I've just dropped in at this point, so apologies if these comments have already been made by others.

The BBC has a very strong, left wing, liberal culture. Unquestionable support of climate change alarmism goes with that ideology. You can regard it a middle class green socialism. The IPCC mission as part of the UN is to redistribute wealth as a sort of climate change compensation, paid for by the developed countries. All of this is now part of the global movement where the poor countries demand their money as a right.

The Guardian is a major source of climate alarmist journalism and it has a whole team of contributors from the misleadingly named sceptical science website and the like. The BBC editors and journalists use the Guardian as their bible, compass and policy guide.

To understand the BBC, it is necessary to be able to identify and recognise its tactics. The BBC has a mission. it has agendas, and it aims to shape public opinion in favour of its causes. Here are some of the well used tactics.

Shape by interview. - This is simple. The BBC interviews a number of people who have known views that it wants to broadcast. It then selects, edits and compiles a piece that gives exactly the message they want to broadcast. It becomes a piece on their Today programme.

Shape by report - This involves interviews, but it is broader because it will involve recorded pieces by victims of eg floods, emergency services and a whole host of people saying the right things. It will involve non-professionals making all sorts of outrageous claims about unprecedented events.

Manufacture the news - This is easier to illustrate in a Brexit example. Get a politician such as Mandelson and ask him about Brexit and lead him to talk about the point you want to make. He will supply all the material needed. Run the piece in the Today programme then edit and report as headline news in every bulletin throughout the day.

Campaign. - I first noticed this when UKIP won the European parliamentary elections in the UK. The press decided that this was all about reducing immigration and for a while, immigration was a huge problem. Cue a BBC Pro-immigration campaign. It was obvious that the BBC was throwing everything at this campaign. We had sob stories from migrants coming here, praise of their hard working, grateful anecdotes, reports of how the economy needs them, grateful employers, hate stories about anti-immigration, the BBC covered the whole spectrum from a pro- immigration standpoint in a relentless blanket coverage that lased weeks. It involved all the other tactics listed above.

Biased papers - Of course, the BBC website has an endless supply of junk science papers to base stories on. If the paper is subsequently shown to be junk, the BBC does not report that. The initial impact is in the bag.

The BBC has concluded that it need no longer worry about its legal requirement to be impartial. Politicians themselves are divided on the bigger issues and are not going to risk challenging the BBC. The BBC pretends to itself and everyone else that it is strict on impartiality. (It even has policies on why it is not impartial on climate change.)

The Corporation decides that complaints it does not accept are wrong in some way. That is it. My feeling is that we should challenge the BBC with things like the models vs observation temperature graph by Christie/Taylor and say if that is what climate science is about, how can you justify telling the world it is true?

But it needs a campaign of challenges as obvious as that and I don't have the time, the resources or the ability to do that. Perhaps someone who would be able to do that could set up another discussion thread to gather help and support. Good luck, I would try to help.

SC, I think that is a fair description of the BBC's general political tactics. Given the traditional power of both print and broadcast media it strikes me as inevitable that many people working for the BBC would want to exercise that power, whatever their legal obligations. Just think about it: what megalomaniacal Press Baron would not give their right arm to have the power and reach of the BBC? Then put a bunch of frustrated middle-class Guardian readers and student wannabe-politicos into the same seat of power and expect them not to abuse it at all.

As to challenging the BBC with things like facts and the models vs observation temperature graphs....sorry. No way is it going to do much good. Not in a month of Sundays. We know the BBC have policies and write memos to specifically exclude people from doing just that.

All that will move them is raw power. That means money. It means cutting it, and then cutting again and again and again until the message gets through. Even if a bunch of MPs stand up and repeatedly say what needs to be said about the BBC in the HoC, they will still continue doing what they do until the money starts disappearing.
The solution for BBC misbehavior was actually described metaphorically, but quite accurately, on the BBC itself several decades ago.

BBC still at it:

"IPCC: Climate scientists consider 'life changing' report
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45653099

"Leading scientists are meeting in South Korea this week to see if global temperatures can be kept from rising by more than 1.5C this century.

The world has already passed one degree of warming as carbon emissions have ballooned since the 1850s.

Many low-lying countries say they may disappear under the sea if the 1.5C limit is breached.

After a week of deliberations in the city of Incheon, the researchers' new report is likely to say that keeping below this limit will require urgent and dramatic action from governments and individuals alike.

One scientist told BBC News that our lives would never be the same if the world changed course to stay under 1.5C."

I thought they'd all just returned from Bangkok before COP 24 in Katowice? How many meetings do they need? What's their "carbon footprint"?

stewgreen, I assume you're referring to this article:

"What does 1.5C mean in a warming world?
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45678338

In a breathtaking display of lack of balance, the article includes comments from representatives of WWF, Greenpeace and Fern, and nobody else, so far as I can see. The message must not be challenged!

stewgreen, I rarely take much notice of the up/down votes at the BBC (or most other places for that matter). Some of them make no sense at all sometimes. Such as down-voting people politely asking non-controversial requests for more information. Quite possibly bots at work.

I also often wonder at the not-uncommon delay between posting the article and then opening of comments. That might be an interesting analysis in itself. It's quite clear that comments are almost never allowed on certain subjects/articles (I hardly need to mention some of them) that are likely to generate emotive responses from people who the BBC doesn't think should be allowed to voice an opinion at the BBC, so it seems likely that they make semi-political choices on other articles too.
I can't believe it's to make sure people read the article and then have to wait and calm down a bit before they are allowed to vent their thoughts. I suspect it's more likely that it gives the BBC hack time to post notice of it on friendly sites elsewhere in an attempt engineer 'the right sort of readers' arriving to comment first. It would be nice to have an app that discovers such things on t'internet and social media.

The big push for COP 24 has definitely started on the BBC. Not satisfied with their piece headed "What does 1.5C mean in a warming world? By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent" on 2nd October, they've followed up within 24 hours with this one:

"'Reasons to be hopeful' on 1.5C global temperature target
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

Presumably Matt's pitching for his trip to Katowice...pity it's not somewhere warmer and more touristy, but there's always COP 25 to look forward to, as well as the pre-COP 25 planning meeting, and the planning meeting for the planning meeting etc...

Sorry stewgreen, I just doubled up on your last comment. But I can add this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-45724724/the-norwegian-teen-fighting-the-government-over-arctic-oil

"The Norwegian teen fighting the government over Arctic oil
Elina Berg is a member of an environmental group suing the Norwegian government over the issuing of new oil drilling licences in the Arctic.

A Norwegian court ruled in favour of the government in January, but the activists are appealing against the decision.

The court rejected the groups' argument that the move breached the constitution, and said the risks of Arctic drilling were limited."

Complete with picture of a polar bear on an ice floe, in case you're in any doubt about the message.

Why you can't trust the BBC:

"The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage on this complex issue."

Rubbish! An out-and-out lie. There is no impartiality and no balance to their coverage of the subject. As demonstrated by this:

"I understand you feel the discussion about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was not balanced and lacked input from those who believe climate change is a lie."

I haven't seen the original complaint, but I'd be very surprised if it alleged that climate change is a lie or suggested that the BBC should have hosted the views of those (very small in number) who do. Most sceptics, so far as I am aware, accept without question that the climate has always changed, always will, and is changing now. They question the extent to which climate change is man-made. Some sceptics don't even question that. They point out things like the failure of the Paris Agreement to achieve its stated objective; the costs of attempting to mitigate against climate change (probably fruitlessly); that for the last century or two climate change has brought more benefits than harms; etc etc.

The BBC apparatchik replying to the complaint was so contemptuous of it they couldn't even be bothered to paraphrase it properly, no doubt having already condemned the complainant as an evil "denier."

Paul Homewood has the story of the latest BBC climate bias:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/10/12/bbc-finds-lord-deben-guilty-of-misleading-the-public-on-wind-farms/#comment-121700

I also noted that BBC's News 24 channel was running a feature this evening at 15 minutes to the hour, asking if climate deniers were not being given sufficient air time for their views. Note the language - not sceptics, but deniers. Given that, I couldn't bear to watch it.

"Trump: Climate change scientists have 'political agenda'"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45859325

"Analysis" by Harrabin at the end of the article, and the lack of balance is transparent (under the sub-heading "Renewable energy creates jobs, too").

"The president says he doesn't want to spend trillions of dollars and lose millions of jobs by cutting emissions.

Of course he doesn't - but all governments feel the same way. Instead, they are trying to reframe the huge investment needed in renewable energy as a money-making enterprise.

The UK's Industrial Strategy, for instance, sets out to create jobs in clean industries to replace those lost in dirty factories.

And in the US itself, the solar industry is creating far more jobs than the coal sector. Does the president know that?"

