Fake News BBC Doubles Down on Climate Censorship
Last month, as TCW reported, BBC news director Fran Unsworth issued a formal directive stating, in effect, that alarmism is proven and may not be challenged on the BBC airwaves.
Full reading of the transcript is recommended to appreciate the jaw-dropping scale of the bias involved, but in essence Stephenson declared that, despite viewer concerns that the Corporation was adopting a partisan approach, ‘the science’ is beyond doubt and the IPCC’s word on the subject must be considered gospel.
His stance amounts to a total junking by the Corporation of basic scientific empiricism, which since Roger Bacon’s Opus Majus in 1267 has been based on the premise that one new set of verifiable data can sweep away any theory.
In that context, the alleged existence of ‘consensus’ between climate scientists on which Stephenson relies for justifying his propaganda position matters not one jot.
In fact – despite all the IPCC’s posturing, politicking and blustering – the study of the workings of the globe’s climate is in its infancy, not least because measurement of variables is so unreliable and incomplete.
A leading anti-alarmist scientist (and true empiricist), the Australian Jo Nova, excoriatingly reports that the world’s major climate ‘record’ – on which are anchored many of the IPCC’s alarmist predictions – is riddled with massive errors, gaps and assumptions.
So extreme was Stephenson’s partisanship in favour of the climate alarmist stance on Feedback that he bloody-mindedly defended a major mistake in the Corporation’s IPCC-related coverage.
Today presenters John Humphrys and Sarah Montague both wrongly said the IPCC report was warning about a 1.5 per cent rise in global temperatures when actually it referred to 1.5 degrees. Whoops, but in the BBC’s manual of climate change reporting, who cares? Stephenson accepted that this was inaccurate, but claimed it did not matter because ‘audiences would have recognised it was a slip’.
Eh? In other words, in the BBC’s climate change universe, never let the facts get in the way of a good scare story.
Ironically, perhaps, the BBC position on alarmism can be compared to that of the Catholic Church as imagined in Bertolt Brecht’s 1938 play The Life of Galileo. The BBC, of course, would love to see themselves as Galileo in the climate change debate.
In reality, they are not.
Full post
Trackback from your site.
Dr Pete Sudbury
| #
About time, too!
I’m sure there is someone out there emoting about the wings of the BBC agreeing with the scientific evidence that cigarettes cause cancer…indeed, many of the “scientists” who now swear that 10000 published papers, every national Academy of sciences that has commented, (etc) have missed some simple science and the world is in fact cooling are the ones who insisted three was no reliable evidence that cigarettes did any harm at all.
At some point, fake news and specious argument needs calling out as no longer newsworthy by truth-based organisations.
Don’t worry, Fox News, Daily Mail, and other fiction outlets will carry on the “scientific argument” for you.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
As directed by the “Ministry of Truth”
Reply
saighdear
| #
Huh, it’s beyond high time that someone with the competence and time, sets up a Petition to Reject compulsory TV Licences, being paid to the bbc. Simply NOT the best.
Reply