By giving a platform to climate change sceptics, the BBC is misleading the public

The corporation is sacrificing accuracy by being impartial between facts and fictions.

Earlier this month, the BBC Trust published the latest in a series of reports about the impartiality of the broadcaster’s coverage. It exposed the woolly-minded thinking about scientific issues, such as climate change, that takes place in the upper echelons of the corporation and other British media organisations, which are dominated by graduates from non-scientific disciplines.

The Trust asked Stuart Prebble, former chief executive of ITV and an English graduate from the University of Newcastle, for an independent assessment of the breadth of opinion in the BBC’s output, particularly in relation to immigration, the EU, religion and belief. 

But Prebble’s review also criticised the way in which some of the BBC’s science and environment correspondents have covered climate change. He highlighted part of a lecture by Richard Black, a former BBC environment correspondent, which is posted on the website of the BBC College of Journalism, complaining that it was "entirely devoted to sustaining the case that climate change is effectively 'settled science' and that those who argue otherwise are simply wrong". Instead, Prebble argued, the lecture should have mentioned that "dissenters (or even sceptics) should still occasionally be heard because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate".

This repeats the point made in an earlier report on impartiality by John Bridcut, a documentary film-maker and former BBC journalist, which was published in June 2007. It suggested that the BBC should still provide an occasional platform for climate change 'sceptics' on the grounds that "impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space".

However, a review carried out in 2011 by Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, of the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s science output criticised the amount of time and space that the broadcaster has devoted to covering the views of climate change 'sceptics', particularly because "the impression of active debate is sometimes promoted by statements that are not supported by the facts".

Professor Jones concluded: "For at least three years, the climate change deniers have been marginal to the scientific debate but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves. Their ability so to do suggests that an over‐diligent search for due impartiality – or for a controversy – continue to hinder the objective reporting of a scientific story even when the internal statements of the BBC suggest that no controversy exists. There is a contrast between the clear demands for due impartiality in the BBC’s written guidelines and what sometimes emerges on air."

But it is clear that the BBC’s cadre of unscientific senior staff has simply ignored this aspect of the review by Professor Jones. In his evidence to the House of Commons select committee on science and technology on 17 July, David Jordan, director of editorial policy and standards at the BBC and a graduate of economics and politics from the University of Bristol, told MPs: "[Professor Jones] also made one recommendation which we didn’t take on board which is that we should regard climate science as settled in effect, and therefore that we shouldn’t hear from dissenting voices on the science of climate change and we didn’t agree with that because we think the BBC’s role is to reflect all views and opinions in society and we’ve continued to do that."

This is the result of erroneously believing that climate change is just a political issue, and based on a matter of opinion. But the laws of atmospheric physics are not a "point of view", and this wrong-headed approach by the BBC means it is sacrificing accuracy by being impartial between facts and fictions.

There are two consequences of this decision by the BBC to ignore the advice of Professor Jones. The first is that over-representation of the opinions of climate change 'sceptics', the overwhelming majority of whom are not scientists, misleads a large part of the public into believing that there is no scientific consensus about the causes and consequences of climate change. In fact, more than 99 per cent of scientific papers on climate change and all of the world’s major scientific organisations, agree that the Earth is warming and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are primarily responsible. Yet, a recent opinion poll found that only 56 per cent of the UK public accept that "most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change". 

The second impact is that the BBC is disseminating inaccurate and misleading information about climate change because it allows 'sceptics' to make erroneous statements unchallenged, and some of its own staff even promote falsehoods themselves.

A clear example of this occurred on The Sunday Politics show on 14 July. The programme is hosted by Andrew Neil (a graduate in politics and economics from the University of Glasgow) and frequently includes misrepresentations of the science of climate change. 

On this particular occasion, Neil spent a whole interview quizzing the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey, about recent trends in annual global average temperature. Among the many tactics adopted by Neil was to misrepresent the views of climate scientists. He falsely claimed that Professor Hans von Storch, when discussing the recent slowdown in the rise of global surface temperature in an interview with a German newspaper, indicated that "if there is a 20 year plateau, then we’ll need to have a fundamental re-examination of climate change policy, not to abandon it, but to wonder whether we should be doing it so quickly and in the way we’re doing it". In fact, Professor von Storch did not make any such statement.

Neil also made a number of false assertions, such as "the Arctic ice melt did not happen other than normally this year", when in fact the area of sea ice last summer was the lowest on record and 49 per cent below the average for the period between 1979 and 2000. 

In addition, Neil misrepresented the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, referring to "a quick and large rise in temperatures that the IPCC is predicting, their central forecast was 3% for this century". In fact, the most recent IPCC report, published in 2007, presented six scenarios, none of which indicated that temperature would rise by 3% by 2100.

When I suggested to Neil on Twitter that he had made false assertions, he responded with "Actually I didn't my little Global Warming Goebels [sic]. But if you want to tell lies ... make them big ones". 

No doubt Neil felt that he was protected by the BBC’s policy of impartiality between truth and falsehood. But the broadcaster's approach is damaging the public interest and undermining the democratic process of deciding how best to manage the risks of climate change.

The BBC headquarters at New Broadcasting House in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

Bob Ward is policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science.

