Wednesday, 26 January 2011

BBC and ABC - AGW Propaganda Organisations

Peter Sissons is a broadcast journalist from the UK. He was a long time newsreader on the BBC. He retired in 2009 to write his memoirs. The Daily Mail is serialising the memoirs. The latest episode talks about the BBC and  Man-made Global Warming:

For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC — global warming (or ‘climate change’, as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998). 
From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents
After the inauguration of Barack Obama the BBC reported that scientists had calculated that he had just four years to save the world. They omitted the fact that it was the opinion of James Hansen.

The BBC’s editorial policy on ­climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had 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’. The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.
Joanne Nova reported also on "How the BBC became a propaganda arm of the UK government (and WWF) "
According to Montford and Newbery, the key event was a BBC seminar at Television Centre entitled Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting, which was made up of ’30 key BBC staff’ and ‘30 invited guests’. The ‘key speaker’ was Lord May of Oxford (the Royal Society President who also happened to be a WWF trustee and environmental activist).
Are we in Australia better off  with "OUR" ABC? Well, the ABC.s charter requires impartiality:

The Board requires the ABC to demonstrate impartiality in two ways:
•    As a creator, broadcaster and publisher of news and current affairs content, the Board
requires impartiality at the content or program level. This means that each program or item of news and current affairs content must be impartial in accordance with the requirements set out in Section 5; and
•    As a creator, broadcaster and publisher of opinion and topical and factual content, the Board requires impartiality at the platform level (i.e. the individual television or radio network, or on ABC Online). This means that while individual items of content can take a particular perspective on an issue, the ABC must be able to demonstrate at the platform level that it has provided its audiences with a range of different perspectives on the subject under consideration. Individual items of opinion and topical and factual content must themselves meet the requirements set out in Sections 6 and 7 respectively.
Mr Maurice Newman
Well, that should makes us better off than Britons and their BBC, shouldn't it? In March 2010, the Chairman of the ABC, Mr Maurice Newman addressed ABC journalists, program-makers and managment-

Climate change is a further example of group-think where contrary views have not  been tolerated, and where those who express them have been labelled and mocked.  In his ABC Online blog last October Chris Uhlmann wrote a piece called In praise of the sceptics.  ‘“Climate science we are endlessly told is “settled”’ he wrote.  “But to make the, perfectly reasonable, point that science is never settled risks being branded a “sceptic” or worse a “denier”…one of those words, like “racist”, which is deliberately designed to gag debate…You can be branded a denier if you accept the problem and question the solutions.”
This collective censorious approach succeeded in suppressing contrary views in the mainstream media, despite the fact that a growing number of distinguished scientists were challenging the conventional wisdom with alternative theories and peer reviewed research.
Then came the sensational revelations of unprofessional conduct by some of the world’s most influential climatologists exposed by the hacked or leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute.  This was followed by more evidence of dubious research and politicised advocacy contained in scientifically unsupported claims and errors in the IPCC 4th Assessment, including in the carefully vetted Synthesis Report.  Questionable methods of analysis resulting in spurious temperature data have added further doubts on the underlying credibility of the science.

Mr Newman was criticised by Christopher Warren, the Federal Secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance in a letter the next day:
I was concerned to read yesterday the remarks made by ABC chairman, Maurice Newman, to a gathering of journalists, program-makers and management on Wednesday.
Since his speech I have been contacted by a number of Media Alliance members from the ABC’s news and current affairs team who have interpreted Mr Newman’s remarks as an attempt to influence the ABC’s line on climate change.
 The ABC's line on Climate Change? What line? Aren't they, under their charter, supposed to be impartial? On the ABC's children on-line pages, they had a depiction of the average Australian as a pig. Too much carbon production causes the pig to explode, leaving behind a pool of blood.

Senator Fifield said of the quasi life-expectancy calculator:
"Do you think it's appropriate that the ABC portray the average Australian as a pig and is it appropriate for a website obviously geared towards kids to depict people who are average Australians as massive overweight ugly pigs, oozing slime from their mouths, and then to have these pigs blow up in a mass of blood and guts?"

The ABC also runs an forum called: "Ask an Expert" on Climate Change. In answer to the question: "How can scientists tell that climate change is due to greenhouse gases, rather than part of a natural climate cycle?" the reply included:

Climate models driven by scenarios of greenhouse gas and aerosol (small particle) emissions estimate a rise in temperature of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees by 2100 assuming no actions to reduce climate change. While this is comparable to previously occurring climate change, it is occurring at an unprecedented pace and the changes would affect a larger and less mobile population.

What was the reaction to Chairman Newman's address? Well, Greens Senator Christine Milne advised the ABC journalists "to ignore the anti-science nonsense peddled by the Chair of their board and instead increase their strong coverage of climate change." Ben Eltham writing on newmatilda said "Maurice Newman's attack on the ABC's editorial standards shows he is unfit to remain chair of the national broadcaster."
And the President of the Friends of the ABC, Mal Hewitt, had this to say: "Chairman of the ABC Maurice Newman’s somewhat eccentric attack on the ABC’s perceived failure to provide an adequate voice to climate change deniers, despite ample evidence to the contrary...."

Gee, I would like to see some evidence of that ample evidence.
The last budget figure for the ABC that I have seen was $1.13B. I remember when they used to advertise that it cost us a few cents a day. The sometimes accurate Wikipedia tells me that it is now 7.1ç per day. I am not getting my money's worth.


  1. James Delingpole describes how a BBC doco maker got into the confidence of the sceptics and then did a hatchetjob on them, particularly on Lord Monckton.

    Disreputable people.

  2. Also, Christpoher Booker writes of how BBC warmists abuse the science:

  3. Bishop Hill mentions the BBC Vid mentioned above -


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!