It looks to me as if the comment about "extreme events" is an illustrative example rather than a specific statement of BBC policy. Which is just as well, becaus

It looks to me as if the comment about "extreme events" is an illustrative example rather than a specific statement of BBC policy. Which is just as well, because I agree that it seems to go beyond current consensus. The BBC is not proposing to "de-platform" everyone less alarmist than the IPCC so no, I wouldn't expect them to de-platform everyone more alarmist than the IPCC either. Here are some things they do say: > As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening. To achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage and > There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. all of which seems to allow for a considerable degree of variation away from the IPCC's position before anything like "de-platforming" is on the table. (I'd still like to know what exactly "officially a climate alarmist organization" means. By "climate alarmist", do you mean the same as "believing that climate change is real", or something else?)