The BBC has sensationally been caught red-handed editing a news story about global warming in order to appease a rhetorical e mail sent by an environmental activist, while it has also emerged that BBC writers are aware of the growing suspicions about apparent attempts to censor skeptics of man-made global warming.
A report concerning the fact that global warming stopped in 1998 by the BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin was altered to omit the fact that such evidence is cited by skeptics as a reason to doubt the link between Co2 emissions and temperature increase, and the headline was also changed.
The activist who e mailed Harrabin, Jo Abbess, also urged the BBC to censor skeptics of man-made global warming and not make reference to them, an order that was followed despite Harrabin revealing that BBC newsroom writers were aware that sidelining the skeptical side of the debate was making people suspicious.
Read the full e mail exchange here.
(Article continues below)
Harrabin initially dismisses the demand to change the article, stating, "No correction is needed. If the secy-gen of the WMO tells me that global temperatures will decrease, that's what we will report."
After being threatened with a wider propaganda offensive on behalf of other environmental activists, Harrabin still refuses to budge, and responds to Abbess' outright lie that, "Nobody is seriously refuting that increasing Greenhouse Gases cause increased global temperatures," by stating, "We can't ignore the fact that sceptics have jumped on the lack of increase since 1998. It is appearing regularly now in general media."
As we have tirelessly documented - a growing body of scientists and other experts are questioning the global warming orthodoxy.
Tellingly, Harrabin concludes his second e mail with "People feel like debate is being censored which makes them v suspicious," underscoring the media's awareness of the fact that the climate change cult's insistence that "the debate is over" is only causing more people to question man-made global warming.
Down the memory hole - the BBC changes an entire article at the behest of an environmental lobbyist. Notice the last updated time on both articles is 1:42. CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENTS.
Abbess then orders the writer outright to censor global warming skeptics.
"It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics," she writes, "Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth."
Abbess threatens the writer again that he will be the target of a campaign on behalf of the environmentalists, stating, "You may appear in an unfavourable light because it could be said that you have had your head turned by the sceptics."
Harrabin responds, "Have a look in 10 minutes and tell me you are happier. We have changed headline and more."
Is it the BBC's remit, as a so-called independent and neutral news organization, to amend entire articles and headlines in order to make environmental lobbyists "happier"?
Abbess' e mails contain no source references or hyperlinks to document her claims, yet they were subsequently followed to a tee as the BBC changed the article to reflect her wishes, and the sentence, "This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory," was completely scrubbed.
Despite the changes, the time that the story was last updated - 01:42AM - remained the same.
According to blogger Paul Biggs, the BBC headline has actually been changed three times and at one stage was: Global warming 'dips this year'.
Considering the fact that British citizens are taxed on a regular basis in order to own a TV license and therefore directly fund the existence of the BBC, the notion that the BBC would acquiesce to the polemic whim of a bias environmental activist and significantly amend a report that was initially based on raw data from the World Meteorological Organization is an absolute outrage.
We are encouraging people to contact the BBC via this link and demand an explanation as to why the BBC's science writers can be swayed to tailor an apparently neutral article so it appeases the demands of a highly politicized environmental lobbyist, while brazenly agreeing to censor any opposing viewpoint.