BBC

BBC Finds its Own Climate Editor Spread Misinformation in Global Warming Documentary

A BBC Panorama documentary about global warming made a number of false claims, an internal investigation by the broadcaster has found. MailOnline has more.

The programme Wild Weather, presented by climate editor Justin Rowlatt, said deaths worldwide were rising due to extreme weather caused by climate change – whereas the opposite is true.

It also claimed Madagascar was on the verge of the first famine caused by climate change – despite other factors being involved.

The programme, broadcast last November to coincide with the COP26 climate conference, sparked two complaints investigated by the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU).

Last year Rowlatt’s sister Cordelia was among a number of Insulate Britain activists arrested for staging a protest at junction 3 of the M25.

Miss Rowlatt, who once appeared on TV advising her brother on how to be more environmentally friendly, pleaded guilty by post at Crawley Magistrates’ Court. She was fined £300 with £85 court costs and a £34 surcharge for committing a public nuisance on a highway.

The introduction of Wild Weather said “the death toll is rising around the world and the forecast is that worse is to come”. The ECU said this risked giving the impression the rate of deaths from extreme weather-related events was increasing.

In fact, as noted by a recent report from the World Meteorological Organisation, while the number of weather-related disasters – such as floods, storms and drought – has risen in the past 50 years, the number of deaths caused by them has fallen because of improved early warnings and disaster management.

Read Daily Sceptic Environment Editor Chris Morrison’s detailed write-up of this case last week.

‘Extreme Weather’ Now the Main Propaganda Battleground for Green Activists

The relentless catastrophising of bad weather is becoming almost a daily occurrence at the BBC, as the Corporation seeks to shore up the elitist command-and-control Net Zero project. As we have seen at the Daily Sceptic, global warming went off the boil almost two decades ago, while it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep a straight face when promoting the farcical forecasts from climate models.

“Heatwaves, deadly floods and wildfires all mean people are experiencing the link between extreme weather [BBC-speak for bad weather] and climate change,” states Matt Taylor of BBC Weather. What link might that be, one might reasonably ask. Certainly nothing that has yet been established by scientific proof. Individual events, however biblical in their incantation, cannot be provably linked to long term changes in the climate – to do so is mere conjecture.

And not very good conjecture at that, if the latest BBC example is anything to go by. Taylor starts by presenting the graph below.

Three Disinformation Strikes For Rowlatt, the BBC’s Climate Activist-in-Residence

The BBC’s green activist-in-residence Justin Rowlatt has had two complaints upheld against him, following the broadcast last November of his absurd “Wild Weather” Panorama programme. The latest upheld complaints followed a similar rebuke last year, after Rowlatt described offshore wind as “virtually subsidy-free”.

The Panorama programme was an hour long, emotion-charged rant that tried to show human-caused climate change was behind a series of recent bad weather events. It featured a man with vascular dementia being helped into a boat from his flooded home. Improbable stories of 6°C rises in temperature were illuminated with a Met Office globe turning deep red. Not a scintilla of scientific proof was supplied to back up most of the improbable claims.

The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit found that the wording of the introduction, which stated “the death toll is rising around the world and the forecast is that worse is to come”, risked giving the impression the rate of deaths from extreme weather-related events was increasing.

“Risked” is an interesting turn of phrase. The BBC said the wording “was not as clear as it should have been”, and accepted the obvious fact that deaths have actually been falling for many years

Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and James Bond Not on BBC’s Platinum Jubilee Reading List

The BBC has compiled a Platinum Jubilee reading list, selecting one book for each year of the Queen’s reign, but it is more notable for the books it has left out than included. The Big Jubilee Read is intended to celebrate great books from across the Commonwealth, and includes many white British authors as well as Indian, African and African-Caribbean writers. Yet it doesn’t include Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or James Bond. MailOnline has more.

Some of Britain’s greatest authors have been snubbed by the BBC as both J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings have been left out of the BBC’s list of books from the Queen’s 70-year reign.

The BBC’s Big Jubilee Read has been compiled following a five-month search that has involved librarians from towns and villages across the UK – along with readers in 54 countries.

It aims to offer 70 pieces of “brilliant, beautiful and thrilling writing” produced by authors from all over the Commonwealth over the last 70 years, 14 of whom are from the UK.

Yet two of Britain’s most prestigious novelists have been omitted from the list, the Times reports.

JK Rowling’s Harry Potter, almost certainly the U.K.’s largest literary export over the period, has been left out alongside J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings – beloved since its publication in 1954..

Both franchises were hugely popular globally, both in terms of the original books and subsequent films.

