Tonight on BBC4 viewers will be treated the the latest piece of naked BBC propaganda masquerading as an open minded examination of climate change sceptics, called – imaginatively – Meet The Climate Sceptics. The pro Greenpeace environmentalist and film maker Rupert Murray claims:
This is a story about the world of climate scepticism and my journey as I put aside my environmental beliefs, rid myself of any bias, and try to really understand why some people think that our carbon dioxide emissions are not a problem.
Right off the bat the default position Murray holds is that CO2 is a problem and causing changes to our climate. As such he is clearly not putting aside his environmental beliefs and demonstrates he retains a bias. His introduction is fallacious doublespeak and his intent is to lampoon people with highly selective and distorted representations.
Being the BBC they were incapable of commissioning someone with an open mind. They had to use a film maker who exists within their circle, so naturally it had to be an environmentalist. To describe this as a stitch up is an understatement. The narrative is always one-way on the BBC and there is never an opportunity for a prominent member of the counter consensus to make a programme in this manner for broadcast. It is blatant bias and it is outrageous that we taxpayers should be compelled to subsidise this campaign to brainwash, misinform and mislead people.
For more on this venal little programme there is commentary on EU Referendum, Dellers’ news blog, Biased BBC, Bishop Hill and Climate Resistance.
Autonomous Mind 
We have just about identical situation here in Sweden with ‘public service’ (SVT)… no comfort though, I know. Sic!
Brgds from Sweden
//TJ
Ta for the heads up. Might have to watch that. :)
Well, Murray has his “environmental beliefs”, I can believe that I am the reincarnation of Genghis Khan, back to commit mass slaughter of the chattel (good old-fashioned, every day genocide) in the hope of reducing our carbon footprint.
My belief in such, does not make it true, but it just goes to further confirm that with environmentalists (of the paid and unpaid variety), belief must be considered synonymous with faith, and just as irrational.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/fun-and-games.html
And we pay for this shit
For me the BBC became boring years ago – the kind of boredom that sets in when a child plays up just a little too often. Eventually the silliness gets to you and you have to remind yourself that you are an adult with adult things to do.
Climate alarmism is tedious in the same way and therein lies the danger. I certainly won’t watch the programme, but then I suppose I’m not one of the target audience. Keep up the good work though – we can’t hand things over to pedlars of juvenile nonsense.
Just sent the following complaint to the BBC. Others should do similar lest we let the bastards get away with wasting our hard earnt!
I have just finished watching ‘Meet the Climate Skeptics’ on BBC 4, the second highly biased and distorted documentary to be aired on the BBC within a week – the other being Horizon on BBC 2 on 24th January 2011.
It is my understanding that the role of the BBC is to transmit factual, but impartial news, programmes and current affairs. The law dictates that I must pay the BBC licence fee. This is paid on the understanding that viewers such as myself receive a balanced, non-political news and programming agenda. Why is it the case than that this ‘balance’ is NEVER applied to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Why is the ‘balance’ always skewed towards the alarmist agenda? Why is it that I never see sceptically biased documentary or news report on the BBC?
A BBC news poll in February 2010 suggested that only 26% of those polled believed that Global Warming was taking place and that the cause was of that warming was man. The remaining 76% said that it was either not happening, was due to natural variation or that it was propaganda from environmental activists. Why does the BBC perpetually choose to ignore the views of the majority of its viewers?
Here a just a few of the biased quotes from ‘Meet the Climate Skeptics’ ‘….climate scepticism is now holding up the politics’, ‘…in climate if the Sceptics win everyone else loses’. The floods in Pakistan, the floods in China and the floods in Australia were all falsely linked to catastrophic AGW along with other extreme weather events. Yet as images of a cold weather in the UK were shown we were of course reminded that ‘weather is not climate’! We also had the killer line of ‘Why are climate sceptics all so old?’ It seems that blatant ageism is still rampant at the BBC even after losing your recent court case on the subject!
The editorial team focused heavily on Christopher Monckton rather than the thousands of professional scientists who now believe the case for AGW has been grossly overstated. The film makers chose to home in on Lord Monckton’s eccentricities with the intention of making him look like a buffoon. He made one error in a long, highly factual and detailed presentation to a skeptical audience, for which he apologised. Yet the team, who had obviously befriended Lord Monckton on false pretences for the much of the filming, then turned on him with the intention of embarrassing him. This challenging ‘door-stepping’ approach was not of course applied to any of the alarmists interviewed in the documentary. A similar approach was applied to James Delingpole when he was interviewed by Paul Nurse in the BBC 2 Horizon ‘Science under Attack’
Following revelations by Peter Sissions last week in the Daily Mail that BBC News was wholly biased towards the doctrine of AGW, it is clear to me that this bias also runs deep within the commissioning, editorial, production and management teams at the BBC. Although, following the BBC Trust Inquiry into biased climate change news reporting last year, it seems the BBC news editors have seen fit that we are not now subject to our nightly dose of alarmism by David Shukman and Roger Harribin on the 10 O’clock News.
Can you please inform me of when I can expect to see either the balancing documentaries to be aired (I assume that you have two hours worth of programming has already been produced to balance the output this week!) or when, as a licence fee payer, I can expect to see a change in your blatantly biased commissioning and editorial policy.
I look forward to hearing from you.
>phill
>31/01/2011 at 7:06 pm
>And we pay for this shit
Some of us learned some time ago that paying the tv tax was simply a choice.
One “implied right of access denied” notice later and that’s £145.50 less into BBC pension scheme, as Peter Dunscombe, Head of Pensions – Investments and is also an adviser to one other large scheme – at the start of 2007 he took over the role of Chair of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.
And you wonder why the BBC are churning out this eco nonsense on a daily basis? Vested interests anyone?