Bishop Hill Has the BBC banned all non-alarmist views?
Oct 12, 2015 BBC Climate: Sceptics 
Peter Lilley has just issued the following press release.
BBC PUTS IMPARTIALITY AT RISK BY ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR AND DISCREDIT MPs
The BBC is undermining its reputation for impartiality by apologising for “giving a voice” to two MPs and by putting a ‘health warning’ on the BBC website casting doubt on their credibility – even though the accuracy of what they said is not disputed: says Peter Lilley MP in a letter to the Director General.
He added: “It is particularly outrageous that the BBC should try to discredit the only two scientifically qualified MPs who served on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee; absurd to suggest my views are “outside the scientific consensus” when I said on the programme that I accept the proven science of global warming though my views on the likely amount of warming are at the “lukewarm” end of the range given by the IPCC; thoroughly unscientific to claim the Met Office views are upheld by scientists when, on the matter under discussion, their predictions had been falsified; and discourteous to publish these insulting and untrue remarks without even informing me.”
The letter in full:
Dear Lord Hall,
I would be grateful for the opportunity to come and discuss with you the following issue which calls into question the impartiality of the BBC.
The BBC has published an apology relating to the programme What’s the Point of the Met Office for “giving voice to climate sceptics” and because it “failed to make clear that they are a minority, out of step with the scientific consensus”. I has also posted a note on its website to similar effect specifically referring to “comments by MPs” making it clear that it refers to me (and also Graham Stringer) and casting doubts on our credibility.
It is particularly ludicrous that the BBC should behave in this heavy handed way about a light hearted programme in a series poking fun at everything form the Methodist Church to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. It should have told critics to get a sense of humour – not insulted participants in that show and put the BBC’s impartiality at risk.
The apology and the note are offensive, inaccurate and based on a false premise. It is sad and in conflict with its own Charter that the BBC has again bowed to attempts by environmental campaigners to censor any views less strident than their own.
Any one reading these apologies will assume:
a) That something I said was factually untrue. In fact my remarks were demonstrably true and not even the Met Office have challenged a word I said. (The Met Office did publish in 2004 with much fanfare a forecast that the world would warm by 0.3oC by 2014 whereas there was no statistically significant increase in temperature over that period.)
b) Or that, although what I said was accurate on this occasion, I am not to be trusted in general. That is an outrageous and possibly libellous slur.
c) And that I will probably not be “given voice” on the BBC in future on matters relating to energy and climate change (despite my service on the Select Committees on Energy and Climate Change and on Environmental Audit) and if I am – and even if what I say is factually correct - it will always be accompanied by a health warning to listeners casting doubt on its accuracy and my credibility.
The BBC justifies this extraordinary approach by asserting that mine is a “minority voice, out of line with the scientific consensus”. The notion that scientific truth is established by a show of hands is itself absurd[1]. But it is not true that I reject the consensus as I made clear in the programme when Mr Letts specifically asked me about this:
Quentin Letts: Are you a total sceptic, on man-made climate change?
Peter Lilley: No, I studied physics at Cambridge, so I accept the basic thesis that … a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, will marginally warm up the Earth. But I'm what's known as a "lukewarmist", one who thinks that there won't be much warming as a result of it, and that's the scientifically proven bit of the theory - anything going on the alarmist scale is pure speculation.There is no scientific consensus about the climate sensitivity - how much warming will follow from a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The IPCC shows a wide range of estimates and in its last report for the first time was unable even to agree on a best estimate. My ‘lukewarmist’ estimate falls within the range they show.
What is the minimum estimate of the climate sensitivity in which it is necessary to believe for the BBC to define someone as part of the “scientific consensus”, and to be allowed a voice on the airways without a demeaning health-warning? Is there a maximum estimate beyond which a similar health warning will be given? Or does the BBC take the view that no one can be too alarmist even if they are outside the “scientific consensus” or the range spelt out by the IPCC?
Is the BBC now saying that anyone who takes a less than alarmist view of the likely rate of global warming is outside the scientific consensus and must be publicly labelled as unreliable or excluded from the airwaves?
On what evidence does the BBC base its claim about the existence of a scientific consensus? The only detailed and credible study of the views of climate scientists that I know of is that published by Bray and von Storch[2]. It shows that there is no consensus on many key aspects of climate science. Their Figure below shows that if anyone is outside the consensus it is the Met Office which claimed that it could forecast a decade ahead but – as I reported in the programme – was falsified by the resultant observations.
