The Status Of My Complaints To The BBC About Their Climate Coverage
The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee’s decision to review the Corporation’s coverage of ‘climate change’ is ringing alarm bells in their Complaints Department
I have now had three “first” responses to one of my complaints about the Great Barrier Reef! The first was the usual fob-off, probably written by the teaboy.
I then got a second reply from Quentin Smith of the BBC Complaints Team, which explained that the teaboy’s response was not an official one, so did not count!
Then last week, I got another “first” response, known as Stage 1a. This response was identical to Quentin’s first reply two weeks earlier.
Anyway it is a good time to summarise where my three outstanding complaints are:
The Great Barrier Reef
5th August 2025
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3pp52m65o
The article was doom-laden, with talk of widespread bleaching, tipping points and coral reefs beyond recovery. But nowhere was there mention of the fact the GBR grew to a record size last year, and that it was still the fourth highest on record this year.
Clearly this information is crucial for context. The BBC are guilty of lying by omission.
It has taken the BBC four months to send a formal reply and it failed to address my complaint. Instead it merely repeated the parts of the Australian Institute of Marine Science’s (AIMS) report about the decline in cover this year, which is not under dispute.
Dr Peter Ridd has helpfully drawn up a chart showing the long term trends:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1251526506771889&set=a.192641669327050&type=3&ref=embed_post
But the AIMS report itself states that the Northern and Central Reefs coverage are both above the long term average – 30.0 percent v 26.6 percent and 28.6 percent v 19.8 percent.
Only the Southern Reef is below average, but AIMS note that this is not affected by bleaching, as the waters are cooler to the south.
The BBC therefore have no excuse that they were not aware of these facts and are guilty of selective reporting.
Quite why it has taken four months to get absolutely nowhere is a scandal in itself. It would have saved them a lot of time and money if they had simply added an addendum to the original article, including that graph, following my complaint in August.
Hurricane Melissa
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgvexdjp1xt?post=asset%3A83998b52-4696-491d-a219-a0d877edc50a#post
According to NOAA, the frequency of very intense hurricanes is NOT increasing:
There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes. Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricane frequency (after adjusting for changing observing capabilities over time), there is no strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.
As far as Category 4-5 intensity storms, basin-wide unadjusted storm counts show a pronounced increase since the mid-1940s (Bender et al., 2010), but those authors cautioned that the data from such earlier decades needs to be carefully assessed for data inhomogeneity problems before such trends can be accepted as reliable
Source: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
The BBC’s first response simply says:
“Sarah Keith-Lucas was highlighting that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) latest assessment indicates “the proportion of Category 4–5 Tropical Cyclones will very likely increase globally with warming”
Predictions about what might happen in future are, of course, not evidence that they already are! You might wonder why their weathergirl feels it appropriate to make wild claims without the slightest shred of evidence!
Chris Packham
In a November edition of Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Chris Packham made the false claim that:
“We’re up against the misinformation machine, because ultimately investment in renewables provides us with cheaper energy”.
He was not challenged and the other two panellists nodded in agreement like donkeys. This is hardly surprising as all three were obviously of the same political persuasion throughout the programme.
Worse still, Laura Kuenssberg failed to challenge what she ought to have known was untrue.
The BBC’s first response simply says:
In a fast-flowing interview and discussion situation such as this, it may not always be possible for an host to cross-check every statement and claim that is made by a guest.
Given that the topic in this section was COP30, maybe Ms Kuenssberg should be better prepared in future to spot outright lies!
Meanwhile, for some inexplicable reason, the BBC refuse to publish a correction.
See more here notalotofpeopleknowthat
Bold emphasis added
Editor’s note: the late Dr Tim Ball said numerous times that in a warmer world, you get LESS bad weather, not more, which is backed up by the NOAA data that shows no increase in storm frequency or intensity, yet the media continue to tell you the exact opposite.