 10,000 new jobs” but “the government claim it will create 10,000 new jobs, but the opposition point out that it will just make the rich richer.” It is the last thought that stays in the mind. It is curiously satisfying to find all these techniques still being regularly used forty seven years after I left the BBC.”

The BBC’s Peter Sissons

In 2009, the late Peter Sissons gave an interesting account of his experience working for the BBC.  He related how:  

“The leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas, went into the Westminster studio to be interviewed by me on the BBC News channel. She clearly expected what I call a ‘free hit’; to be allowed to voice her views without being challenged on them.

 I pointed out to her that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment. We were having a particularly cold winter, even though carbon emissions were increasing. Indeed, there had been no warming for ten years, contradicting all the alarming computer predictions.

 Well, she was outraged. I don’t have the actual transcript, but Miss Lucas told me angrily that it was disgraceful that the BBC – the BBC! – should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views.”

 Sissons added:

“I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.”–I-dont-pang-regret.html

Christopher Booker

The late Christopher Booker, described how the BBC remains undeterred by the collapse of the many climate conferences; the Climategate emails revelation that IPCC scientists and UN officials were engaged in scientific fraud; the IPCC was influenced by environmental activists and that all computer predictions of rising global temperature were hopelessly wrong.

Anthony Watts pointed to this sorry saga, related by Booker:

Horizon’s “Science Under Attack” turned out to be yet another laborious bid by the BBC to defend the global warming orthodoxy…… Hours of film of climate-change “deniers” are cherrypicked for soundbites that can be shown, out of context, to make them look ridiculous…… Although Sir Paul presented himself as the champion of objective science, he frequently showed that, for all his expertise in cell biology, he knows little about climate. 

The fact that someone is an expert in one particular field – even if he is President of the Royal Society – gives him little more authority to pronounce on issues with which he is unfamiliar than a man holding forth in a pub……. the BBC has been turned, in Peter Sissons’ words, into a mere “propaganda machine”……. Comparing the actual data…… shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade……”

Booker noted:

“The fact is that they know they have a legal obligation to be impartial. They know that they are breaking the law. But they also know they can get away with it, because no one in authority will ever call them to account for doing so.”

Al Gore

The late Peter Sisson was presenter of the BBC’s Question Time between 1989 and 1993, and a presenter of the BBC Nine O’Clock News and Ten O’Clock News between 1993 and 2003.  Sissons said he was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent from the BBC line on climate change. He also observed how:

“Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, was entertained in the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre.”

Sissons added:

“His (Gore’s) views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools.” change-says-Peter-Sissons.html

Sissons was clearly uncomfortable with the BBC’s coverage of climate change, saying:

“The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.  It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard.”

He added:

“I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue.”

The BBC’s Alex Kirby

Alex Kirby is a British journalist specialising (without any scientific qualifications) in environmental issues. He worked for the BBC, in radio and television, from 1987 to 1996.  In 2011 “climategate” emails were revealed with correspondence showing a relationship between the BBC’s Alex Kirby and the promoters of climate alarmism at the University of East Anglia, including Dr. Phil Jones.

Kirby emailed Jones saying:

“I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all …”


“.. being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.”  (My emphasis)

The BBC’s Roger Harrabin

Roger Harrabin is the BBC’s Energy and Environment analyst, having broadcasted on environmental topics since the 1980’s. (Harrabin was given an Honorary Doctorate of Science from Cranfield University).

In 2011 Noel Sheppard revealed how Harrabin received £15,000 from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. This being the same organisation that was at the centre of the Climategate scandal where leaked emails showed a group of scientists deliberately colluding to promote the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming meme.

In 2011 former BBC science correspondent Dr. David Whitehouse, criticised the BBC for its clear bias on climate reporting, commenting on the alarmism and poor use of statistics by the BBC’s Environment Correspondent Richard Black.  Whitehouse said:

“The BBC should be, or at least aspire to be, the gold standard. So, it is depressing to come across such a skimpy analysis, and sloppy use of statistics as in this briefing given to BBC staff by their Environment Correspondent Richard Black.”


“This is a dismaying standard of scientific literacy from a BBC correspondent. Following Black’s presentation, the BBC audience went away with the opposite impression of what is the case.”

Jocelyn Timperley is a freelance climate and science journalist.  Writing for the BBC she incorrectly said:

“Some of the world’s poorest and lowest carbon emitting countries are suffering the most from climate change. Is it time for climate justice?”

Without producing any empirical evidence she continued:

“These are among the ways millions of people around the world are already being impacted by climate change, many of whom have made little contribution to global emissions. From heat waves and floods to sea level rise and glacial melt, each year we learn more about the human influence on our climate – and witness more of its impacts”

Paul Homewood responded to Timperley’s nonsense:

“We have of course been down this road before. By every metric the third world is immeasurably better off now than before the industrial revolution. This is no coincidence, it is a direct result of economic growth and technological development, all enabled by fossil fuels.

But poorer communities are always more vulnerable to the vagaries of weather, or indeed any natural calamity. The answer to that is not the abolition of fossil fuels, but to make those communities wealthier to enable them to be more resilient.”

The BBC’s intention to continue with its one-sided alarmist reporting on climate change was made evident when Peter Lilley lodged a complaint about the Newsnight program on the 5th September 2012.  Lilley said:

“First, though least important, the BBC reneged on assurances I was given about the nature of the programme. Second, the introductory sequence was misleading, inaccurate and biased. Third, and most important, it demonstrates a systematic bias in the BBC’s approach to climate change.”


“The most worrying aspect of this episode is the systemic bias it reveals in the BBC’s handling of climate change evidence. The BBC has taken the position that the views of ‘climate sceptics’ will not be given airtime since the science has been settled by the IPCC.”

This episode of clear BBC blatant bias on climate alarmism can be found here:

The BBC continued to engage people, with neither qualifications nor expertise in climate science, in order to broadcast their alarmism without pointing to any empirical evidence to support their nonsense.

For instance, Dr. Steve Jones, who might know a lot about drosophila and snails, clearly knows little about climate science yet he was the author of a 2011 report for the BBC Trust on the BBC’s science coverage. Jones claimed that the evidence for global warming was now so overwhelming that it would be quite wrong for the BBC to imply that it was a two-sided debate.

As usual, no empirical evidence was given and no acknowledgement of the warming hiatus or the literature showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature over the last 500 million years.

In 2015 the BBC put out a program called Climate Change by Numbers, supposedly to provide a fresh, unbiased angle on the topic.  Alas, the BBC appears to be incapable of presenting anything on climate change without bias as James Delingpole observed:

“Here was a programme so lamentably biased, so completely uninterested in counter arguments, so blatantly determined to pull the wool over its viewers’ eyes with straw men, false analogies and calculated misrepresentations of the real points at issue, that it constituted a flagrant breach of the BBC’s statutory obligations to accuracy and impartiality.

In short, this programme broke the law. Under the BBC Charter 2006, the BBC is legally obliged to “do all it can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.”

The BBC admits to some of its errors, but well after a program has been aired.

There are numerous examples where the BBC made false climate-alarmist claims and then “quietly” admitted to their errors. Of course, this was well after the event so the public would be unaware of the retraction. In 2019, Paul Homewood provided a list of BBC false climate claims, followed by delayed admissions of guilt, including:

The BBC claimed that African penguin populations were declining because of climate change. Homewood challenged this and the BBC later upheld his complaint.

The BBC claimed that sea levels at Miami were rising at ten times the global mean.

The BBC later admitted that sea levels at Miami showed “little divergence from the global mean”

The BBC showed an episode of “Russia with Simon Reeve” in which it was claimed that the deaths of “tens of thousands of reindeer” were due to climate change.

Following a complaint, the BBC conceded that reindeer populations were in fact stable or increasing.

The BBC’s Chris Fawkes

The BBC’s meteorologist Chris Fawkes stated that:

A warmer world is bringing us a greater number of hurricanes and a greater risk of a hurricane becoming the most powerful category 5”

Even the political/ideological IPCC said there is no evidence for such a claim and the BBC later printed a correction that their claim was based on “modelling and not historical data”

Roger Harrabin wrote an article on the Report of the Environmental Committee which was critical of the government’s clean energy policies which included a ban on new onshore wind farms.

The BBC later accepted that the article was materially misleading, and that there had been a serious lapse of editorial standards.

In an episode of the BBC’s Weather World programme, the presenter said that “Already about 30% of the UK’s power is produced by wind energy” when the actual figure is 15% when the wind is blowing.

Following a complaint, the BBC accepted that their figure was wrong, and that segment was eventually withdrawn from their website.

Roger Harrabin, in “Facing up to the age of environmental breakdown” stated that:

Since 2005, the number of floods across the world has increased by 15 times, extreme temperature events by 20 times, and wildfires seven-fold.

This claim was a totally false one, since it misinterpreted the International Disasters Database that was supposedly used for their analysis.

The BBC later withdrew the false claim and issued a correction but again the damage was done and few would be aware of the BBC’s numerous delayed retractions and corrections.

Paul Homewood challenged the BBC’s claim of 300km/h winds, saying the claim was fallacious and grossly misleading in an attempt to compare “Cyclone Pam” with “Typhoon Tip”, the most intense, and arguably the strongest, typhoon on record.

After a prolonged period of correspondence, the BBC acknowledged that Homewood was correct but as he concluded:

“Of course, the problems with all of these sorts of complaints against the BBC is that, although they may agree to correct weeks later, nobody is likely to notice. It is the original, erroneous information which is seen and remembered.”

Lord Christopher Monckton

In frustration over the BBC’s lack of impartiality and its climate lies, Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley commented:

“I am preparing a report to be sent to the BBC’s trust, a fumbling, toothless watchdog, demonstrating the extent of the corporation’s malevolent and systemic prejudice on the climate question, its wilful misrepresentations and its refusals to correct deliberate errors, and demanding that the trust should take certain specific steps to restore the impartiality that the law entitles the licence-fee payer to expect in return for his dollar a day.”

               May the good Lord eventually save us from BBC bias!

Dr. John Happs M.Sc.1st Class; D.Phil. John has an academic background in the geosciences with special interests in climate, and paleoclimate. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas and was President of the Western Australian Skeptics for 25 years.