I am personally less concerned about the harm to my reputation from the BBC’s decision to cast doubt on my credibility than about the serious damage this will inflict on the BBC’s own reputation for impartiality and veracity. As someone brought up in a BBC household I have a considerable affection for the institution. I hope you will try to restore the Corporation’s credibility by repudiating this unwarranted apology, taking down the insulting note from the website and giving me the assurance that I will neither be excluded from the airwaves nor subject to demeaning and unjustified slurs on my credibility should my views ever be reported by the BBC.
But we can discuss the best way to set matters right when we meet.
Yours sincerely
Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP
[1] To paraphrase Prof Feynman, the scientific method is to compare predictions, based on a theory, with observations (e.g comparing Met Office’s predictions with observations): “If they disagree … the theory is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your theory is, who made the theory – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.” That does not mean the basic physics of global warming is wrong but their model clearly does need revising. The statement on the BBC website that “We would like to clarify that the Met Office's underlying views on climate change are supported by the scientific consensus” does not apply to the matter in contention between us. Any practising scientist will agree that their underlying views on the balance between global warming and natural factors was shown to be false.
[2] Climate Science and the Transfer of Knowledge to Public and Political Realms by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch A survey of the views of over 400 practising climate scientists in USA, Canada and Germany.
I can't say I agree with Lilley that the BBC's impartiality is "at risk". The BBC hasn't been impartial on climate change since the day that Lord Hall - or plain Tony Hall as he was then - got Roger Harrabin to set up the Cambridge Media and Environment seminars, a course of action that ultimately led to the 28gate scandal.
Reader Comments (61)
Here's hoping that Graham Stringer and Quentin Letts will also send complaints.
Bish "I can't say I agree with Lilley that the BBC's impartiality is "at risk". "
LOL, that's exactly what I thought. Although I assumed it was the equivalent of offering a tissue to someone you've punched in the nose. The Beeb will try to ignore this but it knows that not only do the Conservatives have the BBC fate in their hands but it looks like they may be in charge at the next review too. One of the things the government plan to do is reduce the review period down to 5 years instead of 10.
"As someone brought up in a BBC household I have a considerable affection for the institution".
I don't and never will have..and the rest of them really.
I really do think the BBC has become all too powerful for its own good, & it needs a jolly good shot across the bows, if not a direct it on them, just to rein them in, perhaps enabling them to return to its state on neutrality asap!
I heard the grovelling apology for the Quentin Letts thing from the BBC on the Feedback programme last night on Radio 4, not surprised that Lilley is pushing back, the editors folded like a pack of cards.
Owen Patterson did pretty well on the Daily Politics today, but how shocking that the BBC gave a platform to ... his Green opponent, a True Believer in wind power, backed up with battery technology, i.e. a True Believer in the tooth fairy.
Truly pathetic stuff from the Beeb. Hope Quentin Letts em have it later this week in the mail.
What reputation for impartiality and veracity?
The BBC has plummeted from barely adequate reportage to wholesale partisanship on a raft of issues with trivia, 'sleb bilge and assorted contrived moral panics jammed in the cracks - delivered by half wits...
What a farce
There is something very corrosive about the BBC's conduct.
Who's going to write a play on the global warming fraud or rape by economic migrants if they know it won't get comissioned.
One can only listen to a cross section of programmes both on main stream television and children's tv to see this effect in action. The clones clone themselves?
I am glad Lilley has reacted so strongly and have no doubt that he is looking forward to his encounter with Lord Hall ^.^
You can't reason with stupid people, the bbc scrapes the dregs and mythologizes, nurtures the idiocies of Frankfurt school dogmas.
Here in Blighty, the cult of stupid and ignorance reigns supreme, and to such an extent where a minor celebrity can gain enormous kudos just by mouthing a meme even though it is arrant nonsense [Syria] or, "let em all in - unasked and through your taxes you will be made to afford it" Cultural Marxist ideology, ask Charlotte Church or Caroline Lucas.
Within, the walls of the al-Beeb, across the breadth, in all of its ill educated jejune, bottom feeding libtards - the whole organization: there isn't an objective opinion to be had nor found. To a man and dog of them, they all live, eat, breath and excrete Gruaniad opinions and [the beeb] is a place where the opinions of, the likes of Marcus Brigstocke, Chris Packham et al and Russell Brand are somehow made out to be spieling ex cathedra, hinting........ "sit in silence: listen to the masters!"
