. When I blog these posts here, sometimes my critics accuse me of seeing bias where none exists. I do always try to write truthfully and call it as I see it, but acknowledge that like everyone else I am quite capable of error. That said, many of you who come here tend to see many of the same things I do, which is both re-assuring for me and evidence that there is no shortage of people very unhappy with how the BBC produces “news”. This Bank Holiday Monday morning, in an endurance exercise I managed to listen to almost one hour of the BBC’s prime news “Today” programme – and frankly it was an abomination. There were three items that really caught my attention;
Hillary Benn and George Monbiot participated in a debate on green taxation. Monbiot, who is an extreme environmentalist was there to criticise Benn for not agreeing to IMPOSE individual carbon footprint taxes on us all – to “save the planet” naturally – whilst Benn argued back that since the UK has been the first country in the world to shortly impose a mandatory legally bind Climate Change bill, we were still leading the way. I agree, the way to hell and back. The point is this; the debate here was between the uber moonbat left (Monbiot) and the barking left (Benn). Why was there no voice for those who challenge the entire AGW lunacy? The BBC has clearly adopted the Al Gore “the debate is over” mindset and merely now seeks out new and exciting ways to tax us in order that the Polar bears may swim free. On a lighter note, it was amusing to hear Hillary Benn say that “the time is not right” to punish us with individual carbon footprint allowances when WE all know that the only reason he says this is because Labour electoral fortunes are diminishing faster than the Arctic ice shelf!
Following on from this, there was a remarkable item celebrating 20 years of rap band Public Enemy and an interview with lead singer Chuck D. Now Chucky boy is a great admirer of the renowned anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and was allowed to have a go at Bush, Thatcher, the Queen et al. Apparently such has been the significance of Public Enemy that such mere details can be skimmed over in prime time interviews with but the most cursory reference. Chuck is a huge fan of Obama and can’t wait for “the changes” that President Obama will bring. I bet.
Finally, I listened to an interview with veteran Clinton bagman, Sidney Blumenthal being given free rein to shill for Hill! Blumenthal was allowed to attack the GOP whilst making the most outrageous claims for Hillary Clinton’s increasingly redundant Presidential campaign. How is it that the BBC could not find a US Republican to counter Blumenthal’s black propaganda?
After one hour of this dismal left-wing US bashing gangsta loving environmentalist drivel, I did the most important thing possible – and turned it off
The BBC isn’t biased, you’re the one who is biased. Standard moronic anti B-BBC line
As anyone who is following the debate knows, the net is closing in on the AGW fanatics, as paper after paper undermines the very foundations of the warmists’ claims (try this, for example: http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm )
If, on the other hand, you relied on the BBC for information – well, the debate between two imbeciles (Monnbat and Bug-eye Benn) says it all.
Climates change – the political no less than the atmospheric. The BBC appears not to have noticed that it is looking increasingly out of step.
woad, you have a problem !
DV, a number of us had already picked up on the points you raised re todays Toady prog, I’d switched off after the moonbat monbiot bit though !
May I stress the importance of everyone who posts here, sending a really firm message to their MP, that its time to appoint an outrider to bring the topic of pro labour bbc bias out into the open, in parliament, in the press and on tv.
At the moment there is a reluctance to address the issue, on the basis that politicians are currently not popular with the public. However, the more the topic is aired, the easier it will be to deal with.
Off Topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7419980.stm
I noticed this headline about the SAAS calling in the debt of thousands of postgrads. Even more interesting was I had to read through 3 quarters of the article before the beeb even told me what was going on, the rest was a Labour MSP being given the opportunity to say how awful it was the SNP were allowing this to happen.
There was no rebuttal from the SNP.
I don’t even see that the SNPs culpability has been established in the article. It may just be some bureaucrats at the SAAS getting “creative”. I’m no fan of the SNP, but the BBC does seem to jump at every possible chance to allow Labour politicians to wax lyrical about how great their party is. They seem to do this for Labour rather a lot more than any other party.
I should probably add that there is a reply from “A government spokesman” but that is not identified as originating from within the SNP proper. Such a vauge description could equally mean someone from the SAAS or a backroom mandarin just seeking to cover themselves.
I love this blog. its one of the few places i can find the voice of sensible conservatism and right thinking people on the internet.
