A rare event happened on Thursday as the Left put the BBC in the dock and took the Today programme to task over its pursuit of balance.

The topic was climate change and to counter the views of born again environmentalist Al Gore, Auntie turned to former Chancellor Lord Lawson, who branded the notion of climate change a load of “claptrap” and said that world leaders should be focusing on “real issues”.

Prominent physicists Jim Al-Khalili and Brian Cox led the wrathful hordes, calling the debate “ignorant”, “irresponsible”, “irresponsible” and “highly misleading”. What a lot of hot air.

Surely it is for listeners to make up their own minds on the topic after listening to the two protagonists? Not if the Left has anything to do with it.

(Image: Michael Gwyther-Jones)


  1. Something delicious in the Beeb falling out with their chums on the left. A lover’s quarrel perhaps? I just hope I don’t get to see the kiss and make up stage. Ugghh!

    • I do amateur astronomy is a small way and when he first appeared on the scene I tuned into one of his programmes. 5 minutes in and I found his voice grating on me so I switched to something else.
      Not fit to lace Patrick Moore’s boots.
      One of many reasons I avoid BBC TV as much as possible these days.

      • What has always annoyed me about Brian Cox is the way he is presented on the BBC is as a high priest of Scientism, preaching science as if it is dogma rather than an ongoing debate between different positions. I should point out that the man himself might well be more reasonable and balanced in private, my disagreement is only with the way he presents science on the television.

        • I did CSE physics at school (yes, that long ago). I can still hear the teacher’s voice saying “science isn’t exact”. I’ve realised the truth of this over the years.

          • Indeed. The point is that science is on ongoing process that should, if the scientific method is followed, trend over time towards objective truth. That does not mean that the bulk of scientists in a given field cannot be completely wrong about something at any instant in time and it does not mean that a less accurate scientific theory cannot become more popular amongst scientists than a more accurate one for a time. Scientists are only human and are just as prone to error as everyone else, for both good reasons and bad.

          • Agreed. One of things that really grate is when religious people criticise science for changing its position over time. Surely adapting your thinking as new information comes along is a good thing to be admired; it certainly beats sticking with dogma regardless of whatever you subsequently find.

          • Surely good scientists always have an open mind. They do not shut down debate because it doesn’t fit their view point.

          • Scientists are often the most open minded people. However, as in all things, it always helps your case if you can provide strong compelling evidence for your view.

          • Yet whilst they progress as you rightly describe it, some theories are discarded along the way, such as the flat earth and Lamarckian spontaneous generation.
            That’s the Scientific method.

          • On the other hand, just because it isn’t exact doesn’t automatically mean it is a million miles away either. Good luck with the amateur astronomy, I hope you find it a fascinating subject. I love it even though I have to wrap up like crazy against the cold. Hope you live in a decent area without light pollution – if you can get away from all the street lights and away into the countryside, it makes a massive difference.

        • Cox never gives the impression of accepting any contradictory opinion. I know academics with a lot more standing than Cox and they would never dare to assert that their theories were unassailable. It would actually make their jobs fundamentally pointless to do so. Cox, of course, is pontificating on a subject way out of his sphere. I am, too, but I am not, unlike Cox, pretending to be an expert, or using taxpayers’ money to express my opinion.

          Question to Cox and his ilk: If you seriously believe that we already know everything, what is the point of universities? What are pontificating professors for?

      • “One of many reasons I avoid BBC TV as much as possible these days”
        Doesn’t any sane person with IQ above 10 ?

  2. About 20,000 years ago where I am sitting now in Lincolnshire was at the edge of a massive wall of ice that covered the entire country north of here.
    Luckily the ice went and at the same time created the wonderful English channel. A genuine win-win situation
    Thank heavens for dramatic climate change.

    • “where I am sitting now in Lincolnshire was at the edge of a massive wall of ice”
      Yes, I have one of those sort of deep freezers.

    • Yes, but the glacial valleys didn’t reach us down here in the south of England, so therefore it can’t have really happened! 😛

  3. Ah well, at least – “the BBC insisted it had a duty to inform listeners about all sides of a debate.”
    So that will be it then for another 10yrs or so. Climate Change “debate” over and dusted. Now on with the next BBC documentary of how Earth is turning into a Venus, and where it has “a duty to inform listeners about all sides of a debate.” Elephant and flying comes to mind.

  4. As soon as this starts happening, as it has for years now, you know the issue is now political and not scientific as most consensus based arguments are.

  5. The people in the photograph waving placards demanding “Climate Justice” etc., might be willing to put up with reductions in their standard of living – if their demands are satisfied.

    I haven’t heard any of their “spokespersons” challenged about the economics of their position when climate change is discussed on the radio and television.