It comes as British megastar author Rowling, 56, has faced accusations of transphobia after she mocked an online article in June 2020 for using the phrase “people who menstruate” instead of “women”.

She later defended herself against the claims in a passionate essay but has been hounded online by some members of the trans community ever since.

An initial long list of 153 books had to be cut down by more than half to 70 – one for each year of the monarch’s reign.

Susheila Nasta, emeritus professor of modern literature at Queen Mary and Westfield University, said there was a “big discussion over about J.K. Rowling” before the list was completed.

She added: “She was on the long-list with Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.

“A space was cleared for someone equally as good but whose work was not as well known. There were some very tricky decisions.”

But the list, to be published in full on Monday, does feature other books that have later been turned into popular television series or films.

Included are Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, John Le Carré’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Yann Martel’s Life of Pi.

The list hasn’t just omitted J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien from the list. Also overlooked are any books by Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, V.S. Pritchett, Ian Fleming, Len Deighton, Ian McEwan, Julian Barnes, William Boyd, Kingsley Amis and Martin Amis, to name just a few.

BBC Guide Tells Parents to “Examine Their Biases” if Their Toddler Only Has White Friends

Parents should “examine their own internal biases” on race if their toddler only has white friends, according to the BBC’s early-years guidance. The Telegraph has the story.

The BBC’s Tiny Happy People website, a bank of resources for parents, includes a section on talking about race and religion with young children, written by the author and activist Uju Asika.

The site says that “for white mums or dads, it might be time to examine your own internal biases”.

It explains: “Did your family express negative thoughts about foreigners and immigrants? What is your social circle like today? Does your child have Black or Brown friends over for playdates? Could you be doing more?”

Educators described the resource as “inappropriate” and “clearly not impartial”.

The guide was drawn up in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests and written by Ms. Asika, author of the book How to Raise a Kind Child in a Prejudiced World which gives advice on microaggressions.

Ms. Asika wrote last year on a blog about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview with Oprah Winfrey that “the Royal family is racist” and “sitting on a legacy of global subjugation, pillaging and slave trading wealth”. …

Parents are urged to introduce children to racism by being kind, using inclusive language, being as direct as possible and being role models by “educating yourself” through books and TV shows.

It is also suggested that parents “could talk about how being white might give you certain advantages – for instance you are more likely to see people who look like you on TV”.

“However, white people can choose to use their advantages to help make people a fairer world for all,” the guide says.

The guide was criticised for singling out white people. Dr. Alka Sehgal-Cuthbert, a former teacher and education expert at the campaign group Don’t Divide Us, said: “It’s clearly not impartial, it’s putting an intolerable burden on schools and on teachers. It is inappropriate and can very easily have unintended negative consequences.”

She advocated a “colour-blind” approach to racism by viewing everyone as fundamentally equal, “rather than trying to create a false plurality from the top through division and micro-management which kills curiosity and creates fear of asking the questions”.

Worth reading in full – and check out Toby’s latest Spectator column where he has something to say about so-called ‘white privilege’ and the BBC’s quotas targets for recruiting by race.

How Serious is the BBC About Wanting to Represent Britain’s Working Class?

My Spectator column this week is about the BBC’s much written about initiative to ensure 25% of its employees are from “lower socio-economic groups” by 2027 so it “reflects the extraordinary diversity of the lives, backgrounds and experiences of the whole U.K. public”. Needless to say, I’m unconvinced that yet another ‘diversity target’ will do anything to reduce the progressive, metropolitan bias of the BBC.

The problem lies in the way the BBC has defined ‘working-class’.

To qualify for special treatment, applicants will be asked what the occupation was of the main parental earner in their household when they were 14. But what if they had no occupation? I know plenty of posh deadbeats who don’t work because they don’t need to. Would they be classed as ‘unemployed’ by the BBC box-tickers? And what about recent arrivals in the U.K. who have had to take menial jobs to make ends meet? My cleaner in the 1990s had been a professor of geology in the Soviet Union before its collapse.

No, if the BBC’s aim is to diversify the political attitudes and cultural taste of its staff, it should go the whole hog and stipulate that only white British working-class applicants – defined by a combination of household income when they were growing up and their parents’ education – are capable of meeting this target. They are the truly under-represented group among the BBC’s staff, as they are in all the professions, not least because they’re less likely to go to university than almost any other demographic. According to a report by the House of Commons Education Committee last year, the proportion of white British pupils eligible for free school meals participating in higher education by the age of 19 in 2018-19 was 16%, the lowest of any ethnic group apart from travellers of Irish heritage and Gypsy/Roma.