I feel at home here.
as for eco-freaks, greenie meanies, susdevers,
the ice+snow in the antarctic is increasing and predicted to continue in their models and the arctic ice is decreasing thousands of times faster tham any of their models, whatever is going on these types dont have the answer.
Re: Public Enemy
Here’s an antidote (language warning). Not Chuck D but close enough.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rds0_comedy-centralflavor-flav-roastjeff_fun
The BBC isn’t biased. On the World at One they had Jonathan Porritt on to balance out the views of George Moonbat. What could be fairer than that?
Rob,
Yeah. we now need Al Gore to put the other side of the coin. There’s nothing like balance and Today had nothing like balance this morning. A thundering disgrace.
Had a good laugh at the lady interviewer though.
Q: “Do you think the majority of the U.K. want him (Louis Farrakhan) to come over here?”
A: “I’m Chuck D. Why the hell would I care about the majority?”
Why indeed. Stupid woman.
Blumenthal is well known in the States by his media nick-name of Sid Vicious… an obnoxious, nasty jerk.
Did George Moonbat mention he now own a car by chance?
First question I’d ask is why does he own one and when will he get rid of it?
Also quite interesting that James Whale who was one of the few in the boradcast media who gave time to those that oppose all this climate change crap was sacked by his boss who of course is moz Dee an ex BBC arse licker.
Conspiracy?
I share your anger about the BBC in general today. Excuse the change in subject – I woke up this morning in New York to a piece on the BBC World Service about Australian opposition to a Muslim school in Camden. As you can expect, the purpose and tone of the entire piece was to paint both the protesters and Australians in general as ignorant, racist and “Islamophobic”.
The overwhelming impression one got from listening to the segment was that residents oppose the school because more Muslims would “change the character” of Camden. As you’d expect, they selected the angriest, most bigoted sounding Aussies to represent the “views on the street” – people who would oblige the BBC with their jingoistic invective and thus drown out any educated, reasoned sounding voices. No airtime whatsoever was given to other views. Doing a quick search on Google, this article came up second, which paints a picture of the opposition that the BBC did not even bother trying to represent:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22953152-12377,00.html
“He condemned the few people outside the meeting who said they opposed the school merely because they did not want more Muslims in the Camden area”
Those few people are exactly the ones the BBC ignoramus scum took upon themselves to unanimously represent the views of the protesters.
Of course, the presenter invited “your emails” on the subject. And the only ones he read out were from people who decried the “widespread racism” in Australia and Aussies who whined that they were “ashamed of their country” after listening to the segment.
I too cannot believe people on this forum who try to suggest that the BBC bias is all in our minds. It’s reporting like this which makes me sure that we’re not complaining hard enough.
I didn’t hear the programme in question, but I just don’t understand this opposition to climate change. It’s almost as if the right attack the notion simply because people largely thought of as “lefties” have been its cheerleaders. Ergo, if you bash climate change, you bash the left, and score political points. If the left were saying “climate change is a load of crap” I’m certain the right would be championing polar bears, and DV would be slamming the BBC for not taking an interest.
Those laymen among us who are not scientists and have not studied this matter at a particularly high level can only read what is printed on the subject and believe what we think sounds most plausible.
So the right-wingers who flock here are going to believe every paper that is printed denying that climate change is linked to man’s actions, and view with disdain anything suggests the opposite.
BUT there are so many statements coming from a vast majority of scientists that DO support the “leftie” side of things. Sorry, but I’m far more inclined to listen to the majority of the world’s scientists than some website like liberalsmustdie.com.
Yes, the BBC should give us more information linked to climate change, but “balance” isn’t about providing opposition to every single matter they discuss. If they’re discussing Elvis, should they be forbidden from referring to his “death” unless there’s someone on the show who has evidence that the King is alive and well and living on the moon?
Climate change is happening – the only thing up for debate is how much man affect its and what, if at all, we can do to arrest it.
Grow up and stop trying to score points off people you don’t like just for the sake of it.
barry, wheres the evidence of climate change ?
The BBC opens the Camden article with the following para:
‘With its lace curtain bungalows and steepled Anglican church, the once tranquil town of Camden in New South Wales seems the most improbable of settings for a row that combines race and religion.’
I cannot imagine why the Beeboids think that a such a place is ‘a most improbable setting for a row’. Surely this is exactly the kind of place where there absolutely should, be a row about another massive beachhead in the Islamic invasion?
What the Beebs really mean of course, (as their mocking tone implies) is that ‘oh, dear – here’s another of those law-abiding, Church-going little towns that doesn’t know what’s good for it.’
Oh, and by the way Jason, it’s ‘the angriest, most bigoted sounding Aussies’ that I’m rooting for. If only we had a few fighters like that in the UK.
thankfully, there are 5th columnists within Al Beeb, they stopped the looney lefts earth day switch off thing
say it loud and say it proud
sod off swampy
“The Record: Europe” is perhaps the worst offender with its left vs far left vs loony left myopic discussions. This weeks episode:
CAP
EU spokesman
Polish Socialist
French Green
UK Conservative (of the wet variety)
3:1 against the UK government position. The 1 being a Tory! (who still talked about rural subsidies as if they were a good thing)
Minorities legislation
UK Labour (Brian Cashman)
UK Lib-Dem
German CDU
2:1 in favour of the legislation (I thought it was going to come to blows – the “with your country’s history” gibe from Cashman to the German chap was a disgrace).
Every week its the same – it makes the likes of Question Time and Today look neutral.
Greencoat:
I too had no trouble with the views of the “angry, bigoted sounding” Aussies in the segment. None at all – they have a very real grievance with Islamism, as do we all. I’m just upset with the way the BBC represented the overall views using those people almost exclusively – it’s obvious that Beeboid leftists shape reports in a way intended entirely for the benefit of others like them and not for the appreciation of the wider public, whose views they despise.
For the record, I am anti-left and I do believe in climate change.
NO,
There’s nothing wrong in buying into AGW – though as you know I don’t. The main issue here is to allow debate on the topic – something the Beeb shy away from which does not help at all.
“BUT there are so many statements coming from a vast majority of scientists that DO support the “leftie” side of things. Sorry, but I’m far more inclined to listen to the majority of the world’s scientists than some website like liberalsmustdie.com.”
Many statements coming from a vast majority? This would include the vast majority of scientists who work in disciplines totally unrelated to climate?
“Climate change is happening – the only thing up for debate is how much man affect its and what, if at all, we can do to arrest it.”
So you are against carbon taxes and draconian measures until we know what,if anything is happening.
“Grow up and stop trying to score points off people you don’t like just for the sake of it.”
You should have a T shirt with this on,really adult.
Hmm … not too happy with the phrase ‘buying into’. I’d say it sounds a tad smug.
I do have a science background. Not sure what proportion of those who hold the opposite view, sometimes for no more reason than because they think they are being anti-left (e.g. Melanie Philips), have one.
I too accept climate change: I just don’t believe that variations in ppmCO2 are causing it. Is that point of view EVER heard on the BBC because there are plenty of scientists who say it?
Climate changes,
it`s been cooling for nearly ten years.
A nostalgia prog on beeb last week about the `76 heatwave caught a news paper headline after the warmest recorded uk temperature,
`Another fifty years of this!,say experts`
How can anyone not be skeptical.
I do believe in climate change
I am a scientist and the word ‘belief’ in relation to scientific issues is not part of my vocabulary and shouldn’t be part of the vocabulary of any scientist.
Barry I have never met anyone who doesn’t believe that the climate is changing, it has always been changing and until the Sun goes out it always will change. The only question is whether the human race has caused any fluctuations in the underlying changes.
I know that it is difficult, but you need to distinguish between the ‘green’ lobbyists who have a whole series of usually, but not universally, left wing agendas and the scientific community. Note, we also have another bunch of loonies usually on the right that have a Panglossian view of the world.
The statements made by Al Gore and his supporters that the science is settled is untrue. There is a fierce debate in the scientific community over some of the fundamentals of the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming Theory (AGW). The scientists who support the solar theory, are currently able to show that their theory related to sun-spot activity provides a closer fit to the actual observed data than the AGW proponents. The sunspot theory suggests that the global temperature should have plateaued over the last 10 years and should now go into a cooling phase until sunspot activity re-emerges. In otherwords a possible repeat of the little Ice Age that was stimulated by the Maunder minimum.
Interesting to put Maunder Minimum into the BBC search engine?
Hmmm, there you go 2 hits on Maunder Minimum and 500 pages of hits on Climate Change. No bias there then
The BBC has stated quite frankly that the debate is over, and that AGW is the number one challenge facing our planet. But they are wrong about the planet getting warmer, wrong about why it is getting warmer, and wrong about what they want to do to stop it.
I am witness to local climate change caused by man, but it was not caused by the emissions of cars and planes and trucks and power plants. It was caused by suburban sprawl, beginning with massive amounts of greenery transplanted into a desert, with the accompanying massive amounts of water. Even more water was transported into a desert area for tens of thousands of swimming pools, man-made lakes and ponds and other “water features” for office parks and apartment complexes and “planned neighborhoods”. Combine this with massive amounts of tarmac in the gigantic parking lots of shopping malls, and endless windy streets and sidewalks in all those “planned neighborhoods”, and you get a noticeable alteration in the local climate.
But that’s local. It does not affect anyone outside of that desert valley. However, this was a desert area, and suburban sprawl will have different effects on different climates.
Unless I am very much mistaken, a similar kind of suburban sprawl is affecting areas of Britain as well. But legislating us all back to being subsistence farmers isn’t the solution. The current posturings and blatherings about what we need to do about it won’t do a damn thing about stopping the very things that actually do affect local climates, but will only make life more miserable for everyone living in those areas. But who cares when we’re saving all of humanity?
Unfortunately, the Climate Change religion was hijacked long ago by neo-Marxist types who want to strip away the progress of civilization, leaving a weaker form they can control, and environmental extremists who really do believe we should live like animals.
Sure, elitist Leftoids with loads of money are acting as guiding lights, but that’s because, like so many religious believers, it makes them feel good.
After all, there is nothing bigger worth saving than The Planet, and Humanity, right? Who cares about individual freedoms when all that’s at stake?
My take on the building of mosques and the founding of islamic faith schools in the UK is that I would allow one for each church and Christian faith school allowed in saudi arabia.
PS. I would allow them 2 for each Jewish temple or faith school allowed in saudi arabia.
There are several points about climate change.
1. The climate has and always will change. The loony left seem to think they can freeze dry the climate at a certain point in time. They can’t
2. Many on the left have moved on to climate change, from CND, stop the war and throwing chairs through the windows of the local McDonalds. They have turned it into a rabid religion. Climate change deniers are seen as evil as holocust deniers.
3. If you accept the argument that humans are damaging the planet, then the answer is simple. Cut the number of humans living on the planet.
This could be done through changes in the taxation system to punish those with big families (just like we punish those that drive big cars)
When that arsehole Tony Juniper was on the Daily Politics the other week with James Whale, Whale brought up this very point. Juniper “claimed” that it wasn’t the number of humans that was the problem but their Carbon emissions. What an utter prick. Why doesn’t he go and tell the 1.5 billion in China and the 1 billion in India that their desire to own a car, take a holiday or own an air conditioning unit will have to be put on hold. Wankers like Juniper seem to think the only way to live is in mud huts and tents. I’m sure Juniper lives in a nice expensive house (as the left generally do)
We are already running out of food on the planet. How are we suppose dto grow more food to feed another 3 billion people in 50 years time?
4. Look for cleaner sources of fuel. It was the left that originally drove the debate on bio fuels and look what mess that has created.
5. The money should be better spent on adapting to climate change (as man has always done in the past)
6. Where is the evidence that humans are cuasing much of the climate change? We’ve had NO global temperature increases since 1998 (itself a freak year) and now even the leftie loons admit we won’t get any for at least another 10 years. Yet we are still pumping out more and more CO2. So why has the temperature started to fall? You loonies on th left can’t have it both ways.
7. The BBC and the loser left keep quoting the IPCC. They don’t do any research, they simply peer review the work of others. I’d like to know if they peer review work of those that hold the opposite view on climate change.
moonbat nibbler | 26.05.08 – 3:44 pm
I saw that edition of The Record: Europe (btw, thanks for including the punctuation • I never understood what the title meant before as the graphics just say “the record europe”, which is nonsense). Re the discussion on the EU parliament’s latest “anti-discrimination” recommendations – I take issue with your claim that the programme was 2:1 pro-legislation. It was 3:1 – presenter Shirin Wheeler (daughter of BBC journalist Charles Wheeler – EU nepotism thrives even in the media corps) was on the same side as Liz Lynne, the LibDem behind the proposals, and the Labour gay activist Michael Cashman (this screenshot shows Wheeler arguing the toss with the German conservative Markus Ferber). The weakness of the pro-legislation side was clear when Cashman had to play the Nazi card. All in all it was typical of the BBC’s EU coverage • slanted and superficial.
