Our licence fees pay for climate denial

The BBC spouts rightwing bias while ignoring environmental science. So why not give other conspiracies a platform too?

Sunny Hundal
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 February 2010 12.00 GMT

After watching last night's Newsnight, I can only come to one conclusion: the BBC has become this country's most pernicious climate-change-denying media outlet in the UK.
There is simple reasoning behind this grand statement. While the assorted commentators who regularly spout ill-informed propaganda across the media are usually taken with a pinch of salt, the BBC is broadly trusted as an impartial and trustworthy reporter of news. It sets the agenda. Which makes the rubbish it has been producing lately on climate change even more dangerous.
Let me start by saying I believe that man-made activity is the prime driver behind global warming. I don't have time for tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nuts who think it is one big plot by scientists across the world. I do believe CC deniers are no different to 9/11 Truthers. But that point is moot while we focus on the country's biggest culprit.
The hook for last night's Newsnight report was today's Guardian reporting that the IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri rightly refusing to apologise for a mistake that wasn't made under his watch.
He admitted the mistake and accepted that other recent scandals such as the illegal hacking of UEA emails had boosted the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers.
But presenter Kirsty Wark's agenda was to try and rubbish the IPCC's entire report — the biggest piece of scientific work undertaken on the topic. The IPCC contains hundreds if not thousands of graphs and claims — and yet one or two slips were used as an excuse to rubbish the whole thing.
At one point, she said "Are you surprised the public are really worried about this?" — let's be clear, public opinion on global warming has stayed the same (and accepting of AGW) even after the UEA scandal.
This is despite attempts by newspapers like The Times to try and distort public opinion.
This sort of crap isn't the only example from the BBC. Last week the BBC's so-called "ethical man" Justin Rowlatt presented an absurd programme that argued the green movement was bad for the environment. That's right, the likes of Nigel Lawson and Exxon Mobil will save the environment instead.
The agenda is simple: rather than focus on bogus claims and bogus science of deniers, BBC journalists are trying to deflect accusations of "bias" towards AGW by bashing hippies. Meanwhile Nigel Lawson, Melanie Phillips et al are invited on programmes regularly without much fact-checking.
Oh and then there's Andrew Neil. The avowed right-winger not only presents the Daily Politics show, but also writes blogs on the BBC site claiming that the "dam is cracking" on the science behind AGW. And yet you won't find any other senior presenters allowed to publish such blantantly partisan propaganda, nor have any of their journalists question it.
And don't forget Jeremy Clarkson — another prominent presenter given full reign to spout AGW denying nonsense.
There have been other prominent incidents. In one, a BBC article actually claimed global warming had ceased, but contained several inaccuracies. Then there was the cancellation of Planet Relief several years ago.
The BBC is continually painted as some liberal-left dominated haven, but it remains deeply institutional and rightwing. The subject of climate change is the latest instance where this is becoming increasingly obvious.
If its journalists are so intent on providing balance on every issue, why doesn't it invite 9/11 and 7/7 Truthers to every discussion of those terrorist attacks? If overwhelming evidence is an unnecessary guide to coverage, why not invite the Birther to discuss President Obama's origins on a more regular basis?
The BBC needs an in-depth review to how it covers global warming. And it needs some science to inform its journalism.