MPs criticise BBC for 'false balance' in climate change coverage

Editors of the Radio 4 Today programme and other BBC news teams have been criticised by MPs for giving political opinions about climate change and scientific fact the same weight of coverage.

Andrew Miller, chairman of the science and technology select committee, publishing a report on how the media communicates climate change science, said: "Given the high level of trust the public has in its coverage, it is disappointing that the BBC does not ensure all of its programmes and presenters reflect the actual state of climate science in its output. The Today programme and other BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight.".

The report follows longstanding frustration by environment groups, academics and scientists about many BBC programmes appearing to apply "false balance" when they cover climate change. This, they have argued, has often resulted in inaccurate or misleading scientific coverage.

In February, the former chancellor Lord Lawson, a longstanding climate change sceptic, was given equal time on a Today programme debate about climate change and flooding with Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, a climatologist. Lawson is also the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a thinktank that casts doubt on climate change science and questions the economic costs of responding to it. The debate resulted in alleged scientific inaccuracies and a demonstration outside Broadcasting House by direct action group Climate Rush against the BBCs coverage.

The report said: "Some editors appear to be particularly poor at determining the level of scientific expertise of contributors in debates, putting up lobbyists against top scientists as though their arguments on the science carry equal weight … Lobbying groups and other interested parties should be heard on the issue, [but] the BBC should be clear on the role of its interviewees and should not treat lobbying groups as disinterested experts."

Last year the BBC was widely criticised by climate experts for giving too much coverage to climate sceptics at the launch of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change's landmark report on climate change. The report stated unequivocally that warming was already occurring and that the dominant force behind it was human activity, but the BBC gave considerable airtime to sceptics who did not accept the findings.

"We do not consider the ability of individual editors to determine the level of expertise of contributors to debates to be acceptable. Broadcasters need to develop clear editorial guidelines that ensure programmes present an accurate picture of the current state of the science. Commentators and presenters should be encouraged to challenge statements that stray too far from science," said the report.

The BBC should apply the same stringent approach that it applies to coverage of politicians and political parties when interviewing non-experts on controversial scientific topics such as climate change, said the MPs. They called on the BBC to develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate change that should be used to challenge statements that stray too far from the scientific facts.

In a statement, the BBC responded: "The BBC does its utmost to report on this complex subject as clearly as possible using our specialist journalists. While the vast bulk of our interviews are with climate scientists, as part of our commitment to impartiality it is important that dissenting voices are also heard.

"We don't believe in erasing wider viewpoints even if the select committee doesn't agree with them. We [have] said we would take care to reflect all viewpoints in the debate about the science and policy giving them due weight - that is what we are doing."

Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics, welcomed the MPs' report.

"I am glad that the committee has explicitly acknowledged our evidence that the public interest is being harmed by inaccurate and misleading coverage of climate change by the BBC and other media," he said.

"While the UK media, including the BBC, has some of the best science and environment correspondents in the world, who provide insightful and factual reporting about climate change, too many editors are willing to publish or broadcast inaccurate and misleading information, seemingly on the grounds that atmospheric physics should be treated as just a matter of opinion."

Leo Hickman, chief adviser on climate change at WWF-UK, said: "It is crucial that the public – and policymakers – are accurately informed about the risks climate change presents in the years and decades ahead. As the MPs' report concludes, debate should be limited to the policy response rather than confuse this with a false debate around the science."