Bishop Hill has been doing some interesting research into the growing use of the term “climate change” instead of “global warming”.
So is this evidence of the BBC pushing an agenda? Perhaps. Probably, even.
The only problem being that if an agenda is being pushed it would appear to be the denial agenda:
We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism,” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation. 1. “Climate change’’ is less frightening than “global warming ” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
- Republican Consultant Frank Lunz, circa 2003, via Unspeak http://www.ewg.org:16080/briefings/luntzmemo/pdf/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf (or try here at the web archive) This is perhaps unsurprising. The BBC is invariably accused of bias, but whenever it is measured the bias appears to be the opposite of that claimed. For example while most of rightworld believes that the BBC was anti-Iraq-war, with Sky news being pro-war, an attempt to measure this came back with the opposite result.