Hells teeth, it's a rocky road that Lilley takes and like trying to explain the path to greater enlightenment and intellectual advancement depends on reading and interpreting more than just one book, to fundamentalists heralding from the middle east. Or how about, visiting and extolling low taxes, the benefits of small government and laissez faire economics to the zealots who worship at the feet of Jeremy Corbyn.
No matter, how hard Peter Lilley pounds, there is no knocking hard enough that could - will, waken those who refuse to allow themselves to hearken, thus Lilley attempts to sow seeds on barren ground he should save his breath.
Addiction to the concept of CO2 being harmful, could prove fatal for the BBC.
Hopefully others will learn from the errors of Fatal Addiction, and not succumb in a similar manner.
Athelstan - top rant!
Re-tasking a quote from elsewhere :
The BBC isn't about British programming it's about programming the British.
- as 28gate showed - these arrogant protected creepy gits need de-funding as a matter of some priority.
If Lord Hall is capable of understanding the letter then he should already understand the culture that caused it to be written. He will, of course, be familiar with the posted apology to which Lilley refers but if not, who is running the BBC and how much is Hall trousering while pretending that he is?
It's good to see Peter Lilley getting stuck in, though I wasn't always an admirer in the past. Times and arenas change.
Unfortunately, with the electorate having voted for the 'wrong' party, the BBC will probably just say something like "It's not the BBC's remit to kowtow to the government of the day. Look, those nasty Conservatives are bullying us again."
Many of the BBC executives high on the global warming hog simply won't understand his points because they didn't study science and will not believe anything that Peter Lilley says.
He's gonna need a longer list.
There's another study well worth reading: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
Lilley-livered BBC.
This is a good choice of programme to make a stand on because it was not one sided. The Met Office were given plenty of air time to put their side. The BBC's reaction displays graphically how fanatical they have become.
BBC climate spokesperson: https://youtu.be/iXaHRcF3X6I
'The BBC is undermining its reputation for impartiality'
Erm, what reputation for impartiality?
For many years now the BBC has acted as the Pravda or Daily Worker of the Ecoleft and the politically correct multiculturalists in general. The only reason to listen to or watch their news programs is check and see what the party line of the day is.
With regard to climate ,it would then be safe to assume that reality is 180 degrees out of phase with the distorted nonsense which is all they now allow to be broadcast.
One wonders why a Conservative government continues to allow this propagandist organization to feed at the public trough and distort the knowledge base for intelligent and informed discussion of public policy.
@Ian e
...'The BBC is undermining its reputation for impartiality'
Erm, what reputation for impartiality?...
I always thought that the BBC had more than a 'reputation' - it had a legal requirement for impartiality...
The BBC is in mindless thrall to a left/green 'narrative' about climate, and cannot thole anyone taking the piss out of it, nor out of any to the CO2 Cult's temples such as the Met Office. Their prissy responses to one 'elevated complaint', and another presumably ordinary one (both reproduced here Andy Smedley's twitters' are but reflections of their shuddering at such impertinence against the establishment.
Peter Lilley's letter on the other hand is powerful stuff, and demonstrates the integrity and substance of his position, and his contribution to the programme. Quite a contrast to the pusillanimous apologies of Auntie's little helpers who will surely realise they are out of their depth here, and will sidestep the challenges he has laid down for them.
Oct 12, 2015 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr Norman Page
Given Cameron's record in turning a blind eye to (notionally) Conservative members of HoC and HoL having their personal noses in the trough of eco-money while serving on influential committees, together with Cameron scarcely qualifying as a Conservative (& not forgetting the business interests of his father-in-law), it doesn't surprise me in the least if his government is limp-wristed towards the BBC on this issue.
Here's a transcript of BBC Radio 4's Feedback, broadcast on 9th and 11th Oct (h/t Mikky):
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2015/20151009_fb
the BBC has never been impartial at anything, it is the archetypical cesspool filled with lefties vegetating off our backs, providing not only outdated nonsense services but peddling a very harmful agenda all of the time.
the BBC should be closed down and all of them prosecuted for their thieved keep.
they are thieves with a sick need to impose thought control on the population, andchange the world to fit their theories.
dave would make work of it, but is busy falling for the promise they will give him a free pass if he is nice to them. and dave is foremost for dave, not for us.
sure sure: many people "like" the bbc.
many people liked pol pot AND MAO as well, including the entire workforce at he BBC
It is unfortunate that the people who actually work in the BBC, are being betrayed by their champagne socialist leadership.
It will prove an interesting point for the obituary writers employed by the BBC, when they write the obituary of the BBC.
Time to clean up. Slash the funding for BBC by 75%.
Peter Lilley:
As a physicist, Peter Lilley should take a bit of time off and thiink about what he has said. Does he really think that? He should know that the atmosphere is responsible for cooling the Earth's surface. He should know that certain gases radiate energy in the atmosphere out to space and are thus responsible for cooling the atmosphere. He should know that those gases are not warming anything. It's time physicists actually thought about it and condemned the whole nonsense about greenhouse gases "trapping heat" and "warming up the Earth".Close it down.
The MET Office's Vicky spouting the 3C temp rise by 2014 nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZKD7k7BeBw
[Correction : 0.3C temp rise, see below. BH]
I assume the apology was issued by some low-grade seat-warmer who didn't understand any of the issues, other than his/her job security. If Lord Hall has any sense, he will issue a grovelling apology for the grovelling apology. At least that will only make the BBC look ridiculous, as distinct from borderline criminal.
EDIT. Should have said 0.3C rise predicted not 3C.
Lord Hall has found himself in a rather tricky situation and those who are responsible for him being there seriously should pay heed.
When the Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP has personally written to you and suggests that 'we can discuss the best way to set matters right when we meet.' then you had better start packing telephone books down the back of your trousers.
This is on a par with the Head Master requesting your presence to discuss your indiscretion. No matter how politely it is put you know that the cane is going to make an appearance.
If Lord Hall believes himself or his organisation to be above retribution then both could be in for a very public rude awakening.... and not before time.
"It's time physicists actually thought about it and condemned the whole nonsense about greenhouse gases "trapping heat" and "warming up the Earth"."
And they could say the same about blankets...
Following BBC directives to its employees, the BBC staff consensus is that they had better believe in global warming, or else.
BBC Staff surveys have revealed 100% satisfaction with the results of staff opinion surveys. Stalin would be impressed.
Peter Lilley might point out Emma Thompson (representing Greenpeace) ,
going unchallenged on Newsnight - 4C by 2040!!
and great swathes of the earth uninhabitable in a few years..
and Newsnight IS a serious News program - not a comedy
which most climate scientist thought ludicrous.. on twitter
oddly none of them seemed bothered enough to formerly complain to the BBC.. (or maybe they have?)
Regardng the physics. Don't let anyone kid you it is basic science.
It is often said that the science behind CO2 enhanced global warming is simple and settled. However, calculating the top of the atmosphere ‘radiative forcing’ of CO2 is really not that straightforward at all. First you need to assume an initial temperature profile in the atmosphere and then calculate the net upward transfer of IR photons to space from the surface. This procedure is called line-by line radiative transfer. The term ‘line’ refers to hundreds of quantum energy transition levels for vibration and rotation states of CO2 molecules.
CO2 absorbs and emits photons mainly in the 15 micron band. Chemists have measured the absorption coefficients (cross-sections) for each of the individual lines, and these are available in the Hitran database. One must assume a standard atmospheric temperature and density profile and then then loop over all lines to calculate the net outgoing radiation flux from the top of the atmosphere. Then you repeat the calculation many times for small increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. The radiative forcing DS is then equal to the reduction in outgoing IR for a given CO2 concentration. This energy imbalance is the difference between the incoming solar radiation and outgoing IR radiation. This imbalance is assumed to be offset mainly by the surface warming up a little (DT) so as to increase IR flux to compensate. So it is really the sun that causes global warming not CO2 at all. All that increasing CO2 does is to adjust the radiative profile with altitude.
Once you have done all that, then you find that there is an approximately logarithmic fall-off of forcing DS with CO2 concentrations. The main reason for this is that most of the strongest lines are already saturated up to the tropopause where any increased concentration (height) makes no change to the outgoing flux because temperature remains constant with height. In fact the central line is saturated so far up into the stratosphere that it actually cools the planet with increasing concentrations because temperatures rise higher in the stratosphere.
I suspect that Peter Lilley and others - like Lord Lawson, know very well that the warming effect of CO2 is strongly logarithmic and not dangerous, but he doesn't want to say that openly because it will only cause more trouble. The behaviour of the BBC is shocking, and I hope that they will lose the license fee altogether. Send them out into the real world to earn their living. They have become arrogant aristocrats living on the taxpayer.
Two little words will ensure a meeting takes place:-
Mr Lilley has a point – why do the BBC feel that they have to have the following in their precis?