  6. Again, no byline for this nutty piece by a loon who would ignore Scientific evidence – or if that’s not good enough, the risks.
    Lawson’s ‘position’ is not even a position so much as a prejudice, and offers nothing.
    TCW would do well to read itself- in that it is not ‘the left’ (whatever that is?) but ‘prominent physicists’ who object.
    We have lost too much time to this lobby.

    • I hope you have taken to time to educate yourself on the other side of the argument. You should take the time to read Steve McIntyre and Judith Curry’s blogs at the very least.

        • There is a risk that you might get crushed by an enraged elephant rampaging down the high street tomorrow. Are you planning on spending any time and money on precautions to avoid this dreadful fate?

          • If there was a badly managed circus up the road then actually I might, but even this throwaway scenario is useful in that this in turn would only affect a small number of individuals whereas potentially everybody suffers in the scenario we discuss.

      • I understand the attraction in supporting the lone maverick against the ‘establishment’, but McIntyre is outside his field, climategate is exposed as fake news, and Mann has been vindicated, whereas Curry has been repeatedly debunked with her criticisms of the modelling and proxy data.
        I recommend you check out ‘skeptical science’ website.

    • I suppose that, strictly speaking, Brian Cox and Jim Al Khalili are “prominent physicists” although they are, of course, principally media personalities – that’s certainly what brings them to prominence. But being prominent doesn’t make them right.

    • Scientific evidence of what ?
      That climate continually changes : check

      That man may be a ‘significant’ contributer to climate change is unsubstantiated, but thought to be true by consensus of a group that is dependent on its living on it being true. Slight conflict of interest and hardly proof, nor evidence.

      But putting that all to one side. There is no evidence that if we stopped producing all green house gas that it would halt any warming that we are told is happening. Indeed we were told years ago that if the ppm hit a certain figure that it was irreversible-we already passed that number which guaranteed runaway climate disaster.

      Currently vast amounts of money have been wasted on windmills, solar panels and battery cars which is making the man in the street significantly poorer whilst lining the pockets of wealthy investors and land owners.

      Let me say, I’m all for cutting pollution in all its forms, but that’s not the case here. We are engaged in a war with a naturally occurring gas that makes up a significant percentage of our antmosphere and is the reason life exists in its present form. Carbon dioxide is the cost of survival of everything on this planet except rocks.

      The key issue with carbon evangelist is that anyone who questions what should be done if anything is labelled a heretic denier and attempts made to gag them by any means. This calls to mind fundamental religionists who put people to death for daring to question the rules.

        • There is risk in doing something as doing nothing. The point here is that individuals must make decisions about their futures and not institutions. That means giving people the choice by giving them all the facts and letting people decide for themselves.

          States are purveyors of violence by monopoly consent. They are therefore not ideally positioned to determine the outcome of events which do not represent a violent threat. Men can fight wars but not nature, they must obey nature in order to utilise nature and that is an individual choice not a collective.

          So, if you feel that you want to prevent carbon dioxide increase, then you are within your rights to do this on an individual basis and involve as many like minded people as you can. However, to force others to your ideology no matter how well meaning, is not something that a moral person would entertain.

          If I could get you to understand this principle of not using force in this way, no matter how righteous the cause, then you would be more effective at persuading individuals to quit their cars, reducing their energy use, or anything else you feel is important. That way you are acting peacefully and in harmony with life, rather than trying to beat everyone up with a big club because they don’t see what you see.

          • Desperate defence.
            There is such thing as society and Government does have a role.
            Are we big enough to co-operate?

          • In you’re estimation, what should that role be ? What is you’re definition of ‘society’ ?

            Not sure what you meant by your final question ? Cooperation is for mutual benefit, certainly, for millennia free men have done that; but not cooperation through coercive force, which is of course tyranny and slavery.

            The left used to be about freedom from big Government (the man), tyranny, big business corporatism and religion. It seems to me they now willingly embrace it.

            Have you read the book by the left wing revisionist Gabriel Kolko titled rail roads regulations and the triumph of conservatism ? Once upon a time, during the sixties, a few of the left started to wake up to the role they were unwittingly playing for the money men and corporate crooks.

            Consider people like David Cameron and of course Thatcher who supported the climate change movement started by Rothschild and his sidekick. Do you think these people have your best interests at heart ? These rich, powerful men care only about their grip on mankind through globalist conquest by any means possible. Look into it. Their opening speech where it was planned is public knowledge.

          • This is an issue that requires mature international cooperation to resolve – along with coordinated/targeted investment in the right kind of technology.
            I see much to suggest that’s far away.

      • “Currently vast amounts of money have been wasted on windmills, solar
        panels and battery cars which is making the man in the street
        significantly poorer whilst lining the pockets of wealthy investors and
        land owners”.

        Ah, but that’s apparently OK in the cause of saving the planet.Just as 20% VAT by the Tories is regressive, but wanting to increase “green taxes” on hard-working individuals and business is magically exempt.

        in other words, more leftist hypocrisy.

        • The left in the guise of environmentalists are used as the knife blade by more nefarious actors who couldn’t give a monkeys glands for environmentalism, they just want to get regulations and laws passed which get them rich by plucking the pockets of those who have no voice.

          If the left got this they would realise they are being used by corporate interests, wealthy investors, unscrupulous politicians and those that own vast amounts of land and property.

          There is a book by a left wing revisionist Gabriel Kolko titled Railroads, regulations and the Triumph of conservatism that leftists should read in order to understand their errors in regard to this kind of cronyism.

        • They will get cheaper and more efficient.
          With investment, new technology will develop.
          If you want to help the man in the street, thete’s way better ways.

  7. The establishment, the great and the unwashed youf, from luvvieshire to the great scientific Gods like O’breien and Coxy tell us “no doubt, the science is set and sealed!” reminds me of any or all religion!

    An argument as relentless as it is strident it goes, we must go green in order for us to save the planet at some future date and note well – the date is always far off into the future and also that you will have to make sacrifices – metaphorically or literally we’re never told. The likelihood is, electricity will become for the poor, only a rumour. Whereas the rich will have light and we will be made grateful.

    Contrast the diatribes, the froth and foaming against the ‘Leavers’ and the remoaniacs in their vehment procrastinations tell us and sundry that, “out of the EU you will eat dirt and have to repent, live in sackcloth and eat worms!” or something to that effect……

    So which is it, stay in the EU the land of plenty for some, and go green and back to the caves or LEAVE and independently go into: do it yourself caves?

      • The planet will save itself, or endure in one form or another; what they mean is ‘How can we save the planet for human use?’ It seems we have not yet learned that nature is patient up to a point with the recent arrival that is Mankind, then it has a habit of putting us in our place.

        • The planet is far larger than mankind and it always wins in the end. We pollute the planet, but the planet corrects our blunders. We have miniscule impact on the planet, who do we think we are? We are not God, we do not have those powers.

  8. The BBC must have thought that Al Gore lost the argument badly yesterday as the had “Mr 28 Gate” Roger Harrabin and some tame bod from the Met office on Toady this morning to confirm we are all doomed and renewables are great.
    As for Brian Cox, I once heard him say about AGW “the science is settled”. That’s alright then.

      • It’s his image and presentation arts (plus his right on opinions) that got Cox his job as a “resident scientist” at the BBC.

        • Quite. But how to explain Manchester University? And CERN?

          Even Homer nods, I suppose. He’s not the only second-rate celebrity prof at Manchester.

          Do I sound bitter? (Actually, I’m not. Annoyed, but not bitter.)

      • He failed A Level maths. The books upon which his name appears are all co – written. The co – writer writes the book and Cox is there to boost sales. Cox is a BBC invention.

        • Failed A-level maths, yet became a theoretical physicist with a chair at Manchester and something or other at CERN? You must be mistaken, surely?

      • Cox is right. He must be ‘coz he is officially Kool. He must be. He woz in a Popular Combo Band, or some such young persons entertainment as well as being a syentist, so there you are. What more proof could there possibly be. And he’s, like. on the BBC?! Innit!

    • Harrabin recently claimed the Beeb had inside knowledge of the “banning” of diesel cars in the future.
      If true, makes you wonder what else they’re keeping under their hats.

  9. Hadn’t we passed ‘the point of no return’ a couple of years ago. I seem to remember them giving is a line in the sand beyond which doom was inevitable.

  10. Fewer and fewer of us are now being fooled. Long ago my knowledge of physics and climatology made me doubt the accuracy of the data sets and the predictive value of these most shaky mathematical models cited in support of their claims. The atmosphere is incredibly, unbelievably complex and so I doubt whether with our present knowledge mathematical models can effectively mimic such systems, and then be used to make predictions about them.
    But hey who cares about proper, rigorous science when didn’t our very own Prince Charles announce that we only had a few months to save the world or some such claptrap ? As that was long ago, and clearly I am totally doomed, I think I’ll just have another drive in my loud and overpowered V8 followed by a beer !

  11. Prominent physicists who have embraced post normal alarmist science and eschewed honest empirical evidence in order to earn large wodges of cash from the BBC are an embarrassment.

    Cox has always been a dead loss when he strays away from his subject but the talented Al-Khalili pocketing the Alarmist Danegeld is a great disappointment. To see such an obviously intelligent individual compromise himself, assisting the Beeboids to poison the common sense well in this way bodes ill for the students he might teach and the audiences he broadcasts to.

  12. Whether man-made climate change is a thing we should be worried about or not, surely any intelligent people must understand that to get to the truth you need both sides of the argument presented.

