There appears to be two sides to the environmentalist agenda, the green and and the really green. The BBC likes to give us both. Hence this report which discusses the EU’s desire to cut C02 emissions by 30% by 2020. Europe’s environment chief Stavros Dimas claims that ” big polluters” like Porsche or Rolls-Royce would have to radically change the way they make their cars or have them banned from sale. But by way of balance, the BBC reports that Green groups gave “a shudder” last week when they heard Europe’s big players – especially Germany – were looking for a climate deal that would protect some of the most polluting industries and allow the continued manufacture of gas-guzzling luxury cars.
What about those of us who give “a shudder” when we read this planned onslaught on our industries and manufacturers by third rate Euroweenie politicians who are exploiting genuine concerns on the environment for the things they like to do best – tax and ban? Shouldn’t the BBC understand that there are many who do NOT buy into this environmental fetish and start to seek OUR opinions in order to balance the debate rather than start and finish with the eco-wackos?
Can I please remind posters that we are not here to discuss whether global climate thingey exists or not: we are talking about whether the BBC is covering all angles or whether it has its own house opinion that is pushed at every opportunity.
One small correction, DV, its CO2 as in “Carbon Oxygen number two”. Its not “see-zero-two”. Its a small point but I have pointed out that the BBC’s own “science” correspondent has made this same mistake, which was not picked up by any of the armies of editors, controllers, web designers and so on.
There is a valid point here. The BBC alomst never gives time to the opposite side of the debate on so called climate change.
There is NO evidence to show that CO2 is changing our planet. None what so ever.
Some people on the left (the lesbian vegetable eating lot) are trying to brainwash us and the leftie BBC is going along with it.
These people are barking made. They are also full of double standards.
Lets see the BBC tell us how it will cut its so called Carbon footprint.
Will it ban thousands of its staff poncing off to China this year for the Olympics? No
Will it stop thousands of its staff mincing off to Switzerland for the football this summer? No
Will it start to use local journalists rather than fly out “teams” of left wing losers to all parts of the world when the likes of Sky manage with one reporter? No
So to the BBC I sayt **** off and stick to making crap TV shows like Eastenders.
Now, Jack, you can’t start telling DV off for using ‘C02’ if you’re using ‘its’ for ‘it’s’.
Martin:
Will it ban thousands of its staff poncing off to China this year for the Olympics? No
Will it stop thousands of its staff mincing off to Switzerland for the football this summer? No
No danger of you being mistaken for someone unnaturally obsessed with other people’s potential homosexuality, then?
How queer…
.
“…whether the BBC is covering all angles…”
The short answer is no.
“… or whether it has its own house opinion…”
Obviously a yes.
“… that is pushed at every opportunity.”
Well, that’ll be an overwhelming yes.
There really is nothing to debate on the above matters – the case is closed imo.
The blog should keep highlighting the pro-green agenda reports the Al-Green-Beeb is making, especially focusing on the use of manipulative language, highlighting the use of opinion’s rather than factual news reporting that infests many Beeboid articles.
This comments section can be usefully used to capture other climate-related news people have read that day but which the Beeb, with their self-deluded wisdom, has chosen to ignore.
GBS
Lets see the BBC tell us how it will cut its so called Carbon footprint,
Oh yes please. We had a brief discussion with Ben about this a few months ago, when I tried , unsuccessfuly, to ascertain what the BBC had done to minimise its carbon footprint arising from its coverage of the Bali Conference. The answer seems to have been ‘nothing’.
I suspect that this is another example of do what we say but dont do what we do. There is little possibility that the BBC will try to lead by example. Expect a really large carbon contribution arising from the BBCs mammoth coverage of the Beijing Olympics
Hillhunt | 21.03.08 – 2:49 pm | #
How on earth can you be so complacent when it comes to the gay Mafia?
Arthur, I don’t know what they do, do you? As long as they aren’t wasting my money offsetting I don’t really care.
Hillhunt:
Your obsession with “lady bits” makes me wonder about your sexual orientation. Try something new. I don’t care who you shag in your bedroom, but I don’t like it being rubbed into my face.
Generian:
I don’t care who you shag in your bedroom, but I don’t like it being rubbed into my face.
Dunno. People pay good money for that kind of thing.
Just so I have a clue: What is my obsession with “lady bits”?
.
Arthur, I don’t know what they do, do you?
Well the BBC is always criticising industry for its failures to be transparent and care for the environment, especially in terms of climate change so you might expect the BBC to be a paragon of virtue in this respect. We wouldn’t expect hypocracy now would we?
The latest BBC Annual report, you know the one where you are now supposed to comment on your environmental impact does indeed mention this. I reproduce below the totality of the discussion in the 156 page report
Managing the rest of environmental impact also remains a priority and we are setting tough targets for carbon emissions, waste, water, impact on land and procurement as part of a medium-term strategy that we are currently developing
There you have it 38 words telling the shareholders (i.e. us) absolutely nothing other than we think this is so important that we have started to think about it.
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC was agreed in 1997 and by 2007 this was the response of a major organisation that spends a great deal of time preaching to the world about the dangers of climate change and the importance of action
Hillhunt:
Your obsession with “lady bits” makes me wonder about your sexual orientation. Try something new. I don’t care who you shag in your bedroom, but I don’t like it being rubbed into my face.
Generian | 21.03.08 – 5:26 pm |
He /She/It disputes this, however a quick glance at the individual’s blog will reveal all.
What I will say is that sillybunt is obsessed with all things green.
In fact, I’m sure that the individual wears green tinted spectacles.
Sinn Fein/IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Green Party. Are they all not green in their emblems.
Perhaps we should start to call sillybunt Mr. Green.
Cystander:
“Toyota Prius proves a gas guzzler in race with BMW 520d”
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece
Hillhunt | 22.03.08 – 10:44 am |
Congratulations.
For the first time you have made me laugh at your humour.
Today is my 61st birthday & I’m off to Banff for the day with the wife & my 3 year old daughter, so I’m in a good mood.
Tomorrow I’ll be back to Mr. Grumpy.
(grits teeth)
Easter weather report 2008 gets it about right.(no really).
There is climate change,
the amount of ice at the poles varies,
there is controversy over the effects of meltwater running into the sea.
Not a mention of agw.
If this is the result of weather programmes being produced by the meteorologically informed rather than science `correspondants` and environmental jihadis, perhaps the bbc could ensure that in future programmes raising climate change issues contain at least some `moderation` by informed and qualified commenters.
One thumb up and half a cigar.
Apologies, in the above post.
I didn`t mention,
gays,
ladybits,
hillhunt,
Yet another set of data casting doubt on the AGW religion.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Let’s see how long it takes to reach the BBC website shall we?
That`s a cracking article one the most rational i`ve read.
I suspect it will reach beebs website at about the same time as hell freezes over.(caused of course by global warming).
The case for developing new nuclear power stations in the UK is strong:
“The UK’s enery supply – the case for nuclear?”
http://www.eef.org.uk/UK/whatwedo/policy/features/The_UKs_energy_supply.htm
And on Wednesday, progress will be made:
“Nuclear arsenal will seal entente for Nicholas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/23/wsarko123.xml
Of course, the FIRST sentence in the BBC’s web report on this is:
“Anti-nuclear groups have expressed their disappointment at reports that the UK is poised to join France in creating new nuclear generators.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7309255.stm