The BBC report this in a "balanced" fashion, and their arcticle doesn't expressly state that the BBC was criticised for straying from the party line and occasionally presenting some non-alarmist or even skeptical evidence (the BBC does not do wall to wall climate scare nonsense, they intersperse it with more down to earth stuff).
But the Guardian lives up to expectations:
Science and technology select committee says corporation continues to give opinions and scientific fact the same weight…
Aren't most climate stories just some small group's "opinions" about what they want us to think will happen in the future? Facts are current or past events, everything else is guesswork. If you want your predictions to be taken seriously, you have to have a good record of having made accurate predictions in the past.
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…
OK, let me rephrase that:
"A normal bloke was given equal time with an astrologist."
The remainder of the article and the comments are an absolute hoot, warmly recommended (but less than 1 degree warmer that at any time since 1870, obviously).
Debate Magazine
