The BBC has apologised for a breach of impartiality and accuracy on the Today programme.

Wow! What could it be? Last time we looked, far from apologising, the corporation had Nick Robinson acting as its roving defender-in-chief, fending off complaints about its relentless anti-Brexit bias and climate change alarmism.

Yet here it was. The BBC complaints director Colin Tregear has written to complainants saying: ‘I hope you’ll accept my apologies, on behalf of the BBC, for the breach of editorial standards you identified’ Under the news report headline – yes, a BBC apology makes the news – was a large picture of Lord Lawson.

James Harding departs; reason returns to Broadcasting House! Could the BBC have had a change of heart? Would it finally apologise for its environment analyst Roger Harrabin and his various outbursts, and his vendetta against Britain’s leading climate change sceptic?

We should not have held our breath.

No, the the BBC was not apologising to Lord Lawson. True to form, fearful of being seen to stray from its unbending ‘end of the world’ stand, this humble apology was not to him, but for the crime of letting him speak out at all. That was just in case anyone had missed the ‘on-air’ version. So the world has not shifted on its axis and it’s biased business as usual at the Beeb.


  1. They were apologising for not challenging Lawson for saying that there has been no global warming for 10 years. Lawason was indeed wrong – there has been no global warming for 20 years.

        • Why should someone prove something that hasn’t happened?

          Typical atheist crap, except that global temperatures are not transcendental in nature, but are instead empirically observable.

          If “there has been no global warming for 20 years“, then you should be able to demonstrate it.

          • How about Mike Smith shouldering the burden of proof for his claim ???

            Blimming heck, I just asked a flipping question. It’s NOT up to me to “prove” anything, as you’d know if you had been the recipient of any education …

          • No-o-o-o…but the way this works is that you can trot off and do your own research, and come back and say “Well, I’m blown! You were right”, or “Utter poppycock, old chap!”, depnding on outcome.

            Think of it as exercise for one’s ‘debating muscles’.

          • What a load of condescending and supercilious GIBBERISH.

            I asked a QUESTION, you nincompoop.

            I am not responsible for answering a question to some other person, nor am I responsible for whatever opinions you may have invented for “me”.

          • Nope, I think by confession and deductive inference, we’ve able to determine that you’re not responsible AND lazy and stupid.

          • Why should I be expected to prove the absence of a positive? Why are you so het up about this non-existent problem?

            Go and buy yourself an Accrington Stanley season ticket, if you want something to complain about.

          • The most hilarious bilge I’ve read on the internet this year – and it’s almost November!

            Well done you …..I think.

          • You genuinely have absolutely no idea how this works, do you? Perhaps crayons may be a more rewarding use of your time. And ours.

          • You genuinely have absolutely no idea how this works, do you?

            You really are an ill-educated twerp, aren’t you.

            YOU claimed “there has been no global warming for 20 years

            If you are so cretinous as to believe that it’s not up to YOU to prove that statement of YOURS, but that it’s up to other people to provide proof, I can only conclude that your degree is in something like “the psycho-sociology of 1970s children’s board games : a postmodernist reinterpretation” from the University of Bognor Regis.

          • You need to stop digging, and hand someone the shovel; you are making yourself look exceptionally foolish.

            I don’t have to prove anything, it wasn’t my statement – check back in the thread. Looks like I was right when I said that you have no how adult discussion works. A bit rich to call someone cretinous…..

            BA in Politics from Univ. of Birmingham, MSc in Psychology from Univ. Of Liverpool, both back when degrees actually had to be earned, and meant something.

            It almost seems as though you didn’t finish primary school.

  2. The biggest problem with any climate change discussion is that the Fascists have politicised it, and used it as a weapon in their efforts to divide society. They have lost the ability to debate discuss and argue, and as a result they inevitably return to their bullying methods which have alas proved successful against the spineless.

    Part of the methodology is to isolate and remove dissenting voices from the debate, and as our universities have been academically cleansed of any professor who doesn’t share in the bien pensant group think, so have the academics who don’t agree with the man made climate change argument.

    There are plenty of gifted academic meteorologists who do not agree or accept that climate change is man made, they are of course immediately ostracised so the Fascists can claim almost universal agreement amongst scientists well it was settled science that the earth was flat not that long ago, and anyone who said differently was guilty of heresy – sad to find little has changed.

