http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-emails.html

By Paul Revoir


The BBC's governing body has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints of
bias notably in its treatment of climate change.

The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the 'accuracy and impartiality' of
its output in this increasingly controversial area.

The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster's handling of green issues. It has
been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made
phenomenon.

Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held
belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.

The investigation will also focus on coverage of issues like genetically modified foods, the MMR
vaccine and the way it reports on new technologies.
It will scrutinise the way the BBC has handled scientific findings on areas which affect 'public
policy' and are 'matters of political controversy'.

A scientific expert will be hired to lead the review and it will concentrate on coverage of the
issues featured in its news and factual output.

The corporation's Royal Charter and Agreement requires that the BBC covers controversial subjects
with due impartiality.

The new report will not just include the natural sciences but also aspects of technology, medicine
and the environment that include scientific findings or claims.

Richard Tait, BBC Trustee and chair of the governing body's Editorial Standards Committee (ESC),
said: 'Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction
and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.
'Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine
reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while
remaining impartial.

'The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also
important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that
licence fee payers expect.'

The review will be launched in the spring and the findings of the probe will be published in 2011.

The BBC is planning to raise the profile of science this year with a focus on the genre across
television, radio and online.

But there has been a string of rows in recent years over the way it has handled a number of
scientific issues.

Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been deliberately misrepresented
by the BBC.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a 'potty
peer' on a TV programme that 'was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming'.

In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC's stance on climate change.


Peter Barron said it was 'not the corporation's job to save the planet'. His comments were backed
up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was 'leading' the audience, rather than
giving them 'information'.

Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes
dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.

His comments had come after the broadcaster had already been accused of not being objective on
green issues and of handing over the airwaves to campaigners. In 2007 it had devoted a whole day of
programming to the Live Earth concerts.

The BBC has also been taken to task over the perception its coverage of genetically modified food
has been too negative

The BBC then decided to scrap the Comic Relief-style TV event on climate change amid fears it would
make it look biased.

In the past the BBC has also been attacked over other scientific issues. It was accused by an
adviser of adding to the hysteria about genetically modified crops with factual errors and bad
science.


The expert claimed that makers of thriller Fields of Gold, starring Anna Friel, had ignored his
advice when he pointed out factual errors in 2002.

More recently flagship current affairs programme Panorama was found to have broken editorial
guidelines in a programme about the potential health hazards of wi-fi.


The BBC's editorial complaints unit said in 2007 that the programme 'gave a misleading impression
of the state of scientific opinion on the issue'.

In 2006 scientists accused the corporation of 'quackery' in a programme which they claimed
attempted to exaggerate the power of alternative medicine.

Earlier this year former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons claimed it was now 'effectively BBC policy'
to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.

Mr Sissons said: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as
raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is
settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says
it isn't.'



Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0brPFXRNB

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:02:15 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-emails.html

By Paul Revoir


The BBC's governing body has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints of
bias notably in its treatment of climate change.

The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the 'accuracy and impartiality' of
its output in this increasingly controversial area.

The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster's handling of green issues. It has
been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made
phenomenon.

Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held
belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming.

The investigation will also focus on coverage of issues like genetically modified foods, the MMR
vaccine and the way it reports on new technologies.
It will scrutinise the way the BBC has handled scientific findings on areas which affect 'public
policy' and are 'matters of political controversy'.

A scientific expert will be hired to lead the review and it will concentrate on coverage of the
issues featured in its news and factual output.

The corporation's Royal Charter and Agreement requires that the BBC covers controversial subjects
with due impartiality.

The new report will not just include the natural sciences but also aspects of technology, medicine
and the environment that include scientific findings or claims.

Richard Tait, BBC Trustee and chair of the governing body's Editorial Standards Committee (ESC),
said: 'Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction
and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.
'Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine
reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while
remaining impartial.

'The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also
important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that
licence fee payers expect.'

The review will be launched in the spring and the findings of the probe will be published in 2011.

The BBC is planning to raise the profile of science this year with a focus on the genre across
television, radio and online.

But there has been a string of rows in recent years over the way it has handled a number of
scientific issues.

Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been deliberately misrepresented
by the BBC.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been made to look like a 'potty
peer' on a TV programme that 'was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming'.

In 2007 the then editor of Newsnight hit out at the BBC's stance on climate change.


Peter Barron said it was 'not the corporation's job to save the planet'. His comments were backed
up by other senior news executives who feared the BBC was 'leading' the audience, rather than
giving them 'information'.

Mr Barron had claimed the BBC had gone beyond its remit by planning an entire day of programmes
dedicated to highlighting environmental fears.

His comments had come after the broadcaster had already been accused of not being objective on
green issues and of handing over the airwaves to campaigners. In 2007 it had devoted a whole day of
programming to the Live Earth concerts.

