Over the last several years, Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) and I have taken a great deal of interest in the BBC’s coverage of the climate debate, and this has involved a good deal of behind-the-scenes research. So we were obviously interested when the BBC Trust announced in early January this year that they were to conduct a review of the impartiality of their science coverage.
Our first reaction was to write to Professor Richard Tait, the Trustee who was fronting this project, requesting that we should make a submission to the review and pointing out that the main critics of the BBC coverage of AGW were in the blogoshpere. Not only were we unable to get a reply form Professor Tait, but we were unable even to get confirmation from the secretary of the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee that he had been given the letter. This will be the subject of another post.
Fortunately, in April, Andrew’s remarkably well-developed antenna picked up a request for comments from the general public on an obscure BBC web page. He contacted Professor Steve Jones, the person commissioned by the BBC Trust to conduct the review, who proved to be rather more approachable than Professor Tait. It was quickly arranged that we should make a submission before the end of October. His report is due to be published in the Spring of 2011.
The document that we finally sent to Professor Jones can be found here and it will be interesting to see whether anyone takes notice of what we have said.
See the thread about this at Bishop Hill too.
__________________________________________________
Read James Delingpole’s typically enthusiastic take on this post at the Daily Telegraph
And JoNova’s perspective from down under here
John A is sensibly cautious about the BBC listening at WUWT
Luke Warmer
Yes. The 4 simple steps are idealized, as you have written (22). But without them, we do not have science.
To the basics:
Is there a greenhouse effect? Yes. The fact that GHGs, such as H2O and CO2 absorb IR radiation has been experimentally confirmed.
Do humans emit CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, cement production, etc.? Yes.
Has atmospheric CO2 concentration increased at a steady compounded annual growth rate of around 0.4% per year since measurements started at Mauna Loa in 1958 (from around 315 to 390 ppmv)? Yes.
Is it, therefore, logical to conclude that human CO2 emissions may have contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and, therefore, have caused some GH warming? Yes, this is a logical conclusion to be drawn from the above data.
So much for the “reliable scientific knowledge”.
However, the hypothesis that AGW, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions, has been the principal cause of past warming and that it represents a serious threat for the future, is based on model simulations backed by theoretical deliberations and some questionable data from paleo-climate reconstructions but has not, as yet, been corroborated by empirical data derived from physical observations or experimentation (despite multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded climate research expenditures).
Instead, the observed recent cooling of our planet’s atmosphere (surface and troposphere) and the upper-ocean, despite record CO2 increase, tends to falsify the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis, as have recent satellite observations on cloud feedbacks (Spencer et al.) and our planet’s overall energy balance (Lindzen and Choi), which point to a low 2xCO2 climate sensitivity and, therefore, no serious threat.
Until these findings can be scientifically refuted, they represent a real challenge for the “dangerous AGW” premise, which remains an “uncorroborated hypothesis”.
Then there is the fact that the correlation between observed temperature and atmospheric CO2 is not statistically robust but rather more of a “random walk”, statistically speaking, raising serious doubts on whether CO2 has, in fact, been the principal driver of our climate.
Challenge this logic, if you will.
But don’t toss out Einstein’s general theory or “black holes” as examples – just stick with the topic at hand.
Max
PeterM
You write:
“Rational (or scientific) skepticism” is an integral part of the scientific method, Peter, as your favorite source, Wiki, tells us.
I am “rationally skeptical” of the claims made in support of “creationism” or its pseudo-scientific cousin, “intelligent design”.
I am not “rationally skeptical” of the premise that HIV is related to AIDS, that cigarette smoking can increase the risk of lung cancer or cardiovascular disease, etc.
Nor am I “rationally skeptical” of Darwinian theory of Evolution, Einstein’s General Theory, etc.
I am not even “rationally skeptical” of the basic greenhouse theory or that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR energy.
But I am “rationally skeptical” that AGW, primarily from human CO2, has been the principal driver of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat.
Hope this clears it up for you, Peter (believe we have covered this once before, but possibly you forgot).
Max
PeterM
As so often happens in exchanges with you, it appears that we have again drifted off the topic of this thread (scientific objectivity and credibility of BBC reporting on “climate”) and onto generalities about HIV/AIDS, Evolution, Creationism, etc.
TonyN may wish for us to continue this discussion on the NS thread, rather than here, and I suggest that is what we do.
