No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Read our
Digital / Print Editions
Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features
The BBC has issued an apology after one of its presenters failed to challenge a climate-sceptic lobbyist who runs a group that has received funding from fossil-fuel interests.
It is the first apology to be issued by the BBC since the row over a Panorama documentary on Donald Trump blew up last week, leading to the resignation of the corporation’s Director General, Tim Davie, and CEO of News Deborah Turness. It has thrown the public broadcaster into chaos with threats of a $1-5billion lawsuit from President Trump.
The latest apology follows a 17th July interview by Annabel Amos on BBC Radio Northampton, where the Scottish campaigner Andrew Montford was introduced as the ‘Director of the campaign group Net Zero Watch’.
Net Zero Watch is the campaign arm of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a registered charity which does not disclose its funders and which publishes reports criticising the push to reduce carbon emissions. No explanation of its funding or allegations of denying climate science was presented by the interviewer.
The GWPF has lobbied against Government plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 and has played down the link between man made climate change and extreme weather events, stating last year that it is a “mistaken belief that weather extremes – such as heatwaves, flooding, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires – are more common and more intense today because of climate change”.
The GWPF was founded by Margaret Thatcher’s former Chancellor, the late Nigel Lawson, in 2009 to fight what it describes as “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to mitigate climate change, as climate outlet DeSmog has reported.
As Byline Times has previously reported, funders of the group have also donated significant sums to the Conservative Party, including its current leader Kemi Badenoch, who has since abandoned her party’s support for Net Zero.
Conservative Baron and hedge fund billionaire Michael Hintze, who founded the asset management firm CQS (now Manulife Investment Asset Management), has given money to GWPF, alongside fellow Conservative peer Lord Moynihan.
While the GWPF says it “does not accept donations either from energy companies or from anyone with a significant interest in an energy company,” the Guardian revealed in 2022 that a major donor to its US arm had $30m (£24m) of shares in 22 companies working in coal, oil and gas. Most of the cash from its US arm, American Friends of the GWPF, goes to fund its UK work. The group has said it follows all transparency laws.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
GWPF’s current director Benny Peiser has previously claimed it is “extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis”. The group was recently subject to a Charity Commission probe, which led to Net Zero Watch being distanced from its charity ‘owner’.
However, Net Zero Watch still links to its ‘friends’ GWFP across its website, while its Privacy Policy suggests data is shared when people “become a member of the GWPF.” The two organisations maintain the same 55 Tufton Street address.
Montford has previously said of global warming: “We don’t know and I haven’t seen anything credible to persuade me there’s a problem” – dismissing the scientific consensus that humans are significantly contributing to the world’s changing climate through burning fossil fuels.
A BBC complaint from an environmental group, seen by Byline Times, pointed out that Montford stated without challenge that the damage of a ton of CO2 was “something like £50 worth of damage, you know, maybe a bit less.”
The most recent figure proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2023 was $190 (£140) as a central estimate, and $120 (£89) as a lowest level estimate, while a landmark 2022 study in nature put the ‘social cost’ at $185 per ton (around £140).
The complaint continues: “Montford spoke for five minutes without interruption aside from one question with no counterweight.
“Only after the interview ended did the presenter say: ‘There are a lot of people who disagree with what Andrew says just there’, with no elaboration on how or why that may be the case.”
The BBC’s own internal guidance states that programmes must state “potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective.” This did not occur, the complaint argued.
Don’t miss a story
In the July BBC interview, the presenter also corrected herself at one point that the target date to hit Net Zero carbon emissions was 2050 rather than 2030, adding: “They’ve been changing the goalposts a little of late”.
The complaint seen by Byline Times argued this was untrue – the 2050 net zero target adopted under the Conservatives in 2019 has not changed, nor has there been any suggestion of a change to it under Labour. However, in its response the BBC claimed she was referring to the local net zero target set by the council, which had been changed.
The BBC has now been forced to publish a rare correction on its ‘corrections & clarifications’ page, without fanfare.
Donnachadh McCarthy, Director of the Climate Media Coalition said: “It is not enough for the BBC to apologise for not challenging Net Zero Watch’s climate misinformation. The real problem is that the BBC’s standards still allow on-air spokespersons from ‘think-tanks’ that do not declare their dark-money donors.