One reason that white British working-class people will continue to be under-represented at the Beeb in spite of the new quota is because the Corporation announced last year it wasn’t satisfied with just 15% of its workforce being from BAME backgrounds and wants to increase that to 20%. And many of the applicants who tick the BAME box will also tick the ‘working-class’ box, given that non-white people from low income families are more likely to go to university than whites. According to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, 59% of black African pupils eligible for free school meals progressed to higher education in 2018-19, 58.6% of Bangladeshis, 57.2% of Indians, 47.1% of Pakistanis and 31.8% of black Caribbean pupils. So much for ‘white privilege’.

And that 16% figure for poor white British pupils conceals an even starker figure – just 12.7% of boys in this group progress to higher education, compared with 19.4% of girls. That’s the truly disadvantaged group in modern Britain: white working-class males. It is their taste that is completely neglected by the BBC, with the exception of Match of the Day. But even for those brief moments of pleasure on Saturday and Sunday night, they have to put up with the BBC commentators extravagantly praising the Premier League footballers taking the knee before the game. The implication is that people like them are racist troglodytes badly in need of cultural re-education.

Worth reading in full.

Stop Press: Andrew Tettenborn has made a similar argument about this new BBC hiring quota in the Critic.

So Farewell Then Roger Harrabin – May We Never See Your Like Again

The BBC’s long-serving Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin is due to retire in June. What must his thoughts be as he contemplates the possible destruction of his cherished Net Zero fantasy, crushed, as seems more than likely, by its first encounter with hard financial reality? A lifetime’s work, all for nothing, as people, inexplicably, turn their back on the prospect of blackouts, being colder and poorer, restricted diets, personal travel rationing, impracticable electric buggies and no foreign holidays. How could they be so selfish?

It was all so carefully prepared from the seminar he helped organise back in 2006 that led green activist cabals from within and outside the BBC to stamp out debate about the science of climate change. From that date on, the science was ‘settled’. To this day, the BBC has ignored scientific work that disputes humans cause all or most climate change. This work involves hundreds of dissenting atmospheric scientists, and many of their findings have been reported in the Daily Sceptic. Rather than repeat ourselves, further details are available in a recent article here.

For the last 20 years, a highly politicised doomsday agenda has been constructed that highlights the work of ‘post normal’ activists determined to show that burning fossil fuel is leading to a ‘climate emergency’. Describing themselves as scientists, Harrabin and his pals have created increasingly implausible doomsday scenarios, full of value judgements, light on evidence and easily debunked. Many of these people work out of re-branded geography and social science university departments and seek to impose a command-and-control Net Zero global system. The IPCC has come to play a central role in promoting this narrative.

Why are the BBC and YouTube STILL Censoring Views Critical of Masks?

There follows a guest post by Jeffrey Peel, who was shocked to discover that, despite mask mandates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland being history, the BBC and YouTube are still censoring views that criticise masks, including cutting off a guest mid-sentence.

Last week I was in London. Part of the reason was to attend a meeting of Together, the campaign organisation that’s behind the Together Declaration. It was last July when the organisation last had a big meeting, so I was looking forward to seeing Alan Miller and others who have been campaigning so hard over the last months against Government proposed mandates: masks, vaccination and digital IDs.

However, just before leaving my hotel for the meeting, I had an email from Hugh McCarthy, a former Head Teacher and well known education specialist. Hugh had been invited on to a BBC news and current affairs programme on BBC Radio Ulster. The show is hosted by William Crawley. However, during the programme, when Hugh was outlining how masks in the classroom get in the way of the teaching process, and impede the ability of teachers and children to communicate, he was taken off air. Literally when he was mid-sentence.

I had a similar experience to Hugh when I last appeared on the programme on December 18th, 2020. Crawley’s way is to talk over, shout down, or bully guests that don’t agree with the BBC Covid narrative (on the rare occasions they’re invited on). However, the Chief Medical Officer or Chief Scientific Adviser are treated to uninterrupted reverence.

Djokovic: I’d Rather Never Play a Grand Slam Again Than Have a Covid Vaccine

World No. 1 tennis player Novak Djokovic has said he would rather miss out on future tennis competitions than be forced to get a Covid vaccine. He also said he was not anti-vaccine but supported an individual’s right to choose. BBC News has the story.

Djokovic was asked if he would sacrifice taking part in competitions such as Wimbledon and the French Open over his stance on the vaccine.

“Yes, that is the price that I’m willing to pay,” he said.

The 20-times Grand Slam winner was deported from Australia last month after the Government cancelled his visa in a row over his vaccine status.

Djokovic, who is the world’s number one men’s tennis player, said he had obtained a medical exemption to enter the country to play in the Australian Open as he had recently recovered from COVID-19.