    So now we have governments paying universities to tell them what they want to hear, that climate change, man made of course, is real and affecting the planet at an alarming rate. What do you expect these goons to tell us as a result of their instruction?
    Not a single penny of government money is being spent researching the possibility that man made climate change is a fallacy, in a stunning abrogation of academic peer review there is only the view of one side of the argument allowed.

    As for the BBC, does anymore really need to be said about its ‘massive left wing bias’? It’s clear the spineless Tories aren’t going to do anything about it !

    • It seems to be the Leftie/Marxist way – close down debate by bullying, shouting down or excluding those with an alternative view.

  3. The “global warming” alarm has always been a scam. James Hansen and Al Gore staged a stunt in the US Congress building, to sucker people into believing in man-made global warming. As a result, talentless pseudo-scientists gained tenured positions as climatologists, parroting the approved line, while clowns like Charles Clover, Geoffrey Lean and Louise Gray obediently regurgitated the warmist propaganda.

    For all sorts of reasons, their temple is crashing down. Temperatures are not rising. Arctic ice is not decreasing. Antarctic ice is increasing. Snow has not ceased to fall. Sea-level rises are minimal and, if you live in Bangladesh, they are the least of your worries.

    This last week, the Beebyanka broadcast its “Autumnwatch” series (a truly disastrous effort in, “Oh, look! A rat!” mode). The presenters were banging on about “climate change” incessantly, but they were also commenting on the new species of birds in Britain, supposedly attracted to Britain by “climate change”. The problem for them was that they were trying to juggle new species (Good) with supposed global warming, not that they called it that (Double plus ungood).

    If the Beeboids want to argue that the arrival of new species here reflects anything other than successful populations’ expanding beyond their previous ranges, they will have to show that the new British birds are displaced Continental ones, driven North by climate change. They won’t, because they can’t, because they aren’t.

    • I think there is enough evidence to suggest climate change is happening and the earth is currently getting warmer

      The mechanism for it happening and if it is a bad thing are not so clear.

      Climate change seems to be natural.

      In the early Middle Ages my part of Wales was famous for its wheat. There is also evidence of grapes being grown at the same time in Pembrokeshire. Clearly it was warmer then than now and far warmer than the last 5 centuries in Wales.

      Other changes are apparent. A Dutchman told me that every year as a boy he used to skate on the canals in the winter months. There were skate hire shops and cafes on nearly ever canal.

      The canals freezing at all is now an extremely rare occurrence.

      Again is CO2 the culprit or methane or the sun. We cannot be sure. However if we have a model it must explain previous warming periods as I described.

      CO2 and methane do not account for historical warming periods

      • If you want to contribute to finding out, sign up for a Masters and a PhD, if you don’t have one yet, and get cracking. I did (not in this field). Took me 8 years to get to the leading edge. Believe me, it’s a lot easier when you are older.

      • Climate models have no way of explaining the Roman Warm Period, the Mediaeval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, or why it did or didn’t rain yesterday. Climate models are totally useless. There is a reason for that. Although any true-believer will spontaneously combust, before admitting the truth, there are many variables unknown to the people running the models.

        if you don’t know the variables, it stands to reason that the results are nonsense.

        • Although any true-believer will spontaneously combust, before admitting the truth, there are many variables unknown to the people running the models

          It is just as foolish to deny the unknowns as it would be to say “there are unknowns, therefore nothing’s happening”.

    • Arctic ice is not decreasing. Antarctic ice is increasing.

      Both of these are completely false statements.

      Snow has not ceased to fall

      Global warming can lead to increased snowfall, as cold wet air from the melting icecaps is carried south into more temperate areas.

      If the Beeboids want to argue that the arrival of new species here reflects anything other than successful populations’ expanding beyond their previous ranges, they will have to show that the new British birds are displaced Continental ones, driven North by climate change

      I see that you have a very confused notion of the differences between global warming and local weather.

    • The Today programme was rightly required to apologise for failing to challenge Lord Lawson’s mistaken assertion that there has not been any global warming over the last ten years

      … and yet I am in this very thread being attacked for requesting similar proofs from some other radical denialists.

        • The difference between forming an opinion based on evidence and biased interpretation of evidence on the basis of a prejudice.

          Maybe I should clarify that I’ve little patience for the radical warmists either, for the same reason.