Max,
TonyN, Re my complaints to the ABC. A couple of interesting points have come up:
1) [Chairman] Maurice Newman’s address to ABC staff; March 2010, extracts:
“…More significantly, we see too how media have failed us by not being rigorous and questioning enough, resulting in many misrepresentations taking too long to be discovered. We have seen so often that the time of greatest certainty is, in fact, the time to be most sceptical…
…At the ABC, I believe we must reenergise the spirit of enquiry. Be dynamic and challenging – to look for contrary points of view, to ensure that the maverick voice will not be silenced. There should be no public perception that there is such a thing as an “ABC view” – we must be neither believers nor atheists but agnostics who acknowledge people have a right to make up their own minds…
…The theme of this conference is innovation. I would like you to think about how we might encourage, in our internal debates, more open minds and diverse opinions. How might we ensure that in our newsrooms we celebrate those who interrogate every truth – both inconvenient and convenient. Create an atmosphere in which one can hold a view that runs contrary to prevailing wisdom without fear of ridicule from those with whom we work.
This is the part of the journalistic culture we simply must get right, if we are to continue to be trusted by all Australians. Our greatest potential vulnerability long-term lies in people losing the trust they place in the ABC – yet, we can ensure that rather than being a vulnerability, it can instead become our greatest distinguishing strength…”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/maurice-newman-speech/story-e6frg996-1225839427099
Certainly the Science Show team have not heeded this advice, and problematically the written policies etc. remain vaguely “business as usual”. I’m still pondering on how best to handle this contradiction.
2) The “Complaints Unit” were strong on claiming three times that Bob Carter was invited onto the show; quote
…I note that Professor Carter was asked on to the show to respond to the criticisms made of his views and others by Bob Ward. Professor Carter declined, as Robyn Williams noted during the broadcast…
…In my view, the invitation made to Professor Carter to appear on the program, and the publication of his paper and response on the program website, indicate that the program was seeking to present its audience with a diversity of views on this subject…
…notwithstanding Professor Carter declining the invitation to appear on the [2] October program
However, Bob Carter responded to my enquiry to him, and included this Email copy:
From: David Fisher [mailto:Fisher.David@abc.net.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 2:41 PM
To: ‘bob.carter@jcu.edu.au’
Subject: Interview with Robyn Williams
Hi Bob,
I’ve left this message on your mobile as well… We have an interview with Bob Ward from LSE who mentions your work. We’d like to offer you a chance to respond. We’re broadcasting Mr Ward’s interview 2nd October. Ideally we would do a phone interview with you before end of Thursday 30th September and include this in our program of Oct 2.
If you would like to respond, please call me and we’ll make an arrangement.
Thanks, David Fisher, Producer
Bob naturally declined “the invitation“, and instead sent existing written material well in advance of the show. (anticipating the show would largely be a rehash of Ward’s earlier critique). This material was not used to challenge any of the misleading or vague statements made by Ward.
A week has passed whilst I await a response from the “complaints unit” concerning this information.
Interestingly, Ian Plimer was also lambasted by Ward, but there is apparently no evidence that he was “invited onto the show“.
I can give a long list of examples where the Science Show blatantly disregards the wishes of the Chairman, as addressed back in March, but I’m concentrating on a few issues so as not to cause overload.
manacker (16) – the second half of your comment is so good, it’ll appear (referenced and all) on my blog sometimes tomorrow morning.
Luke Warmer (22) – The “science of now” is exactly the science of what we can observe and measure. There is also the “science of the future” that involves forecasts and projections, and the main difference is that for the latter everything is always “cutting edge”, using your phraseology.
As for your criticism of manacker’s 4-step scheme, yes, it’s post-hoc, but if one wants to analyse where AGW has been and where it is now, one has to start from a “post” situation anyway (i.e. if you look at a cube from the left, it will show you it’s leftmost face).
It’s a model 8-) so let’s not put too much faith in it, nor discard it altogether.
manacker (27) – I don’t think you go far enough. The wisest approach to science has to be about being “rationally skeptical” of every claim, even of the ones already “demonstrated”. Being “rationally skeptical” of relativity or evolutionism doesn’t necessarily mean to consider them negatively: it only means being ready to discard them for a new and better theory if and when a new theory shows up.