Embedded within that (the line about solar creating more jobs than coal) is a link to this

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-16/solar-beats-coal-on-u-s-jobs

"Solar Beats Coal on U.S. Jobs
The industry put twice as many people to work last year than its fossil-fuel counterpart"

The author of that piece is Brian Eckhart, whose LinkedIn profile is here:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianeckhouse

He looks like a sympathiser for renewables and someone who is hostile to fossil fuels (I could be wrong, of course). His piece includes this rather strange comment:

"For all the talk about coal-industry employment, solar energy accounted for more than twice as many jobs last year, about 350,000 workers, according to a report Wednesday from the Energy Futures Initiative, a Washington-based nonprofit headed by former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Solar produces about 1.9 percent of U.S. electricity, and is deepening its reach in the Southeast. And while natural gas employs about 7.7 percent more people than solar, more than 80 percent of those jobs are related to producing the fuel rather than using it to generate electricity."

This site explains the generation sources US electricity (the rest of its energy inevitably being fossil-fuel based):

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=electricity_in_the_united_states

"Fossil fuels are the largest sources of energy for electricity generation
Natural gas was the largest source—about 32%—of U.S. electricity generation in 2017. Natural gas is used in steam turbines and gas turbines to generate electricity.

Coal was the second-largest energy source for U.S. electricity generation in 2017—about 30%. Nearly all coal-fired power plants use steam turbines. A few coal-fired power plants convert coal to a gas for use in a gas turbine to generate electricity."

And:

"Nuclear energy was the source of about 20% of U.S. electricity generation in 2017. "

So coal, natural gas and nuclear produce about 82% of US electricity. But solar, which produces 1.9% of US electricity, it allegedly takes more than twice as many people to produce that as are required to produce 30% (or 15 x more) from coal. It suggests that in employment terms (and therefore in cost terms too, to an extent), coal is more than 30 x more efficient than solar in US electricity generation.

A serious journalist might have noticed that and made some comment along those lines.

By the way, Energy Futures Initiative, whose report was quoted in the piece by Brian Eckhart, linked to so approvingly by Roger Harrabin, is led by Ernest Moniz. Wikipedia tells us "Moniz is one of the founding members of The Cyprus Institute".

Wikipedia also tells us this:

"The Energy, Environment and Water Research Center (EEWRC) is the first Research Center of the Cyprus Institute (CyI) formally launched in December 2007. The EEWRC addresses science, technology, economic and policy issues related to major challenges in the energy, environment, climate and water fields of the Eastern Mediterranean.[3] The current program is focused on research into the energy efficiency and renewable energies, most notably solar energy, environmental integrity, and the safeguarding and sustainable and holistic management of water resources in the region and in the EU. The Center’s work covers topics such as integrated assessments of climate change, its impacts and socioeconomic consequences, and adequate adaptation and mitigation strategies; novel observational techniques aimed at assessing atmospheric, oceanic and Earth-surface properties; methodologies aimed at realizing a sustainable built environment, including innovative technologies and materials to harness the region’s plentiful solar energy; and holistic approaches to an efficient and sustainable use of energy and water.

In the field of energy research, the Center aims to quantify the potential for reducing the use of hydrocarbon-based energy sources through enhanced energy efficiency and increased use of renewable, particularly solar energy for electrical power generation and the heating and cooling of buildings. It will explore novel technologies for producing, storing, and transmitting energy, with a focus on the applications of material sciences. In the field of environmental research, the EEWRC will first concentrate on evaluating regional climate change and its socio-economic impacts and will specify suitable and adequate adaptation strategies aimed at minimizing adverse effects of climate change, including associated political and social repercussions."

So, as usual, Harrabin quotes a source which quotes a source which is fully signed up to the agenda. Objective? I don't think so.

More fantasy reporting from the BBC (this time McGrath) with (as usual) a headline not borne out by the content:

"Climate change: Five cheap ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45967215

The 5 measure all come in apparently at between $20 and $100 per tonne of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. Even assuming these fantasy figures are actually accurate, how much does that add up to?

As long ago as 2012, quotes like this were to be found on the internet:

"Last year, all the world's nations combined pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, according to new international calculations on global emissions published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change." Since then CO2 emissions have increased. On that basis alone, to remove a single year's emissions from the atmosphere would cost between $800Bn and $4 trillion, depending on where on the scale of $20 to $100 per tonne we are talking.

And according to the BBC this is "cheap". Maybe it is if you're on a BBC salary.....