"The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated."
Note the use of "claims" as if there is some doubt about this scandal. No one is making "claims", they're merely pointing to the damning emails where these so called scientists bragged about manipulating the data. Or the one's where they admit to deleting data, damning emails and colluding to keep dissenting scientific views from publication.
But the BBC, along with the few media outlets even reporting on the story, tries to make this about the leakers and try cast doubt on their "claims".
"The allegations emerged after e-mails written and received by UK climate researchers appeared on the Internet.
The police are investigating whether the scientists' computers were hacked. "
"Claims", "allegations", all words the BBC use to cast doubt on the whole scandal. The police may well be investigating possible hacking, but shouldn't these "scientist" who illegally dodged Freedom of Information requests be prosecuted?
The BBC goes on to try and cast doubt on the scandal without printing any of the emails at the center of the "row". Astounding! After a lengthy report on the greatest scientific scandal of the world, the poor BBC reader is left wondering, "what the hell are they talking about?".
Which is, after all, the point. If the BBC is challenged on why it is not covering the story, it can point to this and say they covered it. Ah, but without informing the public what it's all about.
Here's a report from Canada that does a far better job.
Even comedian, Jon Stewart does a better job than the BBC.