The BBC has also been taken to task over the perception its coverage of genetically modified food
has been too negative

The BBC then decided to scrap the Comic Relief-style TV event on climate change amid fears it would
make it look biased.

In the past the BBC has also been attacked over other scientific issues. It was accused by an
adviser of adding to the hysteria about genetically modified crops with factual errors and bad
science.


The expert claimed that makers of thriller Fields of Gold, starring Anna Friel, had ignored his
advice when he pointed out factual errors in 2002.

More recently flagship current affairs programme Panorama was found to have broken editorial
guidelines in a programme about the potential health hazards of wi-fi.


The BBC's editorial complaints unit said in 2007 that the programme 'gave a misleading impression
of the state of scientific opinion on the issue'.

In 2006 scientists accused the corporation of 'quackery' in a programme which they claimed
attempted to exaggerate the power of alternative medicine.

Earlier this year former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons claimed it was now 'effectively BBC policy'
to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.

Mr Sissons said: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as
raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is
settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says
it isn't.'



Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0brPFXRNB


Tell them all that white stuff proves Global Warming,
since there is a consensus, only a few Billion more is needed
to calculate how hot it is going to get.

Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-emails.html


By Paul Revoir



The Daily Mail. Need we say more?

On 7 Jan, 06:24, Tom P wrote:
Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ounces-review-...

By Paul Revoir

The Daily Mail. Need we say more?

Ah, so because the DailyMail reported this it ISNT happening? The
Beeb ISNT investigation potenntial bias?

What an idiot.

Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-emails.html


By Paul Revoir


The BBC's governing body has launched a major review of its science
coverage after complaints of bias notably in its treatment of climate
change.

The drooling right whingers are at it again with their anti-science.

Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been
deliberately misrepresented by the BBC.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been
made to look like a 'potty peer' on a TV programme that 'was a one-sided
polemic for the new religion of global warming'.

FULL MARKS TO THE BBC!!!

Lord Monckton is to climate change what the late Screaming Lord Sutch
and his Official Monster Raving Loony Party were to politics.

The latter was at least harmless. Monckton is potentially dangerous by
misleading a scientifically illiterate general public.

Peter Barron said it was 'not the corporation's job to save the planet'.
His comments were backed up by other senior news executives who feared
the BBC was 'leading' the audience, rather than giving them 'information'.

I would actually like to see them do an expose of the denier for hire
industry and smoke out the ones with past history of working to confuse
the public about the risks of smoking tobacco and who now do climate
change using the same techniques. I think the BBC generally gives AGW
sceptics too much air time for their views compared to the proportion of
scientists who genuinely believe that AGW is not happening.

But for balance the TV typically interviews an astronomer and a complete
nutter who claims to be an alien abductee. Not surprisingly the raving
nutter can spin a much more exciting story for the lights seen in the
sky. And since the BBC chases ratings these days there is no Tomorrows
World, Burke Special, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures and the only
remaining popular science program - Horizon is a shadow of its former self.

if one good thing comes of it it will be more popular science programs
on the BBC. They do have a duty to inform the public and to reflect real
scientific opinion and not that of the most vocal lobby groups.

The BBC has also been taken to task over the perception its coverage of
genetically modified food has been too negative

Although the BBC may not have reported it entirely fairly the main
damage was done by Mosantos incredible arrogance and a gerrit down yer
throats message to a Europe that was still reeling from the BSE
catastrophe. Whatever ministers said about it being safe to eat had
below zero credibility after the clip of Gummer feeding his grand
daughter almost certainly contaminated hamburger to show it was "safe".

In the past the BBC has also been attacked over other scientific issues.
It was accused by an adviser of adding to the hysteria about genetically
modified crops with factual errors and bad science.


The expert claimed that makers of thriller Fields of Gold, starring Anna
Friel, had ignored his advice when he pointed out factual errors in 2002.

Probably true but that was a fictional thriller. Imagine how tedious CSI
or Star Trek would be if they had to obey the laws of physics.

More recently flagship current affairs programme Panorama was found to
have broken editorial guidelines in a programme about the potential
health hazards of wi-fi.

The will be damned by one side or the other no matter what line they
take. I don't think wifi is a serious risk. OTOH I would not be keen to
sit on top of the base station every working day.

The BBC's editorial complaints unit said in 2007 that the programme
'gave a misleading impression of the state of scientific opinion on the
issue'.

In 2006 scientists accused the corporation of 'quackery' in a programme
which they claimed attempted to exaggerate the power of alternative
medicine.

Earlier this year former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons claimed it was now
'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on
global warming.

Mr Sissons said: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC
interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is
another side to the debate on climate change.

There is a scientific consensus on Global Warming and the BBC should
reflect that in its reporting. I would like to see them investigate some
of the dodgy US front organistaions and the incestuous nature for the
well known deniers for hire over there. Exxon sponsorship of deniers to
confuse the public got so bad at one point that the Royal Society wrote
an open letter to them asking them to desist from publishing falsehoods.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by
accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless
reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.'

A handful of genuine scientists doubt some of the details and/or the
extent of the warming that can be expected. The rest are politically
motivated or lobby groups for the fossil fuel industry.

The science is settled at least in the sense that the probability is
strongly in favour of the AGW theory being accurate enough that we have
to take some action. Ostriches will pay the price.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:21:10 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

Eric Gisin wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-emails.html


By Paul Revoir


The BBC's governing body has launched a major review of its science
coverage after complaints of bias notably in its treatment of climate
change.

The drooling right whingers are at it again with their anti-science.

Last year a leading climate change sceptic claimed his views had been
deliberately misrepresented by the BBC.

Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said he had been
made to look like a 'potty peer' on a TV programme that 'was a one-sided
polemic for the new religion of global warming'.

FULL MARKS TO THE BBC!!!

Lord Monckton is to climate change what the late Screaming Lord Sutch
and his Official Monster Raving Loony Party were to politics.

The latter was at least harmless. Monckton is potentially dangerous by
misleading a scientifically illiterate general public.

Peter Barron said it was 'not the corporation's job to save the planet'.
His comments were backed up by other senior news executives who feared
the BBC was 'leading' the audience, rather than giving them 'information'.

I would actually like to see them do an expose of the denier for hire
industry and smoke out the ones with past history of working to confuse
the public about the risks of smoking tobacco and who now do climate
change using the same techniques. I think the BBC generally gives AGW
sceptics too much air time for their views compared to the proportion of
scientists who genuinely believe that AGW is not happening.

But for balance the TV typically interviews an astronomer and a complete
nutter who claims to be an alien abductee. Not surprisingly the raving
nutter can spin a much more exciting story for the lights seen in the
sky. And since the BBC chases ratings these days there is no Tomorrows
World, Burke Special, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures and the only
remaining popular science program - Horizon is a shadow of its former self.

if one good thing comes of it it will be more popular science programs
on the BBC. They do have a duty to inform the public and to reflect real
scientific opinion and not that of the most vocal lobby groups.

The BBC has also been taken to task over the perception its coverage of
genetically modified food has been too negative

Although the BBC may not have reported it entirely fairly the main
damage was done by Mosantos incredible arrogance and a gerrit down yer
throats message to a Europe that was still reeling from the BSE
catastrophe. Whatever ministers said about it being safe to eat had
below zero credibility after the clip of Gummer feeding his grand
daughter almost certainly contaminated hamburger to show it was "safe".

In the past the BBC has also been attacked over other scientific issues.
It was accused by an adviser of adding to the hysteria about genetically
modified crops with factual errors and bad science.


The expert claimed that makers of thriller Fields of Gold, starring Anna
Friel, had ignored his advice when he pointed out factual errors in 2002.

Probably true but that was a fictional thriller. Imagine how tedious CSI
or Star Trek would be if they had to obey the laws of physics.

More recently flagship current affairs programme Panorama was found to
have broken editorial guidelines in a programme about the potential
health hazards of wi-fi.

The will be damned by one side or the other no matter what line they
take. I don't think wifi is a serious risk. OTOH I would not be keen to
sit on top of the base station every working day.

The BBC's editorial complaints unit said in 2007 that the programme
'gave a misleading impression of the state of scientific opinion on the
issue'.

In 2006 scientists accused the corporation of 'quackery' in a programme
which they claimed attempted to exaggerate the power of alternative
medicine.

Earlier this year former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons claimed it was now
'effectively BBC policy' to stifle critics of the consensus view on
global warming.

Mr Sissons said: 'I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC
interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is
another side to the debate on climate change.

There is a scientific consensus on Global Warming and the BBC should
reflect that in its reporting. I would like to see them investigate some
of the dodgy US front organistaions and the incestuous nature for the
well known deniers for hire over there. Exxon sponsorship of deniers to
confuse the public got so bad at one point that the Royal Society wrote
an open letter to them asking them to desist from publishing falsehoods.

'The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by
accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless
reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.'

A handful of genuine scientists doubt some of the details and/or the
extent of the warming that can be expected. The rest are politically
motivated or lobby groups for the fossil fuel industry.

The science is settled at least in the sense that the probability is
strongly in favour of the AGW theory being accurate enough that we have
to take some action. Ostriches will pay the price.

Regards,
Martin Brown


The consensus seems to be mostly those reaping
windfall wages from climate change study, the sooner
those funds are transferred to alternate energy projects,
the better.