    If the left are so convinced of their position then i do not understand why they feel so threatened by counter arguments.

    • You’ve just beautifully encapsulated what I have written in a long-winded manner – but it helped get it off my chest. I might add, it’s not just the ‘left’, the Tories in general (Lawson excepted) seem to be in thrall to it, too.

  13. Wouldn’t it be ironic if any of the folks in the picture holding the “Quit Dirty Coal” posters were present to see Jeremy strut his stuff at the recent Durham Miners’ Gala?

  14. I made up my own mind a long time ago; I believe the climate may well be changing, I have seen evidence of that in my 59 years, but I also see that it has become a political weapon with which to browbeat ‘us’.

    More taxes are not the solution, nor is deriding any doubt, nor is presentation of selective or manipulated facts to ‘win’ an argument – by either side. What I and others I speak to on this matter urgentl desire is a informed consensus on the facts, based on best evidence.

    If we are causing RAPID climate change and not just surfing on the coat tails of nature, then it is in all our interests to appreciate this and do something about it; if we are NOT having a marked effect on climate change then we need to acknowledge that, too, and stop this expensive and fruitless march towards ‘renewables’.

    I mean, in whose interest is it to lie about it? Well, it could be the government’s, seemingly in thrall to the green lobby, so they can tax and instigate change that will benefit, well, again, who? Their friends in the City? The wind turbine companies with their subsidies and guaranteed and expensive electricity, on whose boards they may eventually sit? The farmers who lease their land to such companies? The smug who are so convinced of their case for climate change they refuse to entertain any new evidence to the contrary? Of course, the same could apply to the other side, that abandoning ‘green’ solutions would free up investment for so-called ‘dirty’ energy, that more de-regulation could facilitate lax industry practices and cost-cutting to get profits up.

    Ultimately, my plea is for the TRUTH of the matter, not the truth as others wish to present it to suit their cause, but truth based on irrefutable and peer-reviewed evidence across the board, by both the ‘yeas’ and the ‘nays’ and my vote is there to be had, whichever side the coin genuinely falls on.

  15. Whenever this topic raises it’s head, I think back to the words spoken by the main ‘agent’ character, superbly played by Hugo Weaving, in one of the ‘Matrix’ films, along the lines of what a virus does to a healthy body, and equates it to that which man does to Earth. I reproduce it here for your opinion:

    Agent Smith: “I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we…are the cure”

    Perhaps the cure in real life will be the wrath of nature, or self-destruction caused by our folly.

  16. What annoys me most about these eco-Nazis is how ignorant they are about the very real problems the world faces – and no, it’s not global warming, which I believe is a perfectly natural cycle anyway.

    I watched the documentary Cowspiracy, and it made for very interesting viewing. The number one cause of environmental damage, above EVERYTHING – is factory farming. The more animals are raised for meat, the more trees are cut down for pasture, the more habitats destroyed etc. We feed these animals so much water and grain that could instead be going to humans, When the film maker tried approaching the big eco charities like Greenpeace to see why they weren’t talking about factory farming – it wasn’t mentioned on any of these charities’ websites – he hit a brick wall. No one wanted to talk about it. There’s too much money in the meat industry.

    The second problem is population, but no one ever talks about that either. Instead, they’d rather build wind farms and charge us more for ‘environmentally friendly’ products, when in reality, it won’t change a thing as long as animals are bred for meat and the population increases.

    These eco Nazi’s annoy the hell out of me.

  17. The GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation),which denies man-made climate change, has trustees who are mainly, possibly entirely, non-scientists. It is worth looking GWPF up in Wikipedia.

  18. I did think about complaining to the University of Manchester about Brian Cox and asking it to have its Head of Legal Services remind Cox of his obligations under the HRA in regard to the right to freedom of opinion and expression. However I decided it would probably be a waste of time.
    On an unrelated point I did complain on Strictly Come Dancing’s facebook page about the decision to include Richard Coles this year, stating that in my opinion the decision should be reversed as Coles is neither talented nor funny and the BBC’s overpromotion of him is a misuse of the licence fee. I was promptly accused of being a right-winger, asked if I was Catholic and told I was a horrible person. I did use the report facility for each of those responses but remain amazed by people’s assumption that they are allowed to be abusive in the face of an opinion.

    • We are not allowed opinions, we must all bow down to the Marxist orthodoxy now. Any who hold unapproved opinions must go to be brain washed.

  19. Brian Cox gives me the creeps. On his science programmes he always looks like he wants to slither into my living room from the TV screen and give me a kiss. He is also rather typical of the politicised “scientist” in that he regards truth as democratic i.e. truth is what the majority say, not what the evidence says. I guess the BBC will be more careful about staying in line next time – no more silly questions about the truth or taking a moment to consider an alternative viewpoint, just get on with the virtue-signalling.

Comments are closed.