I happened to catch around 10 minutes of the Clive Anderson hosted “Unreliable Evidence” this evening which considered the following…
“Are our environmental laws robust enough to save the planet for humankind? The Climate Change Act 2008 commits the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, but can this be legally enforced? What law and penalties are available to force industry, individuals and even the government to reduce their carbon footprint?”
The bit I heard was a disgraceful exercise in Internationalist leftism and Gaia worship and one can see why Mr Anderson is so beloved by Auntie.
Also Anderson asked (words to the effect) “Is current legislation a necessary step, or does it not go nearly far enough?”. No consideration of the third possibility
The entire programme was propagating the climate change message and the need for all of us to suffer economic changes that these leftists wanted. One of the lawyers – representing a legal practice called Gaia ! – sounded a particularly stupid harpie, all of them talking about “the science” and the “total consensus” on global warming.
Top BBC management has admitted that it has a strong bias to thes3e eco-nutters. It is high time the Director General put round a memo ordering all producers and editors and presenters to avoid claimning there is consensus and that “the science” is all settled. But the D-G won’t do that – because he is just as dumb and pig-ignorant as the rest of them.
The entire content of this programme was based on the assumptions that:
a. The climate is changing,
b. This change is due to an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
c The increase in carbon dioxide is entirely due to the activities of humans, and
d. This change will necessarily be harmful to life on the planet.
Unfortunately, on examination of the data, it quickly becomes clear that there is not the slightest amount of empirical evidence which supports any of these assumptions or the “science” underlying them. In fact, when proper rigour is applied to the study, it appears that exactly the opposite is true in each case.
Which brings me to the real question :
Who does it benefit for the state owned propaganda machine to purvey this nonsense with such pernicious tenacity ?
Answer this, and you will find the true meaning of life.
Neither the Beeboids nor politicians have the knowledge to assess any scientific claims.
“Brainwashing” our youth is what its about. Older wiser heads know its all b*llocks, but we are seeing a new generation who just accept what they are told by the self-serving climate change industry.Thats why the “consensus” meme is so important – musn’t ever admit any doubts, let alone that its total fiction.
As an aside I was at the National Maritime Museum Greenwich (free entry, Heritage Lottery funded)and blatant eco-propaganda palmed off as “truth” everywhere – including the notorious discredited hockey-stick graph on climate change since 1860 large on the wall, how new deep sea technology was enabling “our scientists to study the effect of climate change”, on and on.
Its frantic and corrupting thought by corrupting knowledge. (Then you get rooms full of how we lead the world trade in slavery, then the rooms about “world movements of population” – its good for you. Like it! You went to Australia. So now welcome your new Somali brothers!) Thank you the Lottery Fund, pass the sick bag.
All tosh, yet part of the learning about our world. BBC is just following the script.
IdiotBoy: It’s all about the money raised from taxation, and the control that that taxation convets.
If we’re looking for a silver lining, it’s that despite the non-stop barrage of propaganda from the BBC, polls show people are still sceptical.
This may be the BBC’s Achilles heel. If sceptics can be persuaded to question why they are constantly being fed propaganda from the Beeb, they may question it in other areas too.
Yes its about taxes too – any excuse, and the more people believe the eco-bollox the more they will think of green taxes as “well, fair enough, if it helps save the planet”. Green sugar-coating the bitter pill to make it less unpalatable.
I love the “by 2050” The pernicious computer models which invent climate change only work by multiplying +0.2% increase over a lot of years, so why not equally fraudulent targets to reduce nonexisting “climate change”? How about “government change” by 2010? Sadly Dave has had to swallow CC in order not to alienate the younger demographic. (“Its MY future mummy and daddy are selfishly destroying!”)
I first went to the Maritime Museum many years ago and what a wonderful place it was. A bit disorganised but there were artifacts and exhibits and paintings covering the entire British maritime history. Went again a couple of years ago. As Andrew says it is now a climate change propaganda arm of the government. Naturally, the evils of slavery has to mentioned and the plight of immigrants who were forced to live in the bowels of the great liners while the toffs swanned around in luxury. I was so disgusted I left after half an hour.
For the establishment apart from being a tax scam, climate change is also a useful distraction.
Get the stupid plebs to worry about supposed climate change rather than the demographic change happening right under their noses.
@AndrewSouthLondon
Last year I was in the science museum admiring the spitfire (hurricane?) fuselage. On the opposite side of the room was a montage of photos and personal stories from WW2. Suddenly something jarred – the story was all about class issues – how the pilots were public school types and the armourers and fitters were working class types. I thought to myself that this has got bugger al to do with WW2 and even less to do with science. It was the science museum.
It really looks like the cultural marxists have got hold of everything.