      • I know – what is it with the Right and climate change denial? It used to be just the American Right that had this weird condition but now it’s crossed the pond and people like Lord Lawson – who used to be sharp as nails – start wandering about with their brains dribbling out of their ears. Why? There’s nothing even remotely ‘Left wing’ about climate change for goodness sake. I always thought we on the Right were the sensible, rational ones. Bewildering.

        • Very refreshing if I may say so.
          If any subject is aPolital then surely this is it.

          I think that the problem the right has with it is summed up by Margaret Thatcher’s reaction.
          Being of a Scientific background she recognised the veracity of the problem, and indeed spoke out on it.
          However, on recognising the options for dealing with it, the issue was kicked into the long grass as they did not align with her world-view.

          • Well I have sympathy with George W Bush on this one. I have a great deal of confidence that technology has a very good chance of delivering a solution for us – and at the same time curing us of our dependence on Middle East petroleum. Denying that the problem exists just (a) slows down the rate at which the problems are solved and (b) means that the competitor companies / nations get the markets because they innovate faster.

          • Yep.
            Technology can help but we don’t have it yet…. maybe fusion or battery or carbon sink technology plus continued encouragement of renewables.
            However there is a track record of sabotage, such as Eric Laithwaite’s linear induction ‘hover’ train – cancelled in the UK yet progressed by Japan; and then the General Motors EV1 electric car in the US.

            *Watch the Swansea Bay tidal Lagoon project very closely.

    • If it is right for the BBC to apologise for failing to challenge mistaken assertions, it seems to me that they have a hell of a lot more apologising to do. On the other hand, if they allow people to express opinions that may be open to challenge but are nevertheless just examples of free speech, then no apologies should be required or made.

      • You were right the first time. They have a hell of a lot more apologising to do. Saying sorry for the p*ss-poor self-congratulatory bull**** Today programme this morning would be a start.

  4. “The Today programme was rightly required to apologise for failing to challenge Lord Lawson’s mistaken assertion that there has not been any global warming over the last ten years.”

    If this principle was applied across the board, every BBC interviewer on every news programme would be under continual investigation for ‘failing to challenge’ ‘mistaken assertions’ – statements made by people being interviewed. A good example is Woman’s Hour where Jenny Murray avoids ‘challenging’ all kinds of illogical or incorrect statements by a variety of people appearing on the programme.

    Was anyone on ‘Woman’s Hour’ going to ‘challenge’ any statement made by Hillary Clinton when she finally turned up on the programme a week ago, a day late. (Mrs Clinton is a master at ‘mistaken assertions’.) Of course not.

  5. If one accepts that anthropogenic global warming is more probably true than not, our current attempts to rectify the issue still come at colossal economic costs and have so far utterly failed because the environmental movement is full of pseudo religious fanatics more concerned with ideology than problem solving. Various relatively cheap solutions to reduce global temperatures exist that we could already be doing but which are seen as politically unappealing to environmental puritans.
    The strange blindness of the left demands we can only stop global warming by rejecting the ‘sins’ of increasing human populations and economic activity. These Marxists are anti-life and anti-prosperity. If the basis of one’s acceptance of anthropogenic global warming is scientific observation, how can those same powers of observation fail to see that the current proposed solutions are failing and will continue to fail? An SUV driver with three large pet dogs would do more to save the environment by shooting his dogs than cycling to work, but you’re not allowed to say that because everyone loves dogs. It would be better to chemically cool the globe than abandon hydrocarbons, but polluting to stop warming is heresy.
    I see the same irony impaired lunatics supporting mass third world immigration to provide Europe cheap labour to exploitative businesses while self-flagellating about the Atlantic slave trade as if one thing was the opposite of the other. Seeing reality through an ideological prism, blinds people to the natural economic structures underpinning all biological activity. Trump is right to abandon the Paris accords. There are better ways to tackle the side-effects of progress than throwing shoes in the looms.

  6. I agree with TCW.

    The BBC should not apologise for failing to challenge Lawson’s flat-earth views even if the other interviewees inexplicably did not.

    However they should certainly apologise for failing to ask him about any big-oil funding of his organisation.

  7. Climate change is an amazing topic, How people can jettison any semblance of intelligent thought, and the absolute guff they choose to embrace beggars belief.

Comments are closed.