“This is a national security risk, as these think-tanks are trying to undermine our Government’s climate protection and energy security policies.”
Extinction Rebellion demanded back in 2018 that the BBC make clear the funders of think tanks following what XR dubbed a “hatchet job” of a report against the climate group by Policy Exchange. The BBC were understood to have strongly opposed the call at the time.
The BBC took several months to reply to this latest complaint, but on October 1 they responded: “You make a number of valid points and we accept that the segment could have been better. Frankly it fell below our usual standards for which we are sorry. We have since discussed your concerns with senior editors at BBC Radio Northampton.”
Nigel Farage’s ‘Project 2029’: The Pro-Trump Lobbyist Pushing His Agenda Into the UK
A Trump-aligned anti-abortion lobbyist who hosted Nigel Farage’s meeting with a 6 January rioter in Florida has been funding and advising the Reform leader while pushing Project 2025’s hard-right agenda into Britain
In correspondence seen by this outlet, the BBC noted that the Reform UK-led West Northamptonshire Council had scrapped net zero targets at a meeting the previous day.
“There were a range of views included throughout the programme with the intention of providing due impartiality to the topic at hand. Dave Pearson, who is co-chair of the local Green Party, provided [a] reaction. We also indicated that the clean air campaign group 1000 Voices had disrupted the meeting in protest. We also heard a little later from the leader of the Conservative group on West Northamptonshire Council, Dan Lister.
“He was highly critical of the council’s decision and spoke at length about the local impact of climate change and the progress in green energy and efficiency the council’s cross-party group on net-zero had achieved.”
Council leader Mark Arnull was also interviewed on the programme. While he explained why the council had made this decision, he claimed it wasn’t “a case of denying climate change”.
But the BBC spokesperson added: “Having said all that, we accept that the five-minute interview with Mr Montford did not give sufficient counterweight at the time. While [presenter] Annabel did note afterwards that “there are a lot of people who disagree with what Andrew says just there”, we recognise this lacked, as you say, the elaboration required to put his comments in proper context.
“In this respect, we accept the broadcast did not fully meet our guidelines requirement for due impartiality by failing to challenge assertions he made.”
Reform UK Council Backs Climate Denial Motion Saying Man Made Climate Change Is ‘Unproven’
The motion denying the existence of man-made climate change comes after Reform councils across the country ripped up local environmental schemes
The corporation also accepted that the presenter should have provided listeners with “more background detail” on the standpoint of Net Zero Watch.
“There are a range of different ways to assess the different costs associated with the creation and release of CO2 into the atmosphere and we should have scoped some of these out in more detail,” the spokesperson said.
“While the wider programme did carry a range of perspectives, we accept that the segment with Mr Montford was not sufficiently balanced or accurate, and that our introduction of him could have been more informative. We are grateful to you for raising these points and they have been shared with senior editors at BBC Radio Northampton to inform future coverage,” the BBC spokesperson said.
In its apology, the BBC said the complaint has been shared with senior editors at BBC Radio Northampton and “will continue to inform our approach to covering climate and energy issues in the future.”
It comes after The Telegraph recently reported rumours that the BBC is preparing to conduct a review of its climate coverage. The Telegraph believes the BBC is biased towards climate activists, with the right-wing paper, currently set to be sold to the Daily Mail group, recently publishing an article outlining a “catalogue of corrections” in the BBC’s climate reporting. It only included supposed ‘pro-climate’ errors.
The BBC declined to comment further.
BBC Apology in Full
BBC Radio Northampton: Annabel Amos programme, 17 July 2025
A segment in the Annabel Amos programme included an interview with Andrew Montford from Net Zero Watch.
The presenter did not adequately challenge several assertions made by the contributor, including comments about the financial cost of CO₂ emissions. The programme also did not give listeners sufficient context about Net Zero Watch or Mr Montford’s standpoint. While the wider programme carried a range of local political views on the council’s decision to drop its net zero targets, this specific interview lacked the necessary counterweight and challenge at the time.
We apologise for these shortcomings, which fell below the standards we aim to maintain.
Got a story? Get in touch in confidence on josiah@bylinetimes.com
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
