One of the BBC’s favourite goals is promoting the views of lefty organisations that operate in the developing world – the charidees favoured by the likes of Bono, and NGOs supported with unilateral fervour by DFID . Most of them are on the global warming bandwagon, so for the boys and girls in the BBC newsroom, finding an excuse to publicise them and their anti-capitalist, anti-industry views is not difficult. Today’s peg is a report from the Royal Society which (not unreasonably for once) wants to improve crop production so that the world can feed more people. Among its highly sensible recommendations are a gradual shift to genetically modified plants, which have much bigger yields.
This, of course, a cue for the BBC to talk to every organisation under the sun which wants to ban such production, as well as to show a picture of Paul McCartney, a rather good singer who, for some reason best known to himself, has appointed himself a scientific expert and thinks he knows that GM foods are dangerous and harmful. This BBC kow-towing to the views of destructive left-wing groups is dangerously Luddite and will condemn millions of unborn children to starvation and premature death.
Just another imagined apocalypse the ‘liberals’ at the BBC need to help save us from.
“This, of course, a cue for the BBC to talk to every organisation under the sun which wants to ban such production.”
The article has one brief statement from a single anti-GM organisation at the bottom of a long article reporting a pro-GM press release from the Royal Society. In what way is this “every organisation under the sun” and “kow-towing to the views of destructive left wing groups”?
To see this as an anti-GM article, a reader would have to have their tinfoil hat jammed on very tightly indeed….
have to agree there, the article isn’t exactly biased in any way i can see.
Alternative emphasis on the supply of food, not by BBC’s ‘greenie’, Mr. Black, but by farmers:
” GM crops essential – Royal Society”
http://www.farmersguardian.com/news/gm-crops-essential-–-royal-society/28435.article#
I thought the Scientists had settled the science of GM? It’s good for feeding the world. Let’s move on, oh hang on that Climate Change isn’t it?
So the beeboids and lefties only like to accept science when it suits them?
Richard Black finishes with “The Royal Society also said that climate change is likely to increase the scale of the “challenge” ahead, by decreasing crop yields in most parts of the world”.
As a horticulturist for many years the Elephant in the room that is not mentioned either by the Royal Society or Richard Black is the huge increases in crop yields by the increase in CO2, it really is the “stuff of life”. Crop yields can incease by a third because plants evolved in a time when CO2 was much higher than today, it also makes the plants less prone to drought.
In fact Glasshouse growers add extra CO2 to their Glasshouses to increase growth and yield. They only focus on the downside never the upside.
Trouble is that plant growth is often or even normally limited by things other than carbon dioxide such as water, nutrients, sunlight and warmth. Only if all these things are not limiting, such as in the ideal conditions of a greenhouse, will extra carbon dioxide be of much benefit.
If crop yield was limited by carbon dioxide, there would of course be no point in farmers applying fertiliser.
Carbon dioxide has already increased by 35% concentration in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution, so any benefits should have become evident by now.
Don’t get me wrong, i’d be bang against legless, ballshaped cows that yeilded tons of meat or hyper-efficient corn that tasted like soot and poo, but the arguements i’ve seen against GM as of yet really are utter tripe, and anyhow genetic engineering has been going on since the dawn of mankind, selective breeding of animals/crops/etc, only now we can do it with razor precision i guess.
Oh noes attack of the GM wheat triffids >_>
The blatant lies by the BBC just get bigger dont they?
Warmer planet + more rain + more CO2 = increased crop yields, When regions suffer from from dry spells then irrigation systems can provide the needed water, its been done for thousands of years, the art of irrigation is nearly as old as farming.
Civilisations through history have risen during the warm periods and declined during the cold periods. Its all common knowledge and common sense isnt it? It isnt some kind of higher quantum theory, its plain old fashioned common sense knowledge handed down for thousands of years.
When its cold people suffer and when its warm people thrive, why is this such an impossible concept for the BBC experts to comprehend?
The BBC mