One of the anti-science techniques used by climate catastrophists such as the green-Left Australian Academy of Science, the ABC and the Climate Council is to suppress information about the benefits of actual and future hypothesised global warming.[1] It’s hardly surprising that the media’s partisans follow suit as they churn out their climate doomsday pieces.

However there is one mainstream exception – sorry, make that “was” – over at the BBC. The BBC has an education portal called BBC Bitesizewith pages for Year 10 high-schoolers facing geography final exams. One page laid out the benefits of global warming additional to material on its harms.

A lot of British high-school kids have been working from home during lockdowns and probably some green-minded parents noticed this page and went into hysterics. Their meltdown – backed by media hacks – turned the BBC to jelly. It leapt to remove the naughty page.

I’d give you the link to it but it’s gone to some electronic graveyard. A report in The Guardian on July 2 provides the gist. The page told kids that warming “could lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles” for example. Australians might scoff but keep in mind that the British outdoors is not a user-friendly environment in the depths of winter.

Another stated benefit: easier access to oil in Alaska and Siberia. That’s a little esoteric but for sure, the world needs a lot more oil, and more warmth up there would help the drillers. There is a faint suggestion – maybe I imagine it – that kids are to think immediately of environmental degradation and polar bear cubs covered in oil sludge.

The Guardian report continues that the BBC positive script included the ability to one day grow more crops in Siberia, plus new shipping routes created by melting ice, and more tourist destinations.

Again, this list is a bit weird in mixing profound and trivial benefits. The food-growing potential of warmer climates is simply enormous and an answer to problems of population growth for centuries to come. Against that, a tad more northern shipping routes is small beer. So is geriatric retirees like myself packing bathers for a cruise to Sauðárkrókur or Egilsstaðir in Iceland. I suspect The Guardian’s reporter Helena Horton cited minor benefits and ignored major ones.

The BBC switchboard lit up with outrage and backlash from those offended by educative wrongthink, with the Guardian’s iconic catastrophist George Monbiot and Extinction Rebellion at the fore. The BBC grovelled that it had “reviewed the page and are amending the content to be in line with current curricula”. Mr Monbiot tweeted: “This is what @bbcbitesize is teaching our children about climate breakdown. I’m sorry, but it’s an absolute disgrace. You could come away thinking: ‘on balance, it sounds pretty good’.”

Extinction Rebellion’s south-east group, quoted by the Guardian, said: “GCSE students, young people, those facing future disasters, deserve better than to be judged on questions which warp and distort the truth.”

Stuart Lock, the chief executive of Advantage Schools trust in Bedford, said the advice was “flat wrong, doesn’t align with the national curriculum or exam specs, and needs reconsidering. Climate change isn’t a ‘both sides’ argument.”

The exam board, Eduqas, said the information was not taken from its curriculum, adding:

Within our GCSE geography specifications, we examine the consequences of climate change and its respective impact on our planet. As part of our courses, we also ask students to explore opposing attitudes to climate change. However, we do not advocate a positive viewpoint on this topic.

The resources developed by BBC Bitesize were created without any involvement from our geography team, therefore do not accurately reflect the content of our specifications.

There was another, earlier move towards objectivity by the Scottish Exam Board, which mentioned to the kids doing geography that there were some positives about warming (Scotland is even chillier than England). The positives were again the strange bedfellows of “improved crop yields” (tick) and the above-mentioned trivia like tourism to northern climes. The Scottish Greens Party arced up saying it was “deeply inappropriate” for kids to be given the pros and cons of warming.

Scottish education for centuries has been one of the world’s best and the examiners responded: “Analysing and evaluating a variety of views is essential to critical thinking.” Just imagine an Australian education boardor teacher lobby (a) giving kids material deviating from catastrophism and (b) telling Perth-ghost-metropolis Tim Flannery and Senator Penny Wong to get stuffed when they complained. It’s quite simply unthinkable.

You’re probably wondering how the BBC has amended its global-warming impacts page. Here it is, all wrongthink removed and pathetic alarmist rubbish substituted:

Impacts of climate change in the UK

♦ sea levels could rise, covering low lying areas, in particular east England[2]

♦ Scottish ski resorts may have to close due to lack of snow[3]

♦ droughts and floods become more likely as extreme weather increases[4]

♦ increased demand for water in hotter summers puts pressure on water supplies[5]

Impacts of climate change around the world

♦ sea level rise will affect 80 million people[6]

♦ tropical storms will increase in magnitude (strength)[7]

♦ species in affected areas (eg Arctic) may become extinct[8]

♦ diseases such as malaria increase, an additional 280 million people may be affected[9]

Like the ABC 99 per cent of the time, the BBC ruthlessly censors any views contrary to climate catastrophism, and grovels with shame when any sceptic talking point gets aired by mistake. The BBC’s outright and from-the-top lying on the topic can readily be documented.

The decption dates back to 2006, when head of news Tony Hall (from 2013-20 BBC director-general and now Baron Hall of Birkenhead) authorised a seminar to determine how the BBC should report global warming. The BBC described 28 outside advisers as “the best scientific experts”, and they briefed about 30 BBC officials. It was a major event. The BBC adopted the “science experts” case — i.e. that the science was settled and dissenters weren’t entitled to equal treatment. The seminar was one of a series that led to green views being incorporated in the gamut of BBC programming, even including entertainment and comedy.

A lone pensioner in rural West Wales, Tony Newbery (right) asked for the names of the 28 “science experts”. The BBC refused. Then, to fight Newbery’s freedom-of-information filings, the BBC at enormous public cost deployed two barristers and four solicitors to stall and keep the names concealed.

In 2012, a blogger discovered the list of names on an obscure internet file. Of the 28, only three were scientists, of whom only two were in climate. The rest were mainly green activists (including two from Greenpeace), plus vested business leaders and miscellaneous odd bods, such as someone from the US Embassy, of all places. In one of a number of further scandals, the BBC was caught running films made and supplied by green groups.

As for global warming’s benefits, a major study in 2016 by a consortium of international climate-orthodoxy scientists, including our very own CSIRO boffin Pep Canadell, found that CO2 increases in the past 30 years have greened the planet’s deserts to an extent equal to 2.5 times the area of Australia. The Arctic is among the beneficiaries. Even the ABC couldn’t ignore that bit of news. The implications are enormous in terms of extending wheat and crops into the vast Canadian-Siberian tundra.

Warming and increased CO2 fertilisation effects to date have enabled global food output and yields to outpace population growth, causing a continuous roll-back of populations suffering hunger. There is no indication that this trend is reversing.

The Australian Academy of Science would rather pick up a black snake than discuss any benefits of global warming. 

To continue reading this wonderful piece click HERE


  1. Tony, here is a screen grab of the benefits, as they were until a day or so ago. They were salvaged by someone and uploaded to WUWT.

    I do find it rather galling that Monbiot can get something true removed by the BBC within minutes, while I’ve been trying to get something false removed since December 2019 (“Climate change: Oceans running out of oxygen as temperatures rise”). I may write a post about the saga, though ’tis yet ended.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Tony

    Thanks for this. The censorship here has been mentioned at Open Mic, but none of us did the heavy lifting and turned it into an article, which is what the subject deserved.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Here’s the latest from Monbiot in the Guardian – an almost unbelievable take on things:

    “How the BBC let climate deniers walk all over it
    George Monbiot
    The fossil-fuel multinationals fund ‘thinktanks’ and ‘research institutes’. But it’s gullible public service broadcasters that give them credibility”

    “The BBC’s role was more insidious. Its collaboration arose from a disastrous combination of gullibility, appeasement and scientific ignorance. It let the fossil fuel industry walk all over it.

    When some of us pointed out that failing to ask its contributors to reveal their sources of funding was a direct breach of its own editorial guidelines, the BBC produced a series of bizarre, catch-22 excuses, and carried on breaking its rules for several years. It gave the oil and tobacco companies just what they wanted: in the words of the American Petroleum Institute, “victory will be achieved” when “recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’”.

    Only in 2018, a mere 36 years after Exxon came to the same conclusion, did the BBC decide that climate science is solid, and there is no justification for both-sidesing it. But the nonsense continues.

    Last week, a group of us revealed what the BBC has been teaching children about climate breakdown. The GCSE module on BBC Bitesize listed the “positive” impacts of our global catastrophe. Among them were “more resources, such as oil, becoming available in places such as Alaska and Siberia when the ice melts”; “new tourist destinations becoming available” (welcome to Derby-on-Sea); and “warmer temperatures could lead to healthier outdoor lifestyles”.

    In a sterling example of the corporation’s endless confusion between balance and impartiality, the list of positives was roughly equal to the list of negatives. The greatest crisis humanity has ever faced looked like six of one and half a dozen of the other.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Mark, a problem with Monbiot’s take is that if one really thinks that the BBC is an insidious tool of the (to paraphrase) CC denying FF industry, one would have to think that practically every other mainstream media channel in the world was even worse!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Here’s the latest development regarding this story:

    “Climate change ‘benefits’ taken out of SQA Geography course”

    “Scotland’s exams body will no longer ask pupils to give explanations on the “positive” effects of climate change.

    The SQA made the update to the National 5 Geography course following pressure from the Scottish Greens.

    It was welcomed by the party which said young people “need to be equipped with the skills and knowledge” to tackle the issue.

    The SQA said they “recognise the importance” of including references “to reflect the emergency we are facing”.

    The previous geography course document gave examples of the alleged benefits of climate change such as “increased tourism to more northerly latitudes” and “improved crop yields”.

    It sparked criticism from the Scottish Greens who said any short-term benefits pale in comparison to “colossal disadvantages” like crop failures and widespread famines….

    …The changes mean pupils will no longer be encouraged to give “equal consideration” to the environmental and economic impacts of climate change, although they will still be required to look at short and long-term impacts in different parts of the world.

    A review of geography course specifications at other qualification levels has also been carried out and the SQA has confirmed that references to benefits of climate change are not included elsewhere….”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. It is no longer permissible to say true things that disagree with the narrative. For it to come to this is scarcely believable. The word Orwellian is overused but seems appropriate here.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. It is interesting that for most topics covered by Cliscep, one or another of us can concoct some quip, witticism or full-blown joke, but for this one (the biasing of educational materials) there is no joviality. It’s too serious a matter and we can see bad things on the horizon. It’s a wokeness pandemic for which there is only a largely ineffective vaccine.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. The BBC are currently advertising their Bitesize every evening. So when I came across this topic I read through it as well as the comments. I found that my opinion has changed. Bitesize is a product produced and provided by the BBC for the benefit of children who are revising for their exams. The message is to revise from material without contained errors (like Bitesize).
    What has occurred to me is that, if the question being answered involves climate change, then for the child to obtain best marks, their answer should contain what is acceptable to the majority or to what is deemed correct by authorities. That is unlikely to be acceptable to us, yet has to offered by the child in order to earn full marks. I would prefer this outcome for any aid for revision.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.