Note the signature "Alamy" on the "blacked up" photo ..it's a bit Freudian with missing 'r'

To me it's a bit much to say "the BBC lies", but rather 95% of it's coverage fearures deception towards the alarmist perspective. With 2 classes.

1. Deception thru incompetance like being unbriefed e.g. on some news progs
2. Deception through eco-warrioring by staff ..the way some progs and BBC staff are 'owned' by Greenpeace

Skeptics don't bother to complain to @BBCr4Feedback
If 97% of complaints were sceptical, they still only air the 3%:from DramaGreens
-It seems the rule is more fool us for listening to BBC progs on climate and getting angry with bias cos half of BBC progs just Green loony progs made by eco-warriors.
- It's not the accidental deception tha-t you get in news progs from presenters being inadequate and underbriefed, and thus letting activists like Bob Ward walk all over them, but actual deliberate malicious deception.
- I just noticed I hadn't listened to the week before last's edition of Feedback then I realised their item on climate was so outrageous eco-warrior biased I had switched it off in disgust. That was the week where I had occasion to tweet them about 6 significant errors like the 6m sea level rise. they used the excuse of Andrew Miller, (chairman of the science and technology select committee) False Balance 'report' (press release really) to play 3 activists speaking.

12min45-14min45 "The debate isn't happening any more.. putting up climate deniers ... in one of the most important debates we need to have during this generation

..yes he does contradict himself right there ! debate-over/deate-we'need-to-have
- Then weak BBC spokesman, then activist again to have the last word.
- I suspect that BBC News have realised that the Eco-warriors control the agenda mostly on the BBC so are ignoring Steve Jones "no skeptics rule", just as he ignores the data and the scientist who did his research on BBC Climate coverage anyway.

last week BBBC Blog detailed 3 occassions of BBC Eco-warrioring

and another good article The New McCarthyism…’on behalf of the listeners’?

Well maybe I am the only skeptic complainer ?
Well maybe Feedback is right and it's getting 1000s of complaints from alarmists organised thru Transitions-network, though strangely as I detailed before none of the anti-false bias petitions have made 1000 signatures yet.
- and I just found another blogger complaining about Feedback's bias
BBC Feedback climate bias March 2014
- BBC Feedback climate bias February 2014

.. The thing is now for skeptics should we continue to ask them to stop ?
....cos they've been so over the top most of the public say "you can't trust the BBC on Climate" and for those that do it's easy to dig up an example to make them think..

corrected links : biasedbbc.org/blog/2014/04/11/the-bbcs-dualist-approach-to-news/
- the-new-mccarthyism-on-behalf-of-the-listeners/
- the February one was about BBCr4Feedback climate bias ..the other March one was just general

On BBBC I note a great interpretation by a commenter of why the BBCr4Feedback process is so outrageously biased

"Must be nice to control the pre-pro, host, guests, questions, edit and, of course, the complaints process meant to cover them if they err.
Given a fact that doesn’t suit, it is little wonder they wandered off to locate some nice waffle to support their supposed balance dilemma.".

Over on unthreaded Apr 30, 2014 at 10:57 AM | Unregistered Commenter geronimo referenced
A BBC online news Business article Fossil fuel subsidies growing despite concerns By Richard Anderson 29 April 2014

Can someone help me, I've just read this bbc article on energy subsidies globally it claims that more subsidies go to fossil fuels than renewables. There seems to be a number of problems with it to me, even if it did come from the IMF

1. It seems to have lumped together all the fossil fuels and compared them with all the renewables and not taken into account the fact that there are 4 times as many fossil fuels as renewables;
2. They assume a reduction in VAT is a subsidy, it's a fine point but to me a subsidy is actually giving money;
3. In any event all sources of electricity and gas will draw the same subsidy;
4. I would have expected the subsidy to measured against a unit of energy i.e. $/kwh;
5. They have also mixed up the fossil fuel subsidies and included petrol for transport and compared it to renewables.
In other words a bit of a pig's ear. Am I missing something.

Apr 30, 2014 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered Commenter sandyS replied

Geronimo,
As you say difficult see this as a rant against fossil fuel using precious little evidence and hoping that the majority of readers don't question anything
"For example, as Laszlo Varro at the IEA explains, a $100bn investment in electricity infrastructure at a 2% rate of return, where the cost of capital on the open market would be 8%, represents a $6bn subsidy."

No information on what part of the infrastructure he is talking about, nor a mention of a governments duty of care to the people.

My opinion is "is the pope a catholic ?"
1. Perspective : It's not like it's a big programme forced in your face ..rather it's BBC online and wasn't linked from the front page ..so it hardly influences the public, perhaps it was even produced deliberately so green activists could link to it, or cite it in Wikipedia to give the twisted dogma credibility.
(As I understand it : one time in an IEA report some bod somehow got in a twisted report that fossil fuels gets larger subsiides that renewables, and that 1, ONE time has been cited to death ever since as a credible source)

2. Yes it's a puff piece consistant with someone trying to push a dogma that "renewables aren't so bad fossil fuels take a subsidy" and no where near a truthful perpective that if it wan't for renewable subsidies UK energy would be much cheaper
..whether is was maliciously planted or naive copying and pasting from a Greenpeace like document I don't know.
What we do is that although some BBC staff have integritiy ..there are many who like the entire Guardian newstaff - Eco'-warriors who have decided that deception is OK cos the Eco-cause is so important ..and Richard Anderson seems to have produced many such articles (this new article is basically a rehash of his old stuff)
- there is no point in complaining . the BBC takes are money, makes deceptive info ,and spits in your facewif you try to complain.
-.. such outrageous bias now plays in skeptics favour as it provides clear evidence of : "You can't trust the BBC on Climate" and makes them look like a bunch of green loonies

May 1, 2014 at 8:56 PM | Unregistered Commenter Jeremy Poynton

I listened to "Inside Science" on R4 this afternoon (against my better judgement); to be informed that all scientists agree that "climate change" is happening. If I could be bother to complain, I would, but I am still waiting, nearly three months after I wrote to the BBC complaints department, for an explanation of WHY the BBC made no mention of EU Wetlands directives in their reporting of the flooding across the county in the Levels.

Yes that issue presented Eco-warrior Adam Rutherford had serious credibility issues ...a far bigger offence that J Clarkson

- That prog is a pale shadow of the brilliant Material Worold it replaced
but we heard AR say "The public have voted for Inside Science best new show in the VLV awards"

-The BBC describe VLV as a "respected pressure group" : from Wikipedia
what, 1,500 people who pay £30 per year constitutes the public ?
- looks like an orchestrated campaign by 'friends'
- suspicious as tweets about VLV only mention these 2 progs and not others

I note another anti-green fantasy campaigner wrote an article criticising the basic physics of his BBC prog ”Order and Disorder & Energy” accusing it as just being a vehicle for pushing the "renewables are magic" fantasy
"celebrity like Jim Al-Khalili http://goo.gl/qU8eLN or Mr Rob Llewellyn is corrupted science where energy ends up to be a renewable thing"

I note the Bish complained about R4 Costing the Earth, but not every BBC presenter is an Eco-warrior
Stephen Sackur does challenge, although he is not very well briefed* and could make a much better job of it..I suppose it's a start.
2 weeks ago Jeremy Rifkin - Economist, push his eco-utopian dream of the end of capitalism thru
Collaborative Commons internet sharing, he expected a free ride.
Sackur quickly pointed out that far from killing capitalism the internet is dominated by new super-large corporations.
* eg. JR said "CouchSurfing is totally non-profit" .. actually it failed as a non-profit and became a for profit to raise funds.
* claimed renewables are free, and fossil fuels aren't .. but they are free aswell it's just they are taxed
* He claims credit for Germany's 25% to 35% green energy, then twisted argument to blame fossil fuel corps for price rises due to FITs.
* complete twisted eco-nutcase

- Last week it was Malcolm Turnbull - Minister for Communications, in Australia
again massively challenged him, but ridiculously "your government is letting the world down by stopping the carbon tax."
.. to which my answer is "twit, the whole reason the Liberal government got elected cos the had a mandate to repeal it, whereas the last Labour government didn't have one, but rather lied to the electorate and introduced the tax"
so did challenge both left/right but still well to left.

There was another set of ridiculous lines "Australia is the dirtiest polluter in the world" (he means CO2)
- "Tony Abbot called Climate Change .. A word so strong I can't use it on the BBC .,begins in C ends with P", rubbish 'crap' is not a stronger word than the 'denier' word thst the BBC eco-warriors regularly use on air.

