10 signatures reached
To: The BBC Trust
Climate science at the BBC
Dismiss the Head of Editorial Standards at the BBC, for creating a 'false balance' in the reporting of the science of Climate Change.
Why is this important?
In October 2013, the biologist Steve Jones, who reviewed the BBC's science output in 2011, told the Guardian he was concerned that the BBC was still wedded to an idea of "false balance" in presenting climate sceptics alongside reputable scientists.
He said: "This goes to the heart of science reporting – you wouldn't have a homeopath speaking alongside a brain surgeon for balance, as that would be absurd. It's just as absurd to have a climate sceptic for balance against the work of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists."
The BBC said in 2012 it moved quickly to put many of Jones' recommendations on science reporting into effect, including the appointment of a science editor for the whole of the corporation's output.
But in 2013 in a select committee hearing David Jordan, head of editorial standards, told MPs that the broadcaster had decided not to follow Jones' key recommendations on climate change: "[Jones] made one recommendation that we did not take on board. He said we should regard climate science as settled … we should not hear from dissenting voices on the science."
I had not realised that the BBC was into promoting ignorance.
In 'A Christmas Carol', the Ghost of Christmas Present has two ragged children at his feet. He explains to Scrooge: " The boy is Ignorance; the girl is Want. Fear them both, but fear the boy the most."
The president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the Associated Press said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades' worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly. So why are the BBC still interested in giving space to non-scientific nonsense about climate change?
A number of newspapers have now set a policy that as a rule they will not publish letters to the editor if they attempt to put forward views that are contrary to science on this matter. The first such paper was the Los Angeles Times; the Letters Editor of the L.A.Times wrote this on 8/10/2013:
"Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy."