>Back in 2006 the BBC published a document regarding "Impartiality in the 21st Century" in which they wrote :
>
>"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."
>See page 40: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_06_07impartialitybbc.pdf
>
>Since then the names and professions of those "best scientific experts" have been the subject of numerous inqueries and FOI requests. Requests which have repeatedly denied.
>http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/11/another-bbc-scandal-hiding-their-climate-change-agenda/
>
>Fast forward to now. On the heels of the Jimmy Savile scandal comes the exposure of the "experts" the BBC used to justify their blatent cheerleading for the global warming alarmists.
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/
>
>"It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin's description of the composition of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs. And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming"
>
>Another group of cheerleaders for so-called "science". Just as the Climategate emails exposed the inner-workings of the "experts" as they put together their "consensus" for the IPCC, this list demonstrates the obvious inherent bias at the BBC when dealing with climate stories. Their reporting, like IPCC reports, is unreliable tripe.
>
>Science doesn't require "consensus" backed by cheerleading hucksters, faith-based gaia worshipers, biased reporting and whitewashing "investigative" commissions to cover it's sins. Science simply requires facts, which in the world of AGW are sorely lacking.

It's worth pointing out the BBC has at least one show that is unabashedly anti-AGW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1dKx7ZMHs

Tx1dKx7ZMHs