Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
Which is it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7141994.stm
“Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will this week become the first sitting president of the Islamic republic to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca”
but in the same article
“It is not clear if he has performed the Hajj before, or if past presidents have been to Mecca after leaving office.”
If the latter is has a case it hardly merits a story.
Still someone could just write the article on conjecture and not check the facts, just leave it in the air… hang on, looks like someone already did.
The fresh air of reason
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
Improved understanding today from the BBC on aspects of global Islamic jihad:
” Algeria: a new front for al-Qaeda?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7142050.stm
David Gregory: ” I know what science looks like and how to do it. Just because you don’t like it politically isn’t my problem.”
David (or Doc as we now know you), my politics aren’t your problem. True. But, and you really must grasp this at the Beeb, the politics your organisation embraces which affect even-handed reporting and balance ARE a problem for us all.
Every time the Beeb politically approves a story that needs greater examination, and isn’t thus examined for fear of upsetting the Gore line, you aren’t doing anyone any favours. Least of all the credibility of your supposed “fair” organisation. Politics at the Beeb DOES matter. How hard is it to see that?
“The “debate” over MMR didn’t help anyone. I’d say the same about the “debate” over climate change.”
So debate is bad? Is this like our dear leaders (notably Blair) who preferred major decisions NOT to be debated in parliament? The cornerstone of our society has to be eroded because it “doesn’t help anyone.” Wow! That’s a pretty powerful (and totally disturbing) take on how life is in these islands right now.
“But that doesn’t mean the science won’t move on and change and it doesn’t mean I won’t report that.”
Good for you, Doc. I look forward to balanced reports, discussion, proponents for and against having their say on the Beeb. I have no doubt the MMGW brigade will not like it, but hey… we who don’t think there is a lot in the MMGW campaign for untruths have had to put up with what we are now sold as “facts”. So, fair’s fair…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/23/luke_gibbs_bbc/
Thought you may be interested in this article
The BBC and a tale of two cities.
China remembers dead of Nanjing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7141582.stm
300000 -500000 dead and not a warcrime.
BBC search on Nanking 1 page.
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=nanking&tab=ns&edition=d&scope=all
Hiroshima.
140000 killed and a warcrime.
BBC search on Hiroshima 7 pages
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=hiroshima&scope=all&edition=d&tab=ns&recipe=all&x=0&y=0
Hiroshima is often used as an example of a war crime by the left. Yet the rape of Nanking resulted in more deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined is usually glossed over. Strange how we pick on the lesser of two evils as the worse. I wonder why that is.
The BBC and a tale of two cities.
“Strange how we pick on the lesser of two evils as the worse. I wonder why that is”
It’s quite simple, pounce. Because you can’t read, or choose not to read, plain text that contradicts your calcified political views.
The word “massacre” in the BBC’s coverage of Nanking might give it away. Or “atrocity”, or “brutal crime”. All terms which feature regularly and heavily in reports on Nanking.
Only an ass could read the BBC’s main page on Nanking, published back in 1997 and not conclude that it was referring the BBC was categorical in its description on Nanking as a war crime:
“Between December 1937 and March 1938 one of the worst massacres in modern times took place. Japanese troops captured the Chinese city of Nanking and embarked on a campaign of murder, rape and looting”
Baggie:
“It is not clear if he has performed the Hajj before, or if past presidents have been to Mecca after leaving office.”
I think this means that he may have been on Hajj before becoming president, so the precedent stands in this case, i.e. he’s definitely the first to go while being president.
To the troll (Reith is that really you?)
“pounce and a tale of one chip:”
Thank you for taking the time to find fault with my post. However in typical BBC mode you gloss over the fact that I take to task how the Beeb has 7 pages on Hiroshima and 1 on Nanking. Now instead of nanking over my post why don’t you explain why more deaths equates to less articles on the BBC.
Happy Ramadan Merchant Banker.
Watcher: “Doc” would be great then I wouldn’t have to keep correcting people who assume as Science Correspondent I don’t know anything about Science.
I think you’re slightly failing to grasp the point. Debate within Science is the norm of course. We model, experiment, publish and then others try to replicate the results and so on.
I rather think you want something more like a political debate. Rhetoric, passion and even name calling. I don’t mind that, but it won’t really influence what I report.
Because it isn’t science.
