I agree with balanced analyisis of environmental issues. Science over the new green iconaclastic 'faith'.

Saving the planet seems to be aquiring the trappings of a faith based religion. I am amazed that someone in the BBC has twigged it and called for a halt.

Green fascism from patronising holier than thou people and groups who parrot the latest unsubstantiated rumours about world destruction really do get up my nose.

Well done Beeb we need you impartial for all our sakes

Phil, Witham, UK

At long last a step back to reporting facts - not endless lecturing and editorialising.

Have you ever really listed to the 10 o'clock news on BBC1? Listen carefully and try and pull out 'the facts'. There actually isn't all that much there. It is endless opinion.

H, London,

Interesting I think, that we don't hear shouts of angry criticism and complaints of shoving social welfare issues down our throats when the BBC runs its long-established Children in Need night, or indeed lecturing on humanitarian issues when they run Comic Relief. I think it is a shame that the BBC has bowed to political pressure over this.

katharine, woking,

There is much parroting on the BBC about CO2. Climate change is caused by excess use of HEAT ENGINES! Cars,
airplanes, powerstations etc. These seek to create ROTARY MOTION at which they are very poor performers. These consume tons of carbon and for each ton of carbon there is required 14.5 tons of air for oxygen. Each heat engine wastes
70% of its fuel in waste heat, hence global warming. Does the BBC broadcast truth or just gossip? It chases the innocent CO2 while ignoring the real culprit - human greed! According to MOSES, GOD made MAN No.1 ADAM. Then he made EVE
No.2. Now there are 9 Billion of us! And we are ALL HEAT MACHINES! Yes we are! We all emit heat! Take in my first part
seriously - chuckle at the other-but we are ALL little heat engines.

Tom Shaughnessy, Gateshead, Durham

This is not a balanced argument and hasn't been since the days of Swampy living in his hole in Manchester. Let's have some proper scientific debate without whining and chest beating. There are far too many agendas being used and not enough rational scrutiny of supposed "obvious" changes to the climate.
I am relieved the BBC has rejected a knee jerk response which would have only pandered to the short-term-ist climate jockeys we see so much of.

Wyn, Bristol, UK

I applaud the BBCs decision to avoid wasting tax payers money on "what the vast majority of scientists now agree is the greatest threat ever to face humanity". I think its important that the BBC avoid entering whats left of the debate because their impartiality would seriously be at risk. Better to save whats left of BBC impartiality than to enter into the dangerous waters of saving the planet. How can this be wrong?

Richard Smith, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom

Well done BBC! I don't know about anyone else but what I want is educated and informed debate on issues such as climate change.
I am getting a bit tired of actors and comedians lecturing on subjects that they are clearly not qualified in. Why doesn't TV put on programmes that provided for detailed information on such issues? Is it because of a prevailing assumption that we are all too thick to understand them? While climate change is pretty indisputable there is still some room surely for intelligent discussion about the causes and remedies without reducing the level of debate to rock concerts, speeches by pop stars and the promotion of a one sided view.

Ron, Cumbria,

The Beeb without a backbone? In wishy-washy times, when I hear of UK even having hard time putting up Christmas trees and so on. (Albeit I'm not sure the day-long show's format is best way of highlighting global warming issue, inc reaching out to people who believe there is real scientific "debate" over the basics)

Rather like being owner of public address system in house that's evidently on fire, and saying it's not your job to advise people action is evidently required.

Science re warming is clear - those wanting "proof" as if for simple case don't really have science figured out. Where's the "proof" of evolution, which is scientifically well established? Not just apple falling to the ground, say.
Naomi Oreskes, science historian, has shown re strength of science underpinning global warming.

More guff:
http://www.drmartinwilliams.com/forums/global-warming/

Martin Williams, Cheung Chau, Hong Kong

Using Ross for anything other than trivia is elevating him beyond his ability. He has demonstrated his inability to control his purile laddish instncts so often it should have made him unemployable in any situation requiring contemplation and consideration of serious issues.

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

The whole save the planet industry and its forebears are gimmicky - geared at promoting the self interests of pop stars and celebrities. Do you honestly think that when a rock star stands in front of eighty thousand people he cares a toss about the earth or starving people rather than his performance and how it might advance his career?

Brendan Devitt, Oxford,

The BBC have been charged with giving in to the 'Climate Skeptics'. It is an observation that the BBC have not shown or produced anything of worth on the alternative view. Our so called public broadcaster has left that to the private sector mainly Ch4. By the way being skeptical of so called man-made climate change does not mean you support profligate waste and the despoiling of the environment. Efficient use of resources benefits everyone. I do not see why it has to be elevated to a 'New Religion' with anyone who disagrees immediately demonised as a heritic and 'climate criminal'. The new fundamentalists are not in the church or organised religion, they have invented a new one and it amounts to Planet Earth worship. For a new religion you need hate figures to give that smug feeling of righteousness. So much for tolerance, repect, diversity, and non judgementalism.

Alan, Luton, UK

Behind the scenes:

If people want "factual" and "intelligent" discussion instead of "celebrity du-jour gas," then that seriously narrows the available options.

Scientists are FAR from being in agreement about almost anything other than that the planet is, in fact, getting warmer.

There's not really enough factual or intelligent evidence that "global warming is man's fault" to fill even a half hour news show.

Celebrities (and wannabe celebs like Gore) have put so much hot air into the subject they could have flown Steve Fossett around the world several times over.

Kirby L. Wallace, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

Seeing as this issue has become a religion, belief without proof, it most definately should have been cancelled. The complete "climate" debate has been taken over by zealots who would just love to see us all back in the stone age. At last aunty BBC is thinking and not just rolling along with the latest fad, debate is fine, campaigning is not.

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

This is something i would never have believed. A moment of sanity from the BBC. Other channels cover this type of rubbish for free so there is no reason why we should pay for it on the BBC.

chris, wirral,

Emissions from active volcanoes or huge forest fires contribute much more CO2 to the atmosphere than all the power plants put together. The methane emission from the cows of this world is much more than any of the man-made chemical emissions. But no one in his senses will call for elimination of all cows from the earth! What is needed is intelligent use of energy and allocation of resources to find cleaner energy resources. BBC can contribute by organising programmes on energy conservation and the status on cleaner energy resources to serve the needs of the environment.

S.N.Balakrishnan, Vashi/Navi Mumbai, India.

Nick, there's always going to be more than one view on any topic. Does that mean that should be given equal coverage? By your logic Intelligent Design should be given as much legitimacy as Evolution. Should we put ID in school textbooks?

The majority of scientists are in agreement on global warming.

Personally I think the Beeb was right to drop this. Opens them to attack and should instead focus on coverage.

Ben, London, UK

Shame the BBC don't plan to scap their licence fee. Why should we have to pay a tax to the BBC if we don't want to watch the BBC ? Presumably because the BBC doesn't think it could survive if it didn't resort to the threat of prison and a criminal record for not paying the BBC tax.

Robert, Luton,

Thank heavens for small mercies. The BBC is sufficiently bankrupt of ideas and innovation. Having to tolerate, not necessarily this for who would watch, but all the pre publicity endlessly endlessly boring round other programmes, would be horrendous.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Yes to information ( facts not speculation ) and informed discussion, and no to posturing celebs, bandwagonning to promote albums

Andrew Boddington, London,

There seems no doubt that climate change is happening. But that isn't the point here. This decision, or change of mind rather, shows that BBC editors are now running around like frightened, headless chickens: this is depressing. To provoke public interest in climate change would have been an exemplary thing to do... It has nothing whatsoever to do with being impartial or not.

Chris Hale, Leipzig, Germany

Yes the BBC are mad aren't they. No wonder everyone spends their time on the internet now.

Chung Yung, London,

That's rich. BBC, which have been officially censured for biased reporting (anti-Israel, pro-Arab, the Kelly affair), have the cheek to pompusly proclaim that they are above promoting a cause. Not only is their sanctimony hypocritical but dishonest. Not only are BBC generally biased in their reporting, but disingenuous in claiming that dropping Planet Relief was a matter of principle, unless you call pandering a principle. BBC have made pandering to various identity groups its business, and if they anticipated higher ratings, we can be sure Planet Relief would be eagerly aired.

J. Rice, Long Beach, California

Yes - lets restore separation in BBC news and current affairs. We don't need the army of expensive "corrrespondents" licenced to give us their views and spin on everything. News is very thin and repetitive fare given the huge number of people involved in its production. It's Orwellian really.

Peter, Ferndown, UK

The BBC is to save us from itself? I doubt it.Every mention of climate change on BBC news and current affairs equates this measurable phenomena with an increase in CO2 and other "greenhouse"gases but as the Moody Blues once sang,"it aint necessarily so".But what is science when you are in a herd and the trail boss shouts stampede.
The social angst of the guilt ridden middle class is wonderful to see.When you have such a privilaged lifestyle as Gervais and 18 million Woss and all the other executives at the money pit (sorry,Ishould refer to it as the chairmans elastic band under unsustainabl tension)then you want others across the world to help preserve what you have.
Consider if CO2is responsable then why do the few keep telling us many that the pootling amounts produced by airtravel is seemingly the major issue? The politicians are listening and they equate everything to money - watch out you poor,you going to pay for this.

robert everitt, wolverhampton,

GOOD! I for one have had more than enough climate change claptrap forced down my throat. Indeed, it could even be argued that a whole day of hot air might well have added to global warming!

Adrian Ryan, Donegal, Ireland

Please lets have a rational and formal debate with input from ALL sides of the argument. And please can we make clear the distinction between the current symptoms (climate change) and what the cause actually is (still the subject of great debate.)

I'm actually glad the celebrities have jumped on the bandwagon because it's damaged the new socialist cause significantly. The british public is not stupid and can see through these hypocrits.

Alastair, Leamington Spa, Warks

I agree that the BBC should be impartial but how can we get the message across that the planet is being affected by global warming, which science has demonstarted is beyond the normal cycles of warming seen in the past. It also amazes me that Americans appear to be most affected by the belief that glbobal warming is not real. People are being manitpualted by self interest groups, particularly the americans, who happen to be the worlds greatest enegry consumer by far, per head of population. I have never seen a movie, article, popular movement that denies global warming. There is truth in the Science and so why is the BBC considering running effectively a campaign to educate us that it exists as opposed to denying it. I think the truth and the need for us to change is too damn painful and that we are simply selfish animals who are too involved in our little daily lives to consider the price for our lifestyles on of the future and our children, shame on us.

Gareth, Pwllheli, UK

The Earth was once Tropical. Later it had the Ice Age. There were no humans to influence the weather... unless the Governments of the World are covering up civilisations prior to the Ice Age.
There is no Climate Change that has not been seen before. It is just "weather". It changes from time to time without warning. We are Earth Parasites like fleas on a dogs back. A tiresome nuisance but not really influencing anything. Every so often the Earth shrugs her shoulders and we have earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes erupting. People die and life goes on.
Despite heavy rainfall, or water extraction for human and animal purposes, the sea does not get any saltier.
The Dinosaurs became extinct. Maybe Mankind will become extinct. It's a bit arrogant to assume we will allways be "top dog" on earth. The only things which would survive for sure are cockroaches. Some varieties already are radiation resistant, and can survive a great range of temperatures, and degrees of moisture.

Beryl, WINDSOR, England

Where do the sceptics get their information? Have they ever read a science based research paper?

The IPCC papers are the most comprehensive assessment of the scientific information available. The Panel was set up in 1988 and uses a process which is designed to ensure their high credibility in the scientific community. The process is not designed to push a particular theory, especially as 600 scientists and 300 diplomats argued over the latest IPCC report. Those diplomats and their governments have watered down the final summaries to suit their own ends. However, they now accept that the probability that global warming has been caused by man is now 90%.

I agree that the BBC must restrict itself to education but C Anderson wants David Attenborough to front a programme on this subject. He has already done it! Didn't you see it? Why not? So other means must be used to bring the facts to those who don't care. Isn't a concert a good way? How else do you get the message across?

W Chappell, Sutton, UK

I look forward to the BBC producing and broadcasting factual style programmes which are impartial and present both sides of the argument for and against man made global warming, but I am not going to hold my breath!

Perhaps they should also present a programme about the latest research on 'memes' with specific regard to single issue campaigns such as man made global warming.

Martin Leach, Solihull, England

Save the planet! Oh dear…a bad day for the hubristic mob but a good day for license payers (the original and still the best mob!).

well done very sensible, pat on the back bbc. its not the role of the bbc to campaign on something that requires a degree of faith on one side or other of the evidence. anthropogenic climate change data/models are incredibly complex and it is therefore still a contested matter. unlike for example the bbc's efforts to raise funds and awareness in relation to at risk children or global poverty.

simon marsh, woodford green,

So presumably the BBC will also stop campaigning on behalf of Al Quaeda and begin to present a balanced picture of Islamic terrorism rather than their current stance that attempts to justify these peoples psychotic behaviour?

Peter , London,

The head of BBC television news says it is not their business to lead viewers but to give people information. When is he to put this novel policy into effect? The whole thrust of his present output is surely to lead his audience to, and make plain, the BBC's point of view. If BBC television did simply report the news and not seek to impart its own spin on events, it would command a great deal more respect than it does now. I say this not as a long-term critic of the BBC, but as one old enough to remember their golden age of reporting when News was News and Opinion distinct and discrete.

Paul, Norwich, Norfolk

Jonathan Ross is presenting = I trust he is going to get less than £11,000 paid to Terry Wogan for presenting Children in Need

I hope ITV realise this publicity is to there advantage and jump at presenting Planet Relief ,,,,lets face it , it is a good idea.

and lets face it if Al Gore is involved it will be bought by the American networks, so as a money spinner it cannot fail.

Nicholas Iles, Oswestry, Shropshire

I agree that something like this is not what the BBC should be showing. LiveEarth tried to tell us a message and failed. The presenters on the show trivialised what people needed to do to solve this problem.

The BBC needs to do an entire evening of programming aimed at showing the overwhelming scientific information that tells us that humans are going to fry the planet. People on the programmes should have their funding and background clearly stated and have their facts checked by the presenters.

Keith Garrett, Cambridge, UK

Well said C Anderson.

Quite hypocritical of these celebs to tell us how to save the planet when they are swanning around in their private jets!

And on the subject of Bono et al, funny how he insists on us giving more to charity when U2 have recently relocated most of their business to the Netherlands to take advantage of favourable tax laws, hypocrite!

A Thorn, London,

I see that included in your list of "BBC bias" is the controversy over the changed weather graphics in 2005. You quote (who?) as saying that the graphics incorporate "a presumption that the bulk of the audience lives in large cities." That is not a presumption - I think you will find it is simply fact that the bulk of the audience resides in or around large urban areas.

This is not an example of BBC bias - but it is an example of their weak kneed bowing to political correctness, since they subsequently modified the graphics in response to vocal minority pressure.

Adam Wilson, Amersham,

Congratulations BBC,it's about time there was some balanced programming on this subject. I think the majority of people are very angry with the one-sided debate we've been presented with so far and cannot stand being dictated to by the Al Gores and Bonios of this world. And please, please stop showing the film of the polar bear on an iceberg, it is pure sensationalism and will not change people's behaviour.

David, London, UK

It ought to be posible to devote significant time to a discussion that is not dominated by the 'trust me, I'm an environmentalist' brigade.

That being said, I wonder exactly what is meant by a 'factual style'?

MF Robinson, London, England

"there is a small but vociferous group of climate ‘sceptics’ lobbying against taking action"

Hello, err Kettle, Pot.

There is a huge and extremely vociferous group of climate activitists lobbying everybody all the time.

Good on the BBC for having the balls to realise where it's position should be - impartial and providing evidence for both sides of the argument.

MGB, Carmarthen, Wales

I think it is unfair to call live earth a flop. It got through to a lot of people, and the event was top quality. I think that it would have an affect if the BBC did it.

Charles, Crowthorne,

Thank goodness for this - I for one don't want to see Bono arriving on a private jet to tell me to switch my kettle off standby while some former rock stars remind us why they have faded into obscurity (Beastie boys anyone?)
But an informative programme preferably fronted by David Attenborough interviewing and explaining both sides of the scientific argument would make me switch on my TV - sorry I'm not supposed to do that any more am I Bono?

C Anderson, Aberdeen,

I do not see why this show is being cancelled. It would have been pure Socialist claptrap. Boring, ill-informed, pretentious and irksome. The same as the BEEB's whole attitude toward programming. Still , they could have put on the Dr Who series as fantasy. Which is where St Al Gore of Green's silly film should have been placed. Another thing, since it would have been a commercial disaster, this should have made it a must for the BEEB.!

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Texas

Thank you BBC. I am all for informed debate and reporting but so tired of infotainment where I am lectured, manipulated and hectored by "celebrities" in a supercilious, patronising and condescending manner - interspersed with songs, entertainment and "vox pop".

In fact, the current hysteria about global warming is a major reason to turnoff the TV.

I would like to see us leave the World to our descendants in an overall better condition - health, education, economic standard of living, political stability, ethics and knowledge. Perhaps these goals can only be attained at the cost of some man-made (in contrast to Nature and the Universe) climate change.

Now that is a debate I would like to participate in - "celebrities" and former politicians need not apply

Stuart, Wessx,

I hear both sides, one that say's it's all the fault of 4 x 4 's and second homes in Tuscany and the other that say's it is just part of the planet's natural warming and cooling cycle , we are just going through a stage that doesn't appear on our record's as yet .Therefore as there are two sides to the argument , both
unproven , so it seem's perfectly correct for the B.B.C . not to take either side , well done B.B.C .

Nick Dixon, Sutton Coldfield, England

The BBC has finally woken up to the fact that it is funded by every household in the country with a television and that it is not its job to campaign.

Whatever the alarmists might say there are serious questions about the reality of climate change. The sceptics have a rational and valid position and the BBC would do well not to ignore this fact.

andrew wride, Banchory,

"We should be giving people information, not leading them".

All the BBC news ever does is lead us! They couldn't deliver impartial news if there existence depended on it!

Mr Horrocks remarks must surely be a joke!

Mark, London,

the BBC concerned with showing partiality?? Did hell just freeze over??

Byron Hill, Belmont, California

Flop?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22037660-1702,00.html

"THE Live Earth global pop concerts have broken a record for an online entertainment show by generating more than nine million internet streams, Microsoft web portal MSN said."

Torr Leonard, Los Angeles, California

"The event would have involved viewers in a mass “switch-off” to save energy." I suppose the switch-off would not include the BBC
program as well. Any way hurray for the BBC and a rare moment
of sanity, in canceling this rubbish.

WSmith, Mauldin,

Good for the BBC!

Steve LeMaster, Lynden, USA/WA