So I am “rationally skeptical” of the link between smoking and cancer even if I am convinced that’s the best scientific theory we’ve got, there is no plausible alternative on the horizon, I personally find it very likely to be true, etc etc.
Geoff – my apologies for not insulting you. Must try harder.
Maurizio #30 – I see now my confusion. I thought you were referring to science t(now) and science t(future) and consequently by extension science t(now) and science t(past).
Re Manacker’s 16 – I agree about scientific consensus not being sacrosanct (that’s my point about fallibility). In fact science progresses by failure of scientific consensi(?). But the paradox is that you’re also asking for a consensus on what to teach or what to objectively report. You might say it’s only Lindzen and it’s only this issue in terms of teaching but believe me the floodgates will burst open. My take on the current consensus is that there isn’t even a scientific one, rather an extra-scientific one via the IPCC.
And to your challenge in 26:
Don’t worry no mention of relativity here. Also avoiding sophistry, sticking with naive realism, and ignoring the problem of induction (search grue and bleen).
Your logic is clear, but you want holes, so let’s have a go. I’ve essentially reached the trust no-one stage in this whole fiasco, especially papers on sensitivity which open with a polemic on the need to reduce carbon emissions. This is also a slight stream of consciousness given the late hour:
1. A lab is not the earth. Those experiments do not have the complexity of the earth’s atmosphere, with the potential for phase change of the constituents, pressure gradients/ lapse rates, clouds etc. There was a long debate about pressure broadening I seem to remember. They also assume an equilibrium which Lindzen, for one, argues is not there.
Global warming potentials seem to depend on residence time (methane moved from 30 to 21 once on this basis I seem to recall), and the CO2 residence time data seems suspect or at least over-egged by alarmists.
Between that weird physics paper (you know the one), the science of doom and claes johnson blogs, the old 32 degC thing has gone round and about from whether we’re a black or grey body and the proportion due to CO2 – I think it’s now about 8degC. And the alarmists keep the emphasis on doubling to avoid the obvious fact of diminishing returns. How many halvings back to one molecule of CO2, I say? It’s about 40 halfs back to 1 tonne. (slightly tongue in cheek but there’s possibly a zeno’s paradox here – the first doubling from 1 molecule to 2…).
Jumping wildly from there to the sensitivity calcs (and going off the recent debate I saw online between ? and Lindzen), there was this simple calculation of sensitivity based on the measured increase in CO2 against the measured temp increase between now and the last ice age. a) this ignores the cause of the ice age b) it also ignores current natural variability e.g. 1998 ENSO c) feedbacks are then double counted back into this temp rise since they occur concurrently not sequentially. Oh and they’re pretty much all positive.
It would also appear that CO2 might be a grue or bleen phenomena since high levels in the past have not always coincided with high temps. It’s also not really like a greenhouse.
That’s my confuwpoint, for now. Hope it’s enough.
Luke Warmer, Reur 22 and 33:
I’d like you to know that I was not insulted by your wise observations. In fact I found them to be quite interesting, although I would point out that I am a sceptic about CAGW, not a skeptic. More interesting is; what gives you your mood swings? In your 33, were you mellowed by some red coloured beverage? (my current favourite is Shiraz)
Back to your 22, where you wrote:
“Bob FJ – PUD/ H.Pylori is an interesting example but tends towards pseudohistory. There’s a Paul Thagard book which is good as well as some articles by Kimball Atwood, MD. It’s critical to recognise the role of Bismuth (the metal) and also the intervening variable of the drug companies. Just because Likoudis’ actions were right doesn’t mean his science was (seriously)”.
I’m not entirely clear what you mean, and don’t really care. Nature is mostly a complicated thing, and there are usually multiple factors; not one single cause for various phenomena.
The only thing that struck me as a bit odd about Likoudis was the claim of 30,000 satisfied patients treated by him by use of antibiotics. I have a gut feeling that the number is exaggerated.
Also, whether scientific discoveries are via logical scientific analysis, or by accidental observations, does not really matter. The discovery of penicillin is a classic case of successful if accidental science.
BTW, is string theory and 10 or 11 universes annat based on anything other than imagination?
The title of the thread is “…impartiality in science coverage”.
So relativity is clearly not off topic.
The question is how do the BBC relate to questions of scientific controversy? Do they present a pro-and anti argument equally, and ‘impartially’, on any and every scientific topic? Or, do they consult a scientific authority to try to get the science correct, as far as is humanly possible?