Getty
Show Hide image

This is no time for Labour to turn its back on free trade

The Brexit negotiations centre on a trade deal. But Labour is divided on the benefits of free trade. 

On Wednesday 29 March, Theresa May will trigger Article 50 and the process of leaving the European Union will begin. The Prime Minister and David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, have made a commitment to “pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.” On 24 January in Parliament, Davis went even further and committed the government to negotiating “a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have".

As Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer set out earlier this week, it is critical that we hold the government to account on Davis' pledge. But it is also crucial that the Labour movement gets to grips with the new reality of trade deals with the EU and other countries, resists any knee-jerk protectionist instincts and makes the right progressive demands on workers’ rights and environmental and consumer protections.

The successful negotiation of a free trade deal with the EU is essential. Together, the remaining 27 EU countries are by far and away our largest export market. And we import more from the EU than from any of our other trading partners. A UK-EU trade deal will therefore be the single most important free tree agreement the UK will ever have to strike, and if it covers both goods and services it will also be the most comprehensive deal that any country has ever negotiated with Europe.

The stakes are high. Our EU membership has given us unfettered access to the single market which is so much more than a free trade deal. It is a vast, integrated factory floor across which goods conform to the same regulations and standards. At the border with the EU, goods are not subject to customs duties, onerous rules of origin or time-delaying checks. Given that services make up 80 per cent of our economy, the government must seek much greater access for our services than the EU has been willing to grant to other countries in the free trade deals it has negotiated so far.

Retaining the exact same benefits is going to be a huge challenge. Indeed, there is no guarantee that such a deal will be achieved, particularly within the two-year period set out under Article 50. The government has already struck the wrong tone with our European partners. The Foreign Secretary seems intent on needlessly upsetting them. The PM parrots the mantra “no deal is better than a bad deal”, effectively threatening to walk away. It is crucial that a new positive dynamic is established to create mutual goodwill and help deliver an ambitious UK-EU trade deal.

There is a substantial risk that the government’s mishandling of Brexit could see the UK fall out of the EU with no trade deal at all, thereby falling back on to World Trade Organisation tariffs and barriers. Furthermore, we would do so with none of the technical agreements in place - such as financial services equivalence agreements and mutual conformity of assessment agreements - that other major countries around the world enjoy. As Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK Permanent Representative to the EU, recently asserted in his evidence to the Exiting the European Union Select Committee, on which I sit, “no other major player trades with the EU on pure WTO-only terms”.

The Prime Minister asserts that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but it is increasingly clear that no deal is the worst possible deal. It would do considerable damage to our economy. And yet, we have learnt that Cabinet members have been told to plan for the no deal scenario. In recent weeks, Davis has admitted to the Brexit Select Committee that the government has conducted no analysis of what this would mean for the British economy. Labour will fight strongly against such a reckless step which would hit jobs, living standards and growth.

As Starmer said in his speech to Chatham House, the government must agree a strong and collaborative relationship with the EU. If it does not, it will not be acting in the best interests of the UK and it will not have Labour’s support.

I believe that Labour must champion the right free trade deal with EU over the next two years. We must demand that the government accepts meaningful transitional arrangements that will be necessary to successfully complete such negotiations. A successful EU-UK deal could then become a template for future agreements. After all, our country’s future economic prosperity rests on striking free trade deals not just with the EU but with other G20 economies and developing countries around the world. So Labour must become a champion for striking progressive free trade agreements.

Yet this poses a challenge to the Labour party. Within our movement, there is currently a heated debate about what our approach to trade should be. This was exposed by the recent votes in the UK Parliament and European Parliament on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta) between the EU and Canada when Labour MPs and MEPs were divided. I fear Labour risks sliding into a dangerous position: one of perpetual opposition to trade deals that puts us the wrong side of the public interest and history. Globalisation cannot be stopped but it can be regulated. So the real challenge is how to make it work for people so that they can benefit from an increasingly globalised world.

No trade deal is ever perfect. Each is inevitably the result of negotiation and compromise. However, if we followed the advice of some on the left and refused to ratify any trade deals, no matter how progressive, the UK would be isolated, poorer and left behind. Of course we need assurances that public services will be safeguarded, that workers’ rights are protected and environmental and consumer protections are in place in any deal, but we also need to open up markets. Trade deals are not the threat to public services that some claim, but a failing economy facing trade barriers that puts a squeeze on the public finances is a clear and present danger.

Labour’s values place us in a strong position to lead the way in rejecting the Tory right-wing approach of unfettered globalisation, a race to the bottom and unchecked markets. We must show that we are the party of work and workers, looking to both create jobs and protect the rights of workers in our future trading relationships. Our internationalism can be expressed by establishing progressive global rules and opening up markets, using trade to bind nations together in a way that prevents conflict and opens minds.

As these historic negotiations begin, Labour must hold the government’s feet to the fire and champion regulated and progressive free trade deals with the EU and other countries. Turning our backs on properly regulated free trade will not further social justice or economic prosperity on our shores, it will only serve to do harm to both. Labour has to reject the defeatism of protectionism and instead embrace progressive free trade agreements if we are to truly succeed in building a fairer and more prosperous economy for the people we represent.

 

Emma Reynolds is MP for Wolverhampton North East and former shadow Europe minister. She sits on the committee for exiting the European Union.