BBC aplogises for not challenging climate change denier lies

[Surface Detail]

BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson

The BBC has apologised for an interview with the climate change denier Lord Lawson after admitting it had breached its own editorial guidelines for allowing him to claim that global temperatures have not risen in the past decade.

BBC Radio 4’s flagship news programme Today ran the item in August in which Lawson, interviewed by presenter Justin Webb, made the claim. The last three years have in fact seen successive global heat records broken.

The Today programme rejected initial complaints from listeners, arguing that Lawson’s stance was “reflected by the current US administration” and that offering space to “dissenting voices” was an important aspect of impartiality.

However, some listeners escalated their complaint and, in a letter seen by the Guardian, the BBC’s executive complaints unit now accepts the interview breached its guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.

That's not the first time that the BBC has been caught out giving "false balance", i.e. treating opposite opinions as equally valid regardless of the accuracy of those opinions. The BBC has a duty to inform and should not be allowing outright lies to pass unchallenged as reasonable arguments. Let's hope they've finally learned their lesson.

 

[longview]

BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson



That's not the first time that the BBC has been caught out giving "false balance", i.e. treating opposite opinions as equally valid regardless of the accuracy of those opinions. The BBC has a duty to inform and should not be allowing outright lies to pass unchallenged as reasonable arguments. Let's hope they've finally learned their lesson.

I would hope they would challenge any ridiculous claims, including ones made predicting unlikely temperature and sea level rises,
based on untested science.

 

[DaveFagan]

BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson



That's not the first time that the BBC has been caught out giving "false balance", i.e. treating opposite opinions as equally valid regardless of the accuracy of those opinions. The BBC has a duty to inform and should not be allowing outright lies to pass unchallenged as reasonable arguments. Let's hope they've finally learned their lesson.

I don't see where they were fined a large sum of money so there is little likelihood that a lesson was learned.
/

 

[X Factor]

If AGW is so obvious and settled, I have to wonder why the desperation to silence anyone who questions it.

 

[Surface Detail]

If AGW is so obvious and settled, I have to wonder why the desperation to silence anyone who questions it.

What are you talking about? The BBC was so keen to have someone question it that they allowed Lawson's lies to go unchallenged.

 

[X Factor]

What are you talking about? The BBC was so keen to have someone question it that they allowed Lawson's lies to go unchallenged.

Have AGW folks ever been challenged on the things that haven't proven to be true?

 

[Surface Detail]

I would hope they would challenge any ridiculous claims, including ones made predicting unlikely temperature and sea level rises,
based on untested science.

It's a matter of tense. There is an essential difference between making a prediction about the future that turns out to be incorrect and simply lying about what happened in the past. If I claim that it'll rain tomorrow, and it doesn't, then you can accuse me, at the most, of poor weather forecasting skills. If, on the other hand, I were to claim that it rained yesterday, when it didn't, then I would be a liar. Lawson is a liar, and his lies should have been challenged, as the BBC now admits.

 

[Surface Detail]

Have AGW folks ever been challenged on the things that haven't proven to be true?

I can't think of any instances where "AGW folks" have told a BBC interviewer such blatant lies as Lawson did and gone unchallenged. I'm sure the denier crowd would be up in arms about it immediately if it they did!

 

[Jack Hays]

BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson



That's not the first time that the BBC has been caught out giving "false balance", i.e. treating opposite opinions as equally valid regardless of the accuracy of those opinions. The BBC has a duty to inform and should not be allowing outright lies to pass unchallenged as reasonable arguments. Let's hope they've finally learned their lesson.

[h=1]BBC accused of being a ‘left-wing mouthpiece’ today after a grovelling apology[/h]James Tapsfield, Mail Online, via The GWPF The BBC was accused of being a ‘left-wing mouthpiece’ today after it issued a grovelling apology for failing to challenge Lord Lawson over a claim temperatures have not risen over the last 10 years. Furious MPs said the decision to single out the peer showed the corporation had given up any…

 

[Jack Hays]

BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson



That's not the first time that the BBC has been caught out giving "false balance", i.e. treating opposite opinions as equally valid regardless of the accuracy of those opinions. The BBC has a duty to inform and should not be allowing outright lies to pass unchallenged as reasonable arguments. Let's hope they've finally learned their lesson.

[h=1]We should have seen it coming[/h]The Global Warming Thought Police Want Climate Skeptics In ‘Jail’ Guest opinion by Kerry Jackson Conform or else! That’s the message of the global warming alarmists. Those who don’t buy into the man-made climate change narrative should be prosecuted as criminals. “Put officials who reject science in jail,” someone named Brad Johnson who says he’s…

 

[longview]

It's a matter of tense. There is an essential difference between making a prediction about the future that turns out to be incorrect and simply lying about what happened in the past. If I claim that it'll rain tomorrow, and it doesn't, then you can accuse me, at the most, of poor weather forecasting skills. If, on the other hand I were to claim that it rained yesterday, when it didn't, then I would be a liar. Lawson is a liar, and his lies should have been challenged, as the BBC now admits.

Frankly it is a bit subjective, Global average temperatures have very likely increased,
but the vast majority of that increase has been a decrease in evening cooling.
We hear about all the daily high temperature records broken, but on a broad scale,
away from the heat island effect, the average maximum temperatures have not increased much.
To say Lord Lawson was lying, would depend on what he actually said.

 

[Surface Detail]

Frankly it is a bit subjective, Global average temperatures have very likely increased,
but the vast majority of that increase has been a decrease in evening cooling.
We hear about all the daily high temperature records broken, but on a broad scale,
away from the heat island effect, the average maximum temperatures have not increased much.
To say Lord Lawson was lying, would depend on what he actually said.

His exact words were:

"According – again – to the official figures, during this past 10 years, if anything, mean global temperature, average world temperature, has slightly declined."

This is simply a lie. There are no "official figures" showing that the mean global temperature has declined over the past 10 years. On the contrary, every dataset shows a significant increase in global mean temperature during this period. Not that it really makes sense to draw conclusions from such a short period in any case.

 

[Surface Detail]

[h=1]BBC accused of being a ‘left-wing mouthpiece’ today after a grovelling apology[/h]James Tapsfield, Mail Online, via The GWPF The BBC was accused of being a ‘left-wing mouthpiece’ today after it issued a grovelling apology for failing to challenge Lord Lawson over a claim temperatures have not risen over the last 10 years. Furious MPs said the decision to single out the peer showed the corporation had given up any…

Making a grudging apology (after initially refusing to do so) for allowing a Conservative politician to lie without being challenged is evidence of being a left-wing mouthpiece? Well, it's a view I suppose :roll:

 

[longview]

His exact words were:

"According – again – to the official figures, during this past 10 years, if anything, mean global temperature, average world temperature, has slightly declined."

This is simply a lie. There are no "official figures" showing that the mean global temperature has declined over the past 10 years. On the contrary, every dataset shows a significant increase in global mean temperature during this period. Not that it really makes sense to draw conclusions from such a short period in any case.

It does sound like he is referring to older data,
It could be argued that we do not yet have a full accounting of the 2016 El Nino contribution, a
and so cannot say what 2016 temperature actually was (Yet), but we know that 2015 was an increase.
Weather that increase exceeded the signal to noise ratio is also questionable.
A signal moving within the standard deviation, can be considered to not be moving at all.
I think we have seen some warming, but the enormous spike from the El Nino will average out, to only mild warming.

 

[Jack Hays]

Making a grudging apology (after initially refusing to do so) for allowing a Conservative politician to lie without being challenged is evidence of being a left-wing mouthpiece? Well, it's a view I suppose :roll:

A good case can be made there was no lie, or at most a trivial inaccuracy. The BBC would have showed more integrity saying nothing.

Met Office’s HadCrut4 global temperature data set​

 

[Surface Detail]

A good case can be made there was no lie, or at most a trivial inaccuracy. The BBC would have showed more integrity saying nothing.

Met Office’s HadCrut4 global temperature data set​

No, it is not a trivial inaccuracy. There is no way in which that graph can be interpreted as showing a fall over the past 10 years. And if you think integrity means allowing politicians to lie without challenge then I suggest you consult a dictionary.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, it is not a trivial inaccuracy. There is no way in which that graph can be interpreted as showing a fall over the past 10 years. And if you think integrity means allowing politicians to lie without challenge then I suggest you consult a dictionary.

On the contrary, the graph makes my point. Please learn about trend lines.

 

[Jack Hays]

Peter Stott being economical with the truth

From Climate Scepticism Posted on 11 Aug 17 by Paul Matthews Why can’t Peter Stott say the truth about hurricanes? https://t.co/rAFzqJOizb — Bishop Hill (@aDissentient) August 11, 2017 Yesterday, Nigel Lawson was allowed onto the Today programme in response to an earlier interview with Al Gore promoting his new alarmist film. The audio is…

August 12, 2017 in Climate News.

"Yesterday, Nigel Lawson was allowed onto the Today programme in response to an earlier interview with Al Gore promoting his new alarmist film. The audio is here, Gore at about 1:09:00, Lawson at 2:33:30. Gore had made the false claim that “The second big change is that the climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive”, and Lawson corrected him on that, pointing out what the IPCC saysabout extreme events. He also corrected Gore’s bogus claims about fossil fuel subsidies, saying that fossil fuels are taxed, not subsidised. He also said that “during this past 10 years if anything mean global temperature has slightly declined,” which is not correct according the most commonly used indices (Lawson’s comment probably came from this graph of the global 2m temperature anomaly).
Needless to say, the usual suspects like Brian Cox and Jim Al-Khalili howled with indignation that Lawson was permitted to speak. Carbon Brief carried out a ‘fact check’, which I have fact-checked in their comments section. As far as I am aware, no climate scientist has yet spoken out about Gore’s false claim of “far more numerous” extreme events. . . ."

 

[Surface Detail]

On the contrary, the graph makes my point. Please learn about trend lines.

Time to stop digging, Jack. Lawson has already admitted that his claims were based on an "erroneous" dataset.

 

[Jack Hays]

Time to stop digging, Jack. Lawson has already admitted that his claims were based on an "erroneous" dataset.

As I said, a minor inaccuracy. Please see #18 above. And I note no one has expressed outrage over lies told by Al Gore on the same program.

 

[Surface Detail]

As I said, a minor inaccuracy. Please see #18 above. And I note no one has expressed outrage over lies told by Al Gore on the same program.

That'll be because Al Gore didn't tell lies. Lying is what the deniers do.

 

[Jack Hays]

That'll be because Al Gore didn't tell lies. Lying is what the deniers do.

Are you calling Al Gore a denier?

". . . Gore had made the false claim that “The second big change is that the climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive”, and Lawson corrected him on that, pointing out what the IPCC says about extreme events. He also corrected Gore’s bogus claims about fossil fuel subsidies, saying that fossil fuels are taxed, not subsidised. . . ."

 

[Surface Detail]

Are you calling Al Gore a denier?

". . . Gore had made the false claim that “The second big change is that the climate-related extreme weather events have grown far more numerous and far more destructive”, and Lawson corrected him on that, pointing out what the IPCC says about extreme events. He also corrected Gore’s bogus claims about fossil fuel subsidies, saying that fossil fuels are taxed, not subsidised. . . ."

No, of course not. Who are you quoting?

 

[Jack Hays]

No, of course not. Who are you quoting?

It's from #18.

 

[Surface Detail]

It's from #18.

Who are you quoting?