The BBC has quietly edited an episode of Question Time after wrongly ‘correcting’ Reform’s Richard Tice on a claim about CO2 emissions. Tice said humans are responsible for just 4% of emissions but Fiona Bruce falsely said it was a third. The Telegraph has the story.
Richard Tice, the Reform UK Deputy Leader, appeared on Thursday night’s panel show following his party’s sweeping gains in the local elections last week.
During the show, which was recorded before a live audience but broadcast later, he was asked about his party’s position on climate change policies, which he said was to “scrap Net stupid Zero”.
In the debate, Fiona Bruce, the host, intervened to correct Mr Tice on the proportion of carbon emissions that are man-made.
The MP for Boston and Skegness claimed that it was “about 3 or 4%” of all emissions, to which Bruce said that, according to Nasa, it was around a third.
Mr Tice claimed that he approached a BBC editor after the show to tell them that the statistic was a mistake, and was informed that the information had come from BBC Verify, the broadcaster’s fact-checking unit.
The exchange with Bruce was then edited out of the programme, but the BBC has not reflected this in the show uploaded to its iPlayer.
The BBC said the segment was edited out because “two statistics were compared which were not directly comparable” and therefore “more context would have been needed to explain the two statistics sufficiently”.
BBC Verify was launched in 2023, when its purpose was described as “explaining complex stories in the pursuit of truth”.
But the unit has been accused of making errors and being politically biased. …
Mr Tice told the Telegraph: “This is the second time in a matter of months where the presenter has wrongly challenged a Reform representative, and essentially made them look bad in front of the audience and other panellists.
“They’ve relied on BBC Verify, which perhaps should be named BBC Guesswork. Clearly Reform wants to be on the programme but if we feel that we’re constantly being assailed with false information by the programme-makers, it becomes less attractive.”
He added: “If BBC Verify is giving duff information on live shows that is regurgitated as fact by presenters, then the BBC is in serious trouble.”
Worth reading in full.
NASA claims that around a third of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has been contributed by humans since 1850, i.e., all of the increase in that time. However, Tice’s statement concerned the human contribution to annual emissions in the carbon cycle rather than the total amount of the gas in the atmosphere.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Overdue for BBC Verify to verify “Tall Climate Tales From The BBC...”
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/656f411497ae14084ad8d03a/t/66bc6870a7ad654a13b2ac7e/1723623541496/Homewood-BBC-2023.pdf
…That included potholes, crocodile bites and the price of bananas.
It’s also been claimed that climate change is making sharks left handed and people more likely to wet the bed. The research that led to these conclusions was no doubt paid for out of the billions of pounds, dollars etc. of public money that is spent on climate research every year and peer reviewed by activists who’ll approve any non sceptical paper that mentions effects of climate change. There’s also been peer reviewed papers that show, using GIGO computer models, that climate change will increase the cost of beer, chocolate, coffee and pretty much any commodity you care to mention.
just using the graphic, both Tice and Bruce can be correct. Vegetation, land and ocean appear to emit about 770 somethings and humans 29, so that is indeed 4%. But V, L and O reabsorb most of their output plus half of human output as well, so humans contribute 10 thingies. (Is that per annum, per decade or what? And what are the units?) atmospheric CO2 was 280ppm in 1850 and it’s now 420ppm. A good thing too, as deserts have shrunk and crop yields have gone up. In any case, I heard it from Gavin Schmidt himself that the extra CO2 cannot, of itself, account for the observed amount of global warming – there is something else.
Temperature and Co2 record seems to indicate Co2 is driven by temperature which is presumably driven by solar and irbital cycles, the mist likely scenario is probably another ice age, that’ll be fun.
The next ice age, or technically speaking glacial period, is almost certainly several thousand years away, based on orbital cycles and isn’t something we need to worry about. On a much shorter timescale there will be a period of lesser cooling similar to or worse than the Little Ice Age, roughly 1600-1700 C.E. This was caused by the transition from Solar Grand Maximum to Solar Grand minimum, the Maunder minimum and resulted in harsh winters in Europe, frost fairs on the Thames (at one point someone walked elephants across the ice), extreme floods and drought leading to crop failure and famine amongst other things. Some solar scientists have predicted a period of very low solar activity, similar to the Maunder minimum from roughly 2030-2060 leading to average global temperatures dropping by at least 1 degree. However these scientists also predicted that solar activity from 2020-2025 would be a lower than from 2010-15 and it’s been slightly higher so who knows if we should pay any attention to what they predict will happen in the next 20-30 years
Global warming?
Where exactly?
Somewhere on Earth this month because temperatures have been well above the long term average. Somewhere else on Earth last month because temperatures were above average and somewhere else next month etc. etc. In April temperatures in the UK were well above the 30 year average, but never record breaking. Is this evidence of global warming? Of course not although activists and the BBC Guardian have claimed it is and “proved” it using data from RAF bases, airports and city centres. The weather stations in these locations are class 4 or 5 based on WMO guidelines, meaning an error of 2-5 degrees (they’re junk and shouldn’t be used), however they’re included in the datasets that are used to calculate global average temperatures.
Erm.. globally. Are you saying it isn’t warmer now than it was 150 years ago?
Sad, desperate sophistry. He said humans account for 4%of all admissions. That is correct. Reabsorption is another question altogether.
Sad, desperate pedantry. Look at the graphic if you are capable of understanding it.
He needs to be more assertive and to tell her to shut her bloody mouth if she doesn’t know what she is talking about. That is all it takes if you stand up to them with enough vigour.
They’re all wrong..0.042%( admittedly its gone up 0.002!).. man made climate in the worst case scenario
It’s like banging your head against a wall with these f-ing political dumbasses!
Sorry , i ran out of editing time on this post
They’re all wrong..0.042% of Co2 in the atmosphere!
(admittedly its gone up 0.002!).. man made climate in the worst case scenario Is 0.0016%
It’s like banging your head against a wall with these f-ing political dumbasses!
0.0016% OF that 0.042% is human based!
Yes and the plants seem to like it. And cows and other animals often seem to do well on the plants, like grass.
It is all predicated upon very dubious foundations when scientists tried to understand why the atmosphere on Venus is as it is, very unpleasant weather conditions. They came to conclusions about how Venus ended up that way and then thought to apply it to earth and they called it the greenhouse effect. These origins should give rise to all sorts of questions and yet I would wager than not one of the creatures that push this agenda in the government are aware of this. They aren’t worth arguing with they are truly beneath contempt but sadly we will have to suffer the effects of their machinations. Like announcing plans to block out the sun. You would think that anyone who would even suggest such a thing would be immediately arrested, especially in this country where we are well into May and it is still necessary to have the heating on all day. There is an online petition that already has a few hundred thousand signatures which asks that this sun blocking malarkey be stopped.
The unpleasant weather on Venus couldn’t be due to being so much closer to the Sun than Earth is? No, no, it’s a greenhouse effect!
“NASA claims that around a third of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has been contributed by humans since…”
Claims are not science.
But NASA cannot substansiate that with evidence. During the great CoVid shutdown, atmospheric C02 continued to climb despite output from fossil fuels and other Human activity dropping significantly for two years.
NASA receives $20 billion a year of taxpayer money. Why? They already beat the Soviets to the Moon. There’s no point going again and again. Elon Musk is better at launching rockets.
There’s only so many pictures of the Milky Way that you can look at.
To justify its existence, NASA has decided that its new vital mission is to help us combat climate change. The trouble is, that means that NASA’s continued funding depends on the climate alarm.
And since it has skin in the game, it’s hardly surprising that NASA is only too keen to emphasize the potential horrors of climate chaos.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/09/the-graph-that-lied/
Heavenly bodies are not physical structures. Rudolf Steiner said that if we ever did manage to travel to another star then we would be very surprised by what we found there. He saw stars as clusters of spiritual beings. This idea that the sun is a big fiery ball 93 million miles away. St Francis of Assisi talked about brother sun and sister moon. There is a wonderful 1972 film with that name.
CO2 in atmos: 0.42%
Human emmisions per annum: 4% of total planetary output. Ie the planet generates 96% of CO2 emissions.
*sighs* Ffs how else do sheep think their grass evolved photosynthesis?
CO2 What do you mean, like plant food, which is necessary for plants to survive and the more they get the better they do? That CO2?
Up to 1200 parts per million! That’s the perfect amount of co2 in the atmosphere for plants to be at their strongest
The world is currently at 400 parts per million and the green blob want to lower that to 200ppm to save the world!
Less than 300ppm and all plant life begins to die, at 150ppm they are dead!
Go figure
Attention: Dump your BBC licence already. I’m £500 better off.
The BBC are clearly the gallant defenders of Net Zero. They will send their infantry forth to push back the invaders of the N-Z Empire. They SHALL defend their windmills They SHALL defend their solar panels. And they will NEVER SURRENDER! [sip on cognac and drag on pipe].
I can hear Churchill turning in his grave. After a week of VE Day celebrations, it is ironic that we’re now giving our country over to the Chinese and foreign criminals.