There is no similar disclaimer on the other subjects; why on this one?It is interesting that there is no complaint about those who do not challenge the AGW theory, such as John Kettley, who waxes sycophantically about the “fantastic computer power to predict for the next century or two…” Say what?! Why do we feel it necessary to predict 2 centuries hence? More to the point, how will they verify their predictions? Who should be sued should they prove to be wrong?
As for the programme itself, it gave as much voice to the believers as to the sceptics, with Mr Letts putting in caveats galore to cover himself against the prowling Wards that surround climate “science”.
It hope the reply from the Director General of the BBC is published so we can see what excuses he comes up with. Mind you, if the Director General is looking for an excuse he could say that the BBC has to obey the law and, if certain government lawyers have their way, dissenting views on climate could become illegal!
Radical Rodent, if the BBC are relying on Met Office advice about global warming, then that can not be grounds for disagreement between the Met Office and BBC. This may be news to some in the Met Office, but they are not allowed to speak out.
Will the BBC's new appointed weather forecaster be told by the BBC what it's view on global warming is? Or is that part of Roger Harrabin's job description?
One way or another, the BBC's apology, for something it did well, is going to make them very sorry.
@Ted Oct 12, 2015 at 6:57 PM
Vicky said 0.3C not 3C. Misquoting undermines the credibility of those who believe mankind and other lifeforms will adapt and continue to flourish if C02 levels and temperatures rise.
Bishop, please delete or add an error message to Ted's post.
[Done. BH]
@Pcar Yes an moderators note would be good. 30 mins later @Ted did post a correction 2 posts down, but he caught me.
The interesting text is got by clicking the SHOW MORE button
"Dr.Vicky Pope was and is still (somehow) head of the climate predictions programme at the Hadley Centre.
Here are her predictions, made in 2007."
"2004 - 2014 prediction +0.3c. Reality; +0.04c. (750% exaggerated warming)"
"Why wasn't this woman SACKED?? The UK government are setting policy on this so-called 'quality science'; and its costing YOU plenty."
Is there anyone here who does not think that the Harra and the BBC enviroment teams work is carefully constructed propaganda ?
- They seem to have a habit of constructing one sided narratives which are then reposted by alarmist sites cos they have the BBC stamp on them. But of course when it emerges that factual errors in the stories, and even Harra makes a correction, those alarmist sites don't bother correcting the record.
This disinformation is not an isolated thing many people inside the BBC like complaints dept and the management above the enviro team must know, that almost every story breaks the BBC Charter, so that makes them complicit.
It is not that the BBC Charter is a failure, it is that the BBC management are failing to enforce it and . So they are letting down the public, the honest staff and breaking the law.
I quote the BBC Information Policy & Compliance's PDF response to a FOI request
BTW Some interesting lines from THe BBC Editorial Guidelines on ImpartialityNot sure why you're trying to derail this topic with this link? Whilst the authors acknowledge that the debate isn't binary (scientific 'fact' versus 'fiction'), they still regard the IPCC 'consensus' as a given. They regard disagreement with this 'consensus' as a barrier that must be overcome on the road to 'global policies'.
Their pretence is that differing 'frames' of dissent must be understood, but only in order to nullify them. They are patronising, ill-informed and complacent in their assumption that such 'frames' are necessarily wrong. They note the drop in the number of academic papers endorsing 'anthropogenic climate change' and a rise in papers openly disputing it, but (of course) they attribute the latter to 'increased funding of sceptics by fossil fuel industries, conservative foundations and think tanks.'
In other words, more 'peer reviewed' discussion of nonsense.
Mark Steyns latest book should have stopped the line about 'scientific consensus', Senator Rubio demonstrated the danger of pushing this argument.
When I wrap myself in a blanket the blanket does not warm me - in fact I warm the blanket. However, the new composite object that is me-wrapped-in-blanket does not lose heat as readily as me unwrapped. Therefore my skin temperature rises.
As someone with a degree based on the Natural Sciences, I agree with all the above serious comments. The BBC, by boycotting Peter Lilley and others but still giving air time to that "expert" analyst Roger Harrabin, gives a clear demonstration of its partiality in the climate debate. An egregious example of which was seen on BBC 1 o'clock News on 8th October recently. RH's piece was about the bleaching and dying of coral reefs caused by "unprecedented" warming of the oceans and sea water acidification, due of course to mans' CO2 emissions. It was liberally illustrated with pictures but with no counter analysis. These pieces are usually repeated in subsequent bulletins but strangely this one was not. Whatever happened?
Is it too much to ask that RH educates himself in basic science and maybe start by reading Dr. Tim Ball's book "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science"?