Ritter | 11.12.07 – 5:01 pm:
BBC redesigns website….
bbc.co.uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/beta/
Wouldn’t you if you have £3.5BN?
Gordon Brown ditches the red tie and converts to blue to convey the subliminal message “I’m not really an old embittered Leftie but a reasonable middle-England type really.”
Beeboids think: “Hmm. That seems like a good idea…”
pounce | 13.12.07 – 3:19 pm
Reith is that really you?
No. You must have another admirer.
But I’m happy to answer your silly question:
I take to task how the Beeb has 7 pages on Hiroshima and 1 on Nanking….. why don’t you explain why more deaths equates to less articles on the BBC.
Because Hiroshima was during World War II, in which many British people fought and which is part of our recent history. The BBC, being British, tends to reflect that.
The Rape of Nanking, by contrast, was an incident in a conflict between faraway countries and most people aren’t that interested. Obvious, really.
“The BBC, being British, tends to reflect that.”
Oh I do like that!
“you gloss over the fact that I take to task how the Beeb has 7 pages on Hiroshima and 1 on Nanking. Now instead of nanking over my post why don’t you explain why more deaths equates to less articles on the BBC”
It’s your simplistic stupidity that is so striking. On your logic, the single murder of Kriss Donald – long held to be the prime example for B-BBc resident green ink brigade of all that is wrong with BBC editorial choices – is more important than all the murders in Nanking.
Now instead of nanking yourself off with another random gripe, perhaps you can explain why number of articles on the BBC, by itself, has much to do with the price of fish.
I don’t see what there is to giggle about, Dr R.
You’ll have noticed that Radio 4 have done an In Our Time about Agincourt, but so far nothing on Klushino.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20040916.shtml
On another thread you were asking (…and none too politely I might add) what a ‘smoking gun’ would be in the context of the Balen Report.
I took it to mean a finding that BBC ME coverage was characterized by a serious and sustained bias against Israel.
Top playwright: ‘BBC wanted me to attack the Queen in her TV obituary’
leading Left-wing playwright claimed yesterday he was asked to criticise the Queen and Baroness Thatcher for their BBC obituaries.
Sir David Hare, author of Via Dolorosa and Stuff Happens, said he was approached to provide “balance” to the pre-recorded programmes.
He refused, saying that he would not criticise the monarch or a former Prime Minister on the night of their deaths.
Sir David said: “A few years ago I was rung up by the BBC and asked if I could record an interview for a film they were preparing for the night the Queen dies.
“They told me that everyone they had chosen to speak to had, unsurprisingly, turned out to be an admirer and, in the fabled interests of balance, needed the opposing point of view.
” ‘Oh,’I said, “you mean you want me to attack the Queen on the night of her death?
“I declined, not because it was the Queen, but because it was anyone.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=501625&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
John
Thank you for your response. The Agincourt was cute, but woefully short of the truth, and you know it. Let me provide another example in support of my ironic giggles: do you feel the BBC treats Christianity and Islam with the same deference? If not, why not? In fact, is its arsekissing of Islam perhaps related to violent fatwas and fear? If so, is that good enough?
OK I’ll drop the “smoking gun” stuff (and even apologise for my rudeness) but you and I both know that this is EXACTLY what the Balen report found and that is why the BBC was forced to make such a hypocritical arse of itself in having to suppress it. There is simply no other possible reason.
Anonymous:
Top playwright: ‘BBC wanted me to attack the Queen in her TV obituary’
An interesting idea of “balance”. Real balance, of course, would be the faithful reproduction of the obituaries, no matter how consistently positive, without actively trying to influence the results.
Dr R: I should say I have no idea what’s in the Balen report. But surely there is another reason and that is quite simply the BBC doesn’t have to reveal all its internal documents. Otherwise the Birmingham Post say could just apply under FOI for our plans for local content on the web at any time. Nickelodeon could use FOI to find out what new children’s programming we’re working on. ect. ect. It just wouldn’t be possible to carry on like that.
Mr Gregory, since you are once more telling us what ‘science’ is perhaps you would like to comment on the post of mine that you must have missed last night.
Arthur Dent:
I bring you the science. I know what science looks like and how to do it
Ok, what about the BBCs views on the Wegman report. An independent expert evaluation of the statistics used to derive the ‘Hockey Stick’ curve used in the IPCC TAR, reused by Mr Gore in his Nobel Prize winning video and subsequently still used endlessly by a variety of proponents of AGW.
Arthur Dent | 12.12.07 – 11:55 pm | #
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography University of London:
“Boy are we going to witness a gush of carbon clap trap over the next two or three days. I suspect the BBC will be spectacularly bad. But just remember what is happening in real-world politics and real-world economics. There will be some very bumpy landings as the ‘climate campaigners’ jet off back from their tropical paradise….”
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/7AC23D3D-836D-4985-923C-6F0D372502A8.html
Who’d have thought the ‘balanced’ BBC would have this kind of rep?! 😉
“but you and I both know that this is EXACTLY what the Balen report found”
Sure, buddy. While you’re at it, where’s Lord Lucan and what happened to Shergar?
The few BBC people that have posted here have tended to say even they haven’t seen it. Come on, fess up Dr R: who’s your BBC deep throat, prepared to risk life and limb to expose a daring bid by the BBC to UNDERMINE THE NATION OF ISRAEL, nay, THE VERY FABRIC OF DEMOCRACY, with its evil dhimmi reporting.
I suspect the BBC will be spectacularly bad.
Talk about a safe bet.
Dr R
In October 2005 the BBC Governors commissioned the Independent Panel, chaired by Sir Quentin Thomas, to “assess the impartiality of BBC news and current affairs coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with particular regard to accuracy, fairness, context, balance and bias.”
As I understand it, the review panel had access to the Balen Report and it informed their findings.
They certainly did not find the BBC was biased against Israel. In fact, they made recommendations to secure a fairer hearing for the Palestinians.
Pounce
1. I am not your buddy.
2.No you’re right, I haven’t read the Balen Report because the ****ing BBC has spent about half a million pounds of our money suppressing it. However, many people did speculate on why the BBC went to all that trouble to commission a report on its alleged anti-joo bias, then did all it could to bury the report. Gregory (with true regional television perspicacity) suggests that this has no interest whatsoever to the public or relevance go the BBC’s credentials as a reliable news organisation (talk of dumbing down!!!). So yes, I am putting two and two together and suggesting it makes four. Why do you think the disgusting Al Beeb buried it Pounce?
3. I suggest you see a doctor about this inclination of yours to suddenly start screaming in the middle of sentences. Tourrettes perhaps? Or maybe you’re just pals with Kirsty “The Shriek” Wark?
4. I suspect Shergar got a job in regional TV and is probably Gregory’s boss. Lucan too, probably (they stack ’em up in middle management!).
Arthur Dent: Well that would be the report that said “We do not assume any position with respect to global warming except to note in our report that the instrumented record of global average temperature has risen since 1850 according to the MBH99 chart by about 1.2 degrees Centigrade, and in the NAS panel report chaired by Dr. North, about six-tenths of a degree Centigrade in several places in that report.” ?
If you want to go into it’s critisism of the statistical methods used by paleoclimatologists and the fact they appear to be quite friendly with each other (I love that bit) I’d be delighted to.
BBC and Climate Change – A new article has appeared today stating that “2007 has been one of the warmest years since 1850, despite the cooling influence of La Nina conditions. The UK’s Hadley Centre and University of East Anglia conclude that globally, this year ranks as the seventh warmest. The 11 warmest years in this set have all occurred within the last 13 years. For the northern hemisphere alone, 2007 was the second warmest recorded.”
That’s strange, I thought that it had been shown that the data was faulty and that I had read “NASA have had to revise their climate data because of the Y2K bug, one of the few things that was affected. Of course NASA didn’t find the problem themselves, it was discovered by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org who noticed some oddities in the graphed data. The revised data means that some of the climate change industry’s touchstones can now be gainsaid. The new facts include that the warmest year on record is now 1934, 1998 (long trumpeted by the climate change industry and so the media as record-breaking) moves to second place whilst 1921 takes third place. In fact 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.”
How peculiar, it’s almost as though the BBC had an agenda…
Are you a medical doctor by any chance, Dr R? Could you find the time to help? You and I both know that this is EXACTLY the kind of screaming in the middle of sentences that needs to be cured forthwith.”
Dr R: People who want to accuse others of dumbing down would be advised to stick to using just the one exclamation point 😉
David Gregory (BBC):
Dr R: People who want to accuse others of dumbing down would be advised to stick to using just the one exclamation point
What about smileys? 😉
Anyone hear the “balanced” discussion on the ‘will-he-won’t-he’ be there to sign the Constitional treaty on the Toady prog this morning. Repellant ,as usual, and – staggeringly – the partonising minister for Europe had the last word.
Apparently all onjections are demented re-top xenophobia
On another note please can we have a bit less of the sixth-form personal abuse or am I going to be SHOUTED at as well?
Thin and British: Smileys are sadly too useful on the internet, and expanding punctuation is one of the more exciting things the web has done. How long before a paper starts using them for real I wonder?
But there’s never an excuse for this!!!
Notasheep: There was indeed a problem with the data (very interesting stuff) and some re-ordering of “hottest years” But this was a North American affect and I believe the Hadly Centre is looking at Global temperatures?
It’s quite clear the BBC has an agenda with regard to AGW. For a start, it never reports on papers published in reputable journals which, if proven correct, would go a long way to undermining the current AGW hysteria, most of which is based on the output from computer models.
How about this one:
“A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions.
International Journal of Climatology
David Douglass summarises:
The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
The abstract can be found here.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
If this research had served to confirm that model output matched the AGW hypothesis, it would have been front page news. Instead, silence on the Beeb.
David G:
Was just wondering what your Ph.D is in? No, I’m not about to attack you for not being a climate change expert if it turns out to be a different area – I’m just interested….
Dr R
do you feel the BBC treats Christianity and Islam with the same deference?
No. Probably not.
If not, why not?
Christianity in its contemporary C of E, Roman Catholic and Methodist forms is characterized by gentleness and humility and isn’t too concerned with commanding deference. As the main national religion, it is also pretty robust, slow to take offence and totally able to take a bit of fun like Father Ted, though drawing the line somewhere between Jerry Springer and Popetown. It should be treated with respect by the BBC, and generally is. These guidelines apply:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/religion/religioneditori.shtml
Islam, by contrast, can be quite quick to take offence at trifles and is often rather more austere and forbidding.
Speaking personally, I find that just as one is more relaxed and informal within the bosom of one’s own family than in front of the neighbours…. so a certain more careful minding of Ps and Qs is probably in order when dealing with our Muslim minority than I exercise when gossiping with the vicar. In time, one hopes, confidence will grow all round and the requirement for delicacy will pass.
Also I think there is a reflex among a small number of people in the BBC to underestimate the moderation and good sense of the British people. These folk believe that unless the fact that most British Muslims aren’t crazed jihadists isn’t constantly underlined and repeated, then there’ll be an outbreak of lynching and mosque-burning. I argue with them in editorial meetings, pointing out how even the week after 7/7 no-one burned a mosque etc. and tease them about their pomposity in thinking they have a big role in promoting social cohesion. I win some. I lose some. But it ain’t a big deal really.
In fact, is its arsekissing of Islam perhaps related to violent fatwas and fear? If so, is that good enough?
There may be something to this • though how much I’m not sure.
Part of me says ‘give no quarter’ when faced with threats or howling mobs. ‘Stand up for Enlightenment values’ and so on. But I’d hate to be personally responsible for a massacre of the British Council staff in Pakistan or Indonesia through some self-indulgently provocative phrasing. That said, if it had been up to me, I probably would have published the Danish Cartoons on the BBC website • but only after securing a deal with every other major news org in the West to do it together.
ThinandBritish: It’s not in climatology I’m afraid. I studied what happens at the interface between silicon and various elements such as potassium at an atomic level. It was pretty business orientated as research goes, quite specifically targeted at certain problems that various companies would be interested in.
So no, I’m not a Doctor of Paleoclimatology. But on the other hand I do love science, I get statistics and I do enjoy a good back of the envelope calculation!
John Reith:
“Islam, by contrast, can be quite quick to take offence at trifles and is often rather more austere and forbidding.”
Edit for essence.
George R:
” Islam is quick to take offence and is forbidding.”
Reith
Thanks for your very elegant post.
Yes you are right about the quiet, solid, tolerant values of the British people. Being foreign-born – though domiciled her for almost all my life and therefore British, if not English – I recognise this and thank my lucky stars that I landed up here. I do recognise some truth in what you say but I think your consistent failure to recognise the corrosive influence of the idiot-left in the BBC culture is a touch dishonest. You are honouring intellectual cowardice and while I realise you may have to on this blog, I suspect you may do likewise in real life (because that’s what I imagine the disgusting BBC demands). The BBC has become cowardly, and that is the pity of it all.