However, the country’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, personally cancelled the 34-year-old’s visa, on the grounds that his presence could incite “civil unrest” and encourage anti-vaccine sentiment.

“I was never against vaccination,” he told the BBC, confirming that he’d had vaccines as a child, “but I’ve always supported the freedom to choose what you put in your body.” …

Djokovic said he hoped vaccination requirements in certain tournaments would change, adding that he was hoping that he “can play for many more years”.

But he also confirmed he was willing to forego the chance to become statistically the greatest male tennis player of all time because he felt so strongly. Djokovic’s rival, Rafael Nadal, has won 21 Grand Slam singles titles – the most of any male competitor.

Asked why, he replied: “Because the principles of decision making on my body are more important than any title or anything else. I’m trying to be in tune with my body as much as I possibly can.”

Djokovic said he had “always been a great student of wellness, wellbeing, health, nutrition”, and that his decision had been partly influenced by the positive impact that factors such as changing his diet and his sleeping patterns, had had on his abilities as an athlete.

He said he was “keeping [his] mind open” about the possibility of being vaccinated in the future, “because we are all trying to find collectively, a best possible solution to end Covid”.

“I was never against vaccination. I understand that globally, everyone is trying to put a big effort into handling this virus and seeing, hopefully, an end soon to this virus.”

Clearing up some misunderstandings, Djokovic added that he was not deported from Australia because he was unvaccinated or broke any rules, but because “the Minister for Immigration used his discretion to cancel my visa based on his perception that I might create some anti-vax sentiment in the country or in the city, which I completely disagree with.”

BBC Medical Editor Fergus Walsh took it upon himself in the BBC article to attempt a rebuttal of Djokovic’s vaccine hesitancy, asking “What more does he want to know?”

With 60% of the world’s population vaccinated and 10 billion doses administered, there is a “wealth of information” which shows the vaccines’ “safety profile is excellent”, Walsh claims.

Joe Rogan is Right That mRNA Vaccines Are Gene Therapy – And Other Ways the BBC’s ‘Fact Check’ Fails

The BBC has used some of its taxpayer funding to ‘reality check‘ Joe Rogan’s Covid ‘misinformation’. The state-funded broadcaster claims some episodes of the popular podcast have featured “false and misleading claims” and states: “Here are four of them fact-checked,” implying all are false. Let’s see.

Claim: A vaccine can alter your genes

Mr Rogan said: “This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy.” But this is not true.

None of the Covid vaccines change your genetic material or DNA – essentially the recipe book containing the instructions of how to build your body.

The vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna harness a different molecule called messenger RNA.

If DNA is the blueprint, RNA is the messenger, carrying instructions to your cells.

In the case of the Covid vaccine, the message to your cells is to turn the RNA into copies of the virus’s spike protein.

That’s what fires your immune system up to start producing antibodies and other cells to fight off the virus.

When the message has been received, the RNA is broken down and disposed of.

First of all, note that the claim the heading says is being ‘fact checked’ is not the same as the claim it quotes Joe Rogan making, which is: “This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy.” Perhaps the Reality Check team think gene therapy is synonymous with altering genes, as their ‘fact check’ implies they think if they show the mRNA in the vaccine does not alter genes they have successfully proved it is “not true” to say it is gene therapy. This assumption is false – though it does appear to have become the official line and has started appearing in every ‘fact check’ on the topic. A Reuters fact check‘ from August, for instance, concludes: “Scientists told Reuters that while mRNA vaccines can be considered ‘genetic-based therapy’ because they use genetic code from COVID-19, they are not technically gene therapy. This is because the mRNA does not change the body’s genetic makeup.”

If you think this sounds like dancing on the head of a pin, you’d be right. In fact, it represents a sleight of hand introduced during the pandemic, in part at the behest of vaccine-maker Moderna in order to avoid the new vaccines having the negative associations of gene therapy. And while it’s awfully nice of media corporations like the BBC and Reuters to do the bidding of pharmaceutical companies, it doesn’t make the claim true. You might have thought the fact that virologist and mRNA expert Dr. Robert Malone is one of the people implicated in their ‘fact checks’ as referring to the vaccines as a form of gene therapy would have given them pause for thought. But he is persona non grata and they have their alternative experts to do the requisite pin-dancing, so they plough on regardless.

It isn’t actually hard to show that mRNA vaccine technology comes under the field of gene therapy, and that the attempt to distinguish the two has been invented in the very recent past as a way of making the vaccines look better. For instance, a 2011 article entitled “mRNA as gene therapeutic: How to control protein expression“, in a section headed “Applications for mRNA as a drug molecule: mRNA vaccination”, says this: