BBC New Broadcasting House

Hold the front page! The BBC has accepted it has made a mistake – over sensationalist claims about climate change.

But don’t faint: as always with the BBC and complaints, there is a sting in the tail.

Simon Reeve, the BBC ‘travel’ presenter (qualifications include working in a supermarket and being an advocate for the World Wide Fund for Nature), claimed in a recent programme about Russia that reindeer populations across the north of the country were ‘in steep decline’ because of climate change.
Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation submitted a complaint pointing out that according to a large-scale 2016 study, despite massive reductions in state support for husbandry 17 out of 19 sub-populations of Eurasian reindeer were either increasing or were stable. The survey specifically warned against linking numbers to climate change.

So did this monumental economical-with-reality statement by Mr Reeve warrant a full apology to Lord Lawson? Of course not. The Corporation simply stated: ‘This programme suggested that many reindeer populations are in steep decline because of climate change. It would have been more accurate to say that many reindeer populations are threatened by it.’

So in other words, even when BBC presenters are wrong, they are right. And on matters of climate change Lord Lawson is always wrong, as the BBC trumpets as loudly as it can.


  1. Pot and Kettle.
    On this very website the other week we saw an article with very dubious use of quotation marks in its strapline abour Climate ‘Scientists’
    Of course default Climate bandwagoning helps nobody but it is heartening to see Mr Lawson’s continuing reconciliation with accuracy since his own (I’d say more cynical) economy with the truth on-air in August was deservedly called out.

    • Well, of course, you are implicitly admitting there that the criticism of the BBC is valid, since you claiming equivalence with some supposed abomination on CW, to which, predictably, you can provide no link.

      • Not implicitly but ‘actually’ if the cited report is correct.
        Your reference is December 28th titled Memo to climate ‘scientists’
        Lawson’s gaffe was on the Today prog. in August.
        Get some sleep.

    • Lord Lawson is more right than he is wrong but you wouldn’t know that from the likes of the BBC.

      One small mistake is used again and again to smear his reputation, while continual exaggeration and wilful panic-mongering by the BBC is supposed to be just taken as fact.

    • The BBC has a long history of fanatical corporately-endorsed adherence to climate alarmism and of wrongly attacking Lord Lawson, as was detailed here during the 2014 Somerset floods: This latest response to him fits firmly into that mould. In his reindeer complaint, there is no question of Lord Lawson making a ‘gaffe’, he simply quoted an authoritative study on reindeer numbers (actually written by ‘alarmists’). Simon Reeve’s claims were wrong and yet still the BBC has found a way of supporting him, even though there is no knowing what will happen to reindeer numbers. This is a species that has survived at least four major glaciations and their aftermaths in which temperature variations were massively more than even George Monbiot predicts.

    • So have you whined about “default Climate bandwagoning” on any non-conservative websites? Perhaps you have written a Guardian article on the subject or raised it in the House of Lords before or after your long lunches?

      Please do provide some links.

  2. Who in the BBC thinks you can do a country like Russia justice in three one hour programs? I have watched several of Reeves travel documentaries and his level of virtual signaling has slowly but surely crept up as the years have gone by. He knows what the producers want.

  3. I used to enjoy watching nature and wildlife programmes but it has now reached the stage where I can no longer bear the suspense of waiting to see how long it takes before the words “due to climate change” appear. My television set is in danger of being the first casualty of this dreaded phenomenon from impact with a projectile launched in anger!!

    • They have it on Countryfile too. Learn about nature trails, woodland animals, and 3/4 of the way through the programme, some bright spark will tell you that it could all go because of climate change. It’s difficult to get through most fact-based BBC programmes nowadays without hearing one of their plum causes.

      • Oddly (to me at least) I’ve never come across one of the green fraternity who experiences the joys of nature at first hand. For all their big talk, they’re 100% confirmed urbanites.

      • I would say such things as woodland animals, etc are in far more danger of building works eating up the land, to house the ever growing population associated with mass immigration, than climate change.
        That’s not something the BBC would want to address though I suppose.

      • Despite Brexit and due to alledged Climate Change, may I suggest that Mother Nature knows perfectely well how to look after her Planet and the destructive Humans that live on it? We have, survived Ice Ages, Droughts, the formation of the the different Continents and so on, Mother Nature has sorted out any little problems that have cropped up over the Millenium. The only problem is that it is Man who kills beautiful Animals for Gain, either as Trophy Hunters or for Medical purposes and so on, in his attempt to control things. Mother Nature knows this, she knows Man is her enemy in many ways, which is why she throws little surprises at us which confounds the ‘Experts’, because they refuse to understand that Mother Nature will never be controlled by Humans – thank goodness!
        Yours faithfully, T Rex (Mrs.)

  4. Ah, you mean the BBC are involved with the established brainwashing green agenda
    scam. The cult of Gaia and Its many deceptions.
    Pictures of chubby polar bears on melting Ice caps, BBC presenters on nature
    programmes ramming environmental issues down our throats.
    Even astrological programmes manage to point out some issue with the
    planet that is all the fault of humans. We are an alien infestation attempting
    to wreck mother earth and the BBC have a moral duty to warn us of that.

  5. Thank god I don’t pay for this rot anymore. Ditching the telly tax last year is the best thing I ever did. More time spent reading and walking the dog with the wife in the beautiful countryside, can still watch anything we really fancy via catchup services, youtube and Netflix etc… There’s really no reason for people to keep funding this decrepit organisation other than habit.

  6. Even though I enjoy the BBC nature programs, the relentless propaganda of climate change inevitably expressed in all of them in passing unverified and unsubstantiated comments is starting to wear thin.

    • As I said a while back, the day Blackpool becomes an island (according to the “settled science” it should have happened at least a decade ago), I’ll accept they have a point. Until then, I’ll “Carry On Denying”.

      • I don’t have an issue with accepting that something needs to be done on climate change.
        What I do deny, very ardently, is the need to solve this and every other problem through tax, tax, tax, tax and more tax.

      • We were talking over coffee here yesterday that if ManBearPig is right, and in 30 years NYC is under 30 feet of water, well that might be a good thing. What is London’s elevation again?

        • Parts of Hampstead Heath might be OK, but that’s near where many Left-leaning types live. Perhaps they do know a thing or two after all?

  7. Remember though that this is not for the adults. It is for the children who will not question and take everything in as unbiased fact.
    Like the Jesuits of old, the blob are only interested in the children as they are the ones who can be programmed.

  8. The effects of climate change are very easy to understand.

    1. If an animal is harmless and cuddly then it is threatened.

    2. f an animal is dangerous but looks cuddly, e.g. polar bears, it is threatened.

    3. If an animal is dangerous and not cuddly-looking but nevertheless looks good on TV, e.g. crocodiles, sharks, etc., then it is threatened.

    4. If an animal is dangerous, not cuddly and not good to watch on TV, e.g mosquitoes, then it will become more numerous thanks to climate change and therefore will become more threatening to us.

  9. The BBC also claims that if you are a ‘misogynist’, against radical feminism and opposed to the doctrine of multiculturalism then you are ‘far right’.

    Back in August 2017 when Steve Bannon resigned/was sacked as a White House advisor the BBC’s News at Six referred to him as a ‘white supremacist’ and Breitbart, his publication, as ‘far right’.

    I complained and in their defence they say he is indeed as so described because he has written articles opposed to feminism and multiculturalist doctrine.

    So there you have it. The BBC comes up with its own bogus definition in an attempt to defend itself – and slurs at least half the UK population as ‘far right’.

    The complaint is now going to OFCOM – for all the good it will do.

Comments are closed.