Regarding the Balen Report, BBC coverage of Israel has been a disgrace. It has been a systematic attempt to delegitimise Israel. This a country nine miles wide, with 350 million screaming Muslims barking genocidally on its borders. And you support them. Shame on you.
Mr Gregory…
our post was very good, but kind of compromised by your own use of !!!!!.
😉
Dr R: Shhhhhhhh… that was the joke 😉
From a speech by Newt Gingrich :
“I was once interviewed by a BBC reporter, a nice young lady who was only about as anti-American as she had to be to keep her job. Since it was a live interview, I turned to her halfway through the interview and I said, “Do you like your job?” And it was summertime, and she’s wearing a short-sleeve dress. And she said, “Well, yes.” She was confused because I had just reversed roles. I said, “Well, then you should hope we win.” She said, “What do you mean?” And I said, “Well, if the enemy wins, you won’t be allowed to be on television.”
I don’t know how to explain it any simpler than that.”
Read the rest… http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1385641
John Reith | 13.12.07 – 5:47 pm |
The most sober and compelling words I’ve “heard” from you (or this one of you, anyway) in a long time, if not ever.
Look – a good portion of the griping that goes on here is about the unfathomable deference to the sensibilities of one party and the lack of sensitivity, indeed occasional outright intolerance, shown toward certain others. I can well believe that a significant amount of rationalization in your crowd is accomplished by wearing a “Standing for Social Cohesion” ribbon.
I put it to you that you might take a different approach in your editorial meetings. If you honestly do expect to tough it out until, let’s face it, at least the next generation of Muslims residing in Britain (a charitable term) relaxes a little more, you could do more to help. I assume that the BBC expects that a good portion of Muslims currently residing in Britain watch the BBC. Otherwise there would presumably be less need to, as you say, mind one’s Ps and Qs. So how about taking advantage of your connection with this obviously important audience and do some standing for social cohesion in the other direction?
You could suggest to your colleagues that someone do a feature demonstrating that not all Christian, Caucasian British people are a bunch of Vicky Pollards and Nick Griffins, and that British society is not something to be feared or spat upon. It could include segments about how relaxed and non-bloodthirsty the British Public are. The idea would be to show non-violent disagreement is the way to go, opening doors, etc. Focus on shared values such as charity. Discuss the very large charitable streak in the British heart, as evidenced by so many successful charity appeals. You could even have pro-Muslim celebrities and political figures, showing the Muslim community that there is something worth reaching out to.
You could call it something like “Don’t Have a Fright, I’m Painfully White.”
No, in all seriousness, if the BBC is interested in reaching out to the Muslim community, it could do with a lesson on reaching back. Theoretically, that ought to be part of your mandate.
If you want to go into it’s critisism of the statistical methods used by paleoclimatologists and the fact they appear to be quite friendly with each other (I love that bit) I’d be delighted to.
Please do so, you see the BBC has so far failed to make any serious comments about this aspect of the science. Since the essence of science is about replication and or falsification of each others theories it does seem a little strange that a search for the word Wegman fails to produce anything substantive from the BBC Website.
If one was cynical one might interpret this to indicate that the major outcome of the Wegman report from which you so judiciously quoted is not referred to by the BBC because it fails to support their agreed narrative.
On the complex issue of KOSOVO, and its application to join the European Union (which would have significant effects in increasing immigration to the UK), the Jihadist agenda seems to be largely ignored by the E.U. and in the BBC’s reporting.
In contrast, see: ” Be Wise on Kosovo” (Walid Phares).
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/be_wise_on_kosovo.html
Arthur Dent: Fair enough, but if I remember the Wegman report was not born of science but of politics. Wegman is a statistician, he was asked to look at the “hockeystick” graph from that point of view by some politicians.
Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not the traditional way science works. And I still find his assertion that the science is flawed because paleoclimatologists know each other, well that’s just… odd. (Mind you he makes some very good points generally about statistics and a lack of interdisiplinarianism)
Honest truth? If I could have done the story, been up on Capitol Hill for the hearing, I would have done. But I think I’d have had to say something about the sort of talismanic obsession this graph has become.
If the graph is flawed, it won’t make the current state of climate science go away. Just as issues about thickening sea ice, medieval warm periods and re-ordering of America’s hottest years doesn’t bring the whole thing crashing down either.
Pounce: “However in typical BBC mode you gloss over the fact that I take to task how the Beeb has 7 pages on Hiroshima and 1 on Nanking.”
Again, what is wrong with this? Please enlighten us.
A semi-scientific study (googling “site:XXX hiroshima” and “site:XXX nanking OR nanjing 1937”) reveals:
Hits for Nanking/Nanjing
BBC: 369
Telegraph: 30
Times: 39
Guardian: 71
Hits for Hiroshima
BBC: 8,570
Telegraph: 879
Times: 531
Guardian: 2,900
I added the date for the latter because I thought that “Nanking” would also appear in other stories, where “Hiroshima” almost always applies to the atomic blast.
So pounce, what does this data tell us? What conclusions can we draw?
David G: “But I think I’d have had to say something about the sort of talismanic obsession this graph has become.”
It became that way because it was pushed by the AGW movement as “proof” of the AGW hypothesis. Since it was discredited, it still pops up to support AGW.
John Reith:
“In time, one hopes, confidence will grow all round and the requirement for delicacy will pass.”
And that utterly hopeless, infantile belief is what fuels the Beeb day-after-day week after week to never stop flogging the dead horse of Islamic propaganda.
An admission at last.
pounce and a tale of one chip:
Where Reith suddenly going all light and fluffy, in steps his obnoxious alter ego – yet again, proving that when it comes to arrogant, obnoxious pseudo-intellectuals, Al Beeb has employed the lot.
What a wonderful testament you are to the truly considerate and reasoned nature of the BBC.
Pounce you must have struck a very raw nerve to bring yet more maggots crawling out of the rotting BBC carcass. I’m not sure what subject matter you were attacking, but something tells me this guy was probably responsible for it.
Well done though 😉
Woodentop: Do you think all of climate change science rests on this one graph? Seriously?
Dr David Gregory (BBC), PhD
“Moving into industrial society, clearing forests (here where I live in Birmingham I’m close to Cherry Lane, they were long gone by 1800), burning wood and more. Could there be a natural effect in their too? Sure! But it’s clear once the industrial revolution kicks in.”
I’m sure you didn’t take physics-related things at face value without investigating them first.
England was already at the stage of being half woodland some time in the Bronze Age.
The greatest threats to UK woodland for a thousand years happened only after 1945 to make way for more farmland.
So the great woods of England were destroyed by the industrial revolution? No. The iron industry benefited from inventions of the 18th century (coal transformed into coke), since England’s forests couldn’t supply enough charcoal for smelting.
I am sure you are not one of those that think medieval England was thick with forest where Robin Hood used to hide. Or that ivy kills trees. However, the BBC is rotten with factoids, unverified statistics and political correctness.
You don’t have to pretend you know everything just cos you have a PhD.
DR DAVID GREGORY: It was Al Bore that kept using this sort of graph in that crap film of his.
Listen. No one doubts that Climate Change is for real. But it’s always happened. The argument I have have is that the leftie vegetable eaters at the BBC and other media organisations seem to “assume” that humans are totally resonsible for climate change. DUH!!!
The prats in Bali don’t get it. How are WE supposed to to reduce our Carbon Dioxide levels when we’re going to add another 10-15 million people to the Country over the next 20 years?
Perhaps you haven’t noticed but human beings have survived massive climate change in the past.
The money being wasted on fat corrupt politicians swanning off to Bali would be far better spent on birth control in the third world.
Additionally, I’d cut all child benefits and divert that money to improving our sea and river defences and improve our drainage system which for the most part is over 100 years old.
But I don’t hear this being suggested by the lefties. Instead these arseholes simply talk about sticking £50 on a plane ticket. just how is that going to help the planet?
We need to accept the climate is changing and that perhaps in the future the planet will not be able to sustain some 9 billion people.
I’d have a baby tax (as suggested in Australia) we need to get the planets expanding population under control. Even if climate change wasn’t happening, the human race is killing the planet through general pollution and the destruction of natural resources. In that respect I’m 100% behind you lefties. But this is simply ignored because the fat corrupt politicians are using climate change as an excuse to simply hike taxes.