I’d go for the latter. What about the rest of you?
PeterM
TonyN may correct me on this, but I think that this whole (Harmless Sky) site concerns itself with the ongoing debate surrounding the science, policies and politics of the current anthropogenic global warming craze.
It is not a forum for in-depth discussion of Einstein’s theory of relativity or Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This specific thread has to do with the impartiality of BBC’s coverage of science, or to be more specific, of the science supporting the hypothesis of alarming anthropogenic climate change.
If you read the document by Andrew Montford and Tony Newberry, you will see that “AGW”, “climate change” or “global warming” are mentioned forty (40) times, while “Einstein” or “Darwin” are not mentioned at all.
So this thread clearly has to do with the impartiality of BBC reporting on AGW – not on the other topics you mentioned. Contrary to what you write, “relativity” is clearly off topic.
Don’t try to obfuscate, Peter – it only backfires and makes you look silly.
Max
Luke Warmer
Thanks for clearing things up with your #33.
On “what to teach” pupils in a “climate science” course, my approach would be to expose the pupils to the many different (scientific – not crackpot) viewpoints on AGW and its potential impact on our climate, along with that of the many natural forcing factors, and encourage them to think for themselves, rather than force-feeding them one line of “politically correct” pablum.
From what you have written, I believe you agree with this.
Max
Maurizio Morabito
Thanks for your #30.
Yes. “Rational (or scientific) skepticism” is a key part of the “scientific method” or process.
As you stated:
Hypotheses may gradually move from being “uncorroborated” (as the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis is today) to being “corroborated” (after being validated by empirical data from reproducible experimentation or physical observations, or after having successfully withstood all scientific attempts at falsification), finally moving to the level of “reliable scientific knowledge” (in a process that is much more complex than this simplified explanation – as Luke Warmer has cautioned us).
But, even then (as Einstein has said), it only takes one irrefutable scientific falsification (by a rational skeptic) to move the hypothesis to the historical trash-heap as a “falsified hypothesis”.
Sic transit gloria.
Max
Bob-FJ #34
I think my problem is actually not enough alcohol. The point about PUD is raised out of my own frustration that it (like every scientific revolution) is not a simple as we are led to believe.
When I first became a climate skeptic, I realised that the dominant example (and hence model) we (scientifically educated) carry with us on paradigm shifts or scientific revolutions is Galileo and heliocentricity. However, I quickly realised this is a special case, based on religion and not simply scientific infighting. So yes I examined many other examples that I ‘knew’ from a long education in science including phlogiston, Wegener, PUD, penicillin, Semmelweis and many others. In every case I found that once you go beyond the simple story there is a much more complex one. The simple fairystories are pseudohistories carrying a meta message about science which is wrong and what I call scientism. If my understanding is correct, for example, Galileo was in the wrong the first time he was tried and the right the second.
#37 Max
We’re on the same page but going around in circles. Isn’t every theory against consensus “crackpot”, until anomalies accumulate and are taken seriously, social processes happen and the old guard even die off. The myth around expertise is a dangerous one especially when you come full circle and add in lay expertise. We’re discussing objectivity very broadly in two threads for the BBC reporting or for education. The is-ought problem preceeds AGW by hundreds of years.
#38
Einstein may have said it but it’s not true (more scientism – he was certainly a brand genius) – read the Golem on solar neutrinos and gravity waves a single experiement either way changes nothing. Even the eclipse experiment which verified Einstein has been shown not to be valid, or at least the measurements made were insufficient to prove him. (This doesn’t mean I doubt relativity)
So I agree we should aspire to objective reporting and education but don’t think it’ll ever be achieved. Even the emphasis or tone of the teacher can distort it.
[…] not lost unless they appear near the top of the heap. One example is the following extract from note #16 written by commenter Max (“manacker”) at Harmless Sky’s BBC impartiality review […]
I’ve moved some comments about Mensa’s bright idea from this thread to the New Statesman thread here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=274&cp=18#comment-102095
Bob_FJ, #29:
What Maurice Newman is saying would seem to be based on a careful reading of the BBC Trust’s 2007 impartiality report. It’s all good sensible stuff for a public service broadcaster, but there just seems to be an enormous gap between mouthing the platitudes and implementation, in this country at least.