.. sorry I'm late 2 weeks of thinking about BBB R4 Inside Science
Hey Adam Rutherford keep you Green Religion out of the science progs
"We all know that the threat of climate change caused as ALL SCIENTISTS agree by the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which comes primarily the burning of fossil fuels, but burning is a chemical reaction so is it possible to reverse that reaction"
... That's a very contrived phrase full of carefully chosen spin words like 'threat' aimed at helping evangelise his green religion..
There is a whole chain of unproven claims there, certainly thousands of scientists would disagree saying yes "fossil fuels" have increased CO2 in the atmosphere, but that doesn't prove climate is changing more than naturally or that manmade CO2 is the main driver of changes. Others would also argue about changes being detrimental.
- He can't point to any proper evidence that even a "majority of scientists" agree with his statement, let alone all, and shows he doesn't jnow the difference between opinion and Proper Validated Science.
- What he could have said to remain truthful is "almost all main western world science institutions concerned with climate change have said their opinion is climate is changing DANGEROUSLY beyond the natural variation, caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which comes primarily the burning of fossil fuels".. The fact that he rather went for the emphatic but clearly untrue "ALL SCIENTISTS agree" shows me that as a BBC presenter he is pushing a religious opinion.

@Michael Hart , OK worth logging, but as I said enviro pages are just read by the faithful, it's the relentess propaganda in shows thats most damaging as it shifts the public perception of reality.

Marcuus Brigstocke hyprocricy ? "Sophie Brigstocke found out her husband of 12 years was cheating a month after he wrote a gushing first-person piece in a national newspaper, enthusiastically describing his family life.

He said: ‘My most precious weekends are those spent at my home in Wandsworth, South London... hanging out with my wife Sophie and our children’

The comedy star has now moved out of their £1.9 million home and is living in a flat two miles away.
Yesterday the comedian, 39, was skiing in Austria with his girlfriend"
- £1.9m flat, 2 families, skiing holidays ..oh that's all low carbon then #GreenGoByAir

The irony is he previosly wrote sharp pieces against religious dogma, and then himself became fully indoctrinated into Green Religion and constantly shoves it down everyones elses throat. - "Osbourne's cuts are the reason why the average man is £2000/yr poorer" ..Marcus I think a large chunk is in the pockets of your Renewunable SubsidyMafia mates and more of it lost due to the way Davey makes energy run so inefficiently. Green Subsidies are not sustainable so why do they exist ?

@michael hart Yes, into the echo-chamber of their green Fantasy universe normally, but keep an eye out some mad stuff gets into Wikipedia, on the justification that they can cite a Guardian article, and probably sometimes that ruse could be used with these stupid BBC articles.

Remember 'peak phosphorus' turned out to be a myth based on 'reserves' in the mining industry not meaning what journos thought it meant. They thought reserves meant 'all available,
Whereas it just meant all that was ready to be taken out right now. Other words were used for known deposits, guesses of deposits in areas they hadn't yet checked, neither of which meant 'totally existing anywhere' .. That Confusion is convenient for hedge fund sellers etc.

I never looked that page before ...jeez what tosh ..France will run out of coal within a year ..come on

- Basically cos it confirms Harrabin's existing Green Dogma it's been cut and pasted ..from the "Global Sustainability Institute" report out of the former Anglia Polytechnic
note the photoshopped dark sky supposed to brainwash you that CO2 is dirty.

BBC Eco-warriors seem to have infiltrated progs to use them as a vehicle to push the green agenda. They killed off all the real science progs like HomePlanet and MaterialWorld
Science In Action's items this week
... Are these science news ?
1. "Brazil is the global leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions"
Brazil has been so sucessful in stopping the increase in deforestation that saved forest accounts for 2% of all CO2 saved.
Wow amazing they say .. and I say Brazil is 3% if the worlds population ! so that is an under performance)
2. Fl-eco (football eco) Can the mascot for the World Cup football tournament in Brazil be saved from extinction? this armadillo is pest which tastes good, so farmers kill it.
3. A new type of fuel plant which will turn household waste into jet fuel is being built.
(pure eco wash ..it will only account for 1% of BA's fuel, not much of world total & it is done by blasting rubbish with plasma consuming 13,000 homes worth of electricity) .. and rubbish is already routinely turned into fuel economically. (bigger source than wind or solar)
4. 19 year old Brittany Wenger develops a cancer test (a tabloid fantasy story which probably does not bear close analysis) debunk
- ( Well The last prodigy I heard hyped it turned out the work was done by a university dept not the teenager herself and the prize giver Intel desperately wanted a young female winner to show it supports women in science.)

The Radio4 prog Inside Science usually is us the same stories.