Ferber seemed sure that the recommendations will not become EU directives. I hope he’s correct. Recommendation 20 proposes “that Member States and the Commission resource and empower those NGOs that represent discriminated groups, and those that are active in informing citizens and providing legal aid, as regards matters of discrimination”. Money for propaganda and legal aid – nice. And then there’s recommendation 38, which states that “the material scope of the new proposal for a directive to combat discrimination… must be broad” and should include “images of discriminated groups in the media”. I can see the followers of a particular perpetually aggrieved religion rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of using our taxes to stamp out criticism; no more cartoons about Islam for a start. If any people think I’m being alarmist they haven’t been following the outrageous excesses of Canada’s human rights commissions.
“I am a scientist and the word ‘belief’ in relation to scientific issues is not part of my vocabulary and shouldn’t be part of the vocabulary of any scientist”
Oh, come one, you know perfectly well what I meant. I did not expect this from you.
It was shorthand for “On the balance of evidence, so far as I have seen, I regard it as more likely than not that human intervention has caused changes in the climate in the very recent past”.
You want me to use that sentence every time? Well, I won’t. You insert it, if you wish. I am now on record as having stated what my position is. Happy?
“Many on the left have moved on to climate change, from CND, stop the war and throwing chairs through the windows of the local McDonalds. They have turned it into a rabid religion. Climate change deniers are seen as evil as holocust deniers”
I have never done any of those things, and it’s not a religion. You lot can only see one group: the rabid ones. You simply ignore all those of us who come to it from a position of open-minded scepticism and understanding of how science works. A bit like what the BBC does a lot of the time.
And it’s us who are constantly vilified as worse than Holocaust deniers: we are rabid, we are loonie lefties, we are hysterical.
Martin | 26.05.08 – 5:36 pm |
I agree with all you say here except:
We are already running out of food on the planet. How are we supposed to grow more food to feed another 3 billion people in 50 years time?
No, we’re not. Yes, there are places right now with food shortages, but that’s generally due to local issues – local human idiocy and/or natural disasters. Or just people living in barren areas for no good reason other than that’s where they are and food distribution programs manage to sustain enough of them to keep doing it.
That’s not to say that I think we need to fill the planet shoulder-to-shoulder or anything like that, or that “it’s the carbon footprint, stupid,” is the right attitude. Far from it, in fact. But we’re not running out of food, not even close. If anything, anti-science dopes have prevented the development and distribution of crops that could prevent starvation even in some of the problem areas I’ve mentioned. They always have some phony “Scientists are smart and can develop this, but they don’t know what can really happen – we might all be poisoned,” or, “It’s from the West or the Jooos, so they might try to make us sterile.” Ironically, most of these people – both in our own developed countries and in these third-world problem areas – believe in witchcraft or magic or other supernatural things. But not proper science.
NO,
Sorry if that came across patronising, didn’t mean it! All I was trying to suggest was that we can all sincerely hold different opinions and in a healthy environment, express them. The BBC fails to provide that environment.
No problem, David! 😉
“Oh, and by the way Jason, it’s ‘the angriest, most bigoted sounding Aussies’ that I’m rooting for. If only we had a few fighters like that in the UK.”
Of course, they must oppose the immigration of Muslims into Australia because they are Muslim. Anything less than this makes complaining about Islamic schools incoherent and self-defeating.
“they selected the angriest, most bigoted sounding Aussies to represent the “views on the street”
They should be angry. They should be on the street. Islam is an anti-human ideology and it being forced on the west is a crime against humanity.
“5. The money should be better spent on adapting to climate change (as man has always done in the past)”
This is probably the most useful view of climate change. There is nothing we as a human race can do to stop fluctuations in our climate. Even if we cease all emissions and take ourselves back to the stone age, the earth will warm. And then cool again.
Instead of losing our minds in a pointless, dead-horse-flogging effort to control the earth’s climate (just who do we think we are?), every effort should be made to adapt to climate change. This is all that can be done.
Adaptation takes money. It’s wealth that will save us from climate change, not carbon rationing. The best way to create wealth is through capitalism and industry, no doubt about it. The wealthier people are, the more likely they are to be able to protect themselves from warmer temperatures. Poor people who live in coastal regions and who don’t have the money to relocate will be most affected by rising sea levels, for instance. What those people need is capitalism, not a bunch of self-righteous pseudo-religious leftists who are using climate change to attack everything they’ve always hated – capitalism, greed, industry.
The trouble with the left is that they’re over the moon with the global warming furore – it gives them a self indulgent chance to don their superhero costumes and plastic lightsabers and act like they’re saving the world. They want the problem to be capitalism and industry because it’s their last-ditch attempt to attack those things.
It’s not really about a love for the planet, because any time I’ve seen lefties presented with evidence that perhaps the planet is not terminally ill, they throw a tantrum and become enraged and accuse the messenger of lying. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but if someone you loved was terminally ill and you were told that they were going to be OK and that the prognosis was in fact a lot better that you’d previously been told, would you throw a tantrum or bask in the hope you’d just been given? I know how I’d react.
Possibly off-topic however…the BBC has a wonderful article in which it firstly claims that Israel has 150 atomic bombs, it then goes onto quoting that prat of an ex US president Carter calling Israel guilty of crimes against humanity.
What a bunch of anti-semetic tossers Carter and the BBC are.
Another example of BBC bias is to be found on the Editors Blog, if you click on the first blog by Peter Barron you can read what he felt was the best by-election result ever: Dudley in 1994, can you guess which party won the by-election?.
Barry writes: “Grow up and stop trying to score points off people you don’t like just for the sake of it.”
That is a gross distortion of the position adopted by most people here.
There are figures on the Left who consider AGW a nonsense (a leading example being Prof. Phllip Stott http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/A_Hot_Topic_Blog.html ). I don’t see Stott being attacked.
The fact is, however, that there is a glaring commonality between the policies advocated by ‘Greens’ and those by the new Left. You wouldn’t need the deductive powers of Sherlock Holmes to wonder if there hadn’t been a degree of reasoning back to arrive at a cause based on a desired conclusion.
The primary objection here, however, is that this commonality is universal at BBC, which allows almost no dissent from its ‘house view’. Contradictory research, the growing body of evidence from solar phsycics, even glaring discrepancies in the actual measurements of temperatures – hardly any receive attention, while BBC staff, from barely literate disc jockeys to ill-informed arts graduate ‘environment correspondents’ promote AGW as if it were established fact which only the mad disputed.
In reply to chloe verger
BBC will repeat any negative comments about Israel but never any about Muslims. Its so blatantly anti Israel that BBC has completely lost its credibility.
The kindest thing one can say about that shit Carter is that his brain has seized up, as sadly it does in some old people.
I don’t mind what the Today programme says. I just don’t see why I have to pay for it because I want to watch football on Sky TV without getting a fine and a criminal record. I don’t have to buy the Guardian before I’m allowed to watch Sky Sports so why do I have to pay for the BBC?
At least the Guardian has a decent crossword and doesn’t produce anything remotely as appalling as Eastenders, Casualty and The Jonathan ‘w*nker’ Ross Show, all of which the BBC regards as quality product!
NO: I don’t think you were being fair to shits comparing one to Carter. A shit serves a purpose.
But would you want your daughter to marry one? 😉
I feel there can often be a lot of nonsense on this site, but this piece about Today and the carbon allowances story is bang on. The “debate” was a disgrace. Where my instant reaction was something akin to http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/05/oh-here-we-go-again.html Today seemed to think the only thing of controversy was that the UK was not ready to launch this insane scheme tomorrow. There was no attention paid to pitiful policy itself and the utter madness and sheer fantasy of it all. Just how in fuk’s name did no one in the newsroom ask “Are these guys serious? How in fuk’s name could that ever work, even if people showed any desire for it in the first place?”
Interesting read;
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html
Although I doubt that this kind of thing will ever be mentioned by the BBC.
This carbon footprint balls is going to go the same way as rotary dialing – phones that go brrring brrring instead of beep beep/oops I did it again.