Bob_FJ
BTW Pun of the thread award #32 – “gut feeling” on H. Pylori.
LW (37): “a single experiment either way changes nothing”
I do not think that with the “wieso hundert Autoren” quip old Albert just meant that he was waiting for the one scientist capable to (try to) dismantle relativity. Actually, I am pretty sure had such a scientist existed, we would have witnessed the usual scientific war of minds and papers, not a sudden and abject renunciation by Einstein of any of his results.
The actual problem with the “100 authors” was their attempt to use the force of numbers in a scientific discourse, side-stepping the issue of justifying their being “against Einstein” on a scientific basis with the bogus notion of a consensus amongst so many of them. And that was obviously worse than wrong.
So in “why a 100 authors” what I read is epistemological sarcasm, not an ode to science’s ability to correct itself with the quasi-mythical single paper.
tempterrain (33): are you a bot? Please provide evidence you are a human, or at least try to reply to #14.
Let me rephrase it for the silicon-minded among us: is there really no difference between established science (such as relativity, famously shown to be working by GPS devices too); and speculative science (such as pre-big-bang cosmology, or the global warming effects of 40 years in the future)?
What does the BBC usually do? It goes to renowned scientists in the first case to get the science explained. It goes to all sorts of scientists in the second case too, but (apart from AGW) it proceeds to present the various opinions for the audience to enjoy.
What is special about AGW, so that only certain opinions can be seriously heard?
Maurizio,
You ask “what is special about AGW?”. I’ve been asking the same question. If you look at the BBC review you’ll see that its not going to be just about AGW. There has to be a set of working principles which equally apply to all areas of science.
However, AGW is the only area of science that many bloggers here seem to be at all interested in. I haven’t checked his figure but Max has obligingly counted up all AGW references as follows: “If you read the document by Andrew Montford and Tony Newberry, you will see that ‘AGW’, ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ are mentioned forty (40) times, while ‘Einstein’ or ‘Darwin’ are not mentioned at all.”
Was anything else mentioned at all?
Speculative science vs Established science? I see what you are getting, at but any form of science, which is in the slightest way controversial, can be described as speculative. There is no real way of defining a difference between one and the other.
Science of now versus science of the future? I agree that we can’t know for sure what will happen in the future. Climate scientists are however warning of a danger. That does not mean the worst predictions are inevitably going to occur, but they might. It’s all about risk and how much risk is acceptable. It’s really no different in principle from a doctor advising his patient to give up smoking and lose some weight otherwise he’ll be putting his health in danger.
Having said that, climate science isn’t all about prediction. CO2 concentrations has already risen by some 40% since pre-industrial times. Other GHGs have risen more. The atmosphere has also been affected by the addition of particulates which produce the opposite effect to CO2. Furthermore the ocean acts as an enormous heatsink which creates its own damping effects to any change in external forcing. In other words, the earth at present is not in a state of equilibrium and that can, in principle, be measured.
This chart shows the effects, to date, of various forcings:
tempterrain (44) : glad to see you’re back in the land of the carbon-based lifeforms.
Actually, my question was about what’s so special about AGW at the BBC. They do have a clear way to handle established vs non-established scientific theories and it works wonders in many of their documentaries. For some reason, it fails miserably about climate.
Therefore I am not surprised that the Bishop and Tony focused their complaint on AGW. Frankly, there is very little I can condemn the BBC for anything else in their science coverage but climate and AGW. True, they studiously avoid describing some past controversies with the necessary detail, but it’s really world-class stuff week after week (eg the Jim Al-Khalili series on chemistry).
On AGW and climate, it’s week after week of unadulterated rubbish. Why so? You say, “Climate scientists are however warning of a danger”. Jehova’s witnesses have been doing the same for a tad longer, yet they don’t occupy the religious programming, do they.
But one might reply, “the warning comes from science”. Still, it comes from but it is not “science”. It’s a warning, not a finding. A projection, not an equation. Why can’t the BBC be less credulous about it?
ps your chart shows no “effect” at all. The concept of “forcing” has no real-world equivalent, it’s just a computational tool. Now, in the real world only real things can have real effects, hence a table of forcings may at best provide some very rough estimates, not much more.
PeterM
Not to intrude into your very interesting exchange with Maurizio Morabito, but I notice that you have posted the IPCC chart on Radiative Forcing Components from its AR4 WG1 SPM 2007 report.
You will note that this table assigns an almost insignificant Radiative Forcing to “Natural Components” (which it has strangely limited to “solar irradiance”).
On the NS thread I have quoted several scientific studies, which show that roughly half of the observed 20th century warming (0.35C out of around 0.7C) can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity.
Despite these studies, many of which were published before the IPCC AR4 data cut-off, IPCC limits the total impact (from 1750 to 2000) of “natural forcing components” to less than 8% of the total impact of all “anthropogenic forcing components”.
This is an embarrassing oversight on the part of IPCC, even if it concedes that its “level of scientific understanding” of natural forcing factors is “low”.
Even more embarrassing for IPCC is the fact that (despite record CO2 increase) the temperature has declined by around 0.07C since the end of 2000 (the trend was obviously not yet apparent prior to the AR4 cut-off, but is apparent now); IPCC had projected warming of 0.2C per decade instead
The Met Office has attributed this cooling to “natural variability” (= “natural forcing factors”).
This raises the question: how could “natural forcing” overwhelm the “anthropogenic forcing” from record CO2 increase in the first decade of the 21st century and, at the same time, have had an insignificant impact on our climate from 1750 to 2000?
It obviously does not make sense.
Yes. The IPCC “level of scientific understanding” of “natural forcing factors” is, indeed, “low” – as IPCC admits.
But hey, these guys are supposed to be the “experts” on our planet’s climate, not just one piece.
Unfortunately, it looks like they are simply the “experts” on one aspect of our planet’s climate, with a “myopic fixation on anthropogenic factors, primarily CO2”, while ignoring everything else.
What do you think, Peter?
Max
Maurizio,
You say:
“Actually, my question was about what’s so special about AGW at the BBC”.
Again there is nothing special about AGW, at least there shouldn’t be, either at the BBC or on another TV channel.
You also say:
“Frankly, there is very little I can condemn the BBC for anything else in their science coverage but climate and AGW”
That’s because you agree with mainstream science on everything else apart from the question of AGW. The BBC isn’t like the Fox TV channel. They don’t get their information from retired weathermen and paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Although that may well change if certain people on this blog had their way!
Your quarrel isn’t with the BBC it’s with mainstream science. Can you provide a single credible reference to show the BBC have seriously misrepresented the current state of scientific opinion on the AGW question?
Max,
You ask me what I think about solar variability? I seem to remember looking at your calculation which you claimed to “show” that half of the measured warming came from solar sources. As I remember, you’d confused the circular area of the Earth as viewed from a distance (PI x r^2) with the spherical area of the earth (4 x PIx r^2). When corrected, your final answer was a quarter of what you originally claimed and very clsoe to the IPCC figure.
PeterM
Your #48 confirms to me that you are confused (as usual).
It is not “my calculation” of the solar impact on climate we are talking about.
It is the estimate of several independent scientific studies by solar scientists who all agree on average that around 0.35C (or half) of the 20th century warming can be attributed to natural forcing resulting from the observed unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years).
These studies show that the IPCC estimates of solar forcing of climate (admittedly with a “low level of scientific understanding” of “natural forcing”) were grossly underestimated, as I pointed out in detail in #46 (plus on the NS thread).
That is the issue here, Peter – not some irrelevant side track, which you “seem to remember”.
Explain to me why all these studies are wrong, if you can.
If you cannot provide any scientific evidence to invalidate them, you must acknowledge that they are valid.
Max
tempterrain (47)
“Can you provide a single credible reference to show the BBC have seriously misrepresented the current state of scientific opinion on the AGW question?”
Please define _exactly_ what you need, and I’ll find it. Otherwise I’ll end up posting link after link and you’ll dodge any admission of bias reporting.
For example, here’s when the BBC mislead the website readers into believing thousands of researchers had agreed on “six key messages” at the earlier Copenhagen conference.
Or about when Richard Black pretended to having been in Vienna in order to report about a poster presentation, without bothering to inform the readers of the debate surrounding it?
Or about when the BBC science pages disregarded a Science magazine report blaming Northern Atlantic warming on dust, highlighting another Science magazine report from the very same issue about the demise of shrimp cocktails due to global warming?
Those are just three of many, many occasions in which the BBC “have seriously misrepresented the current state of scientific opinion on the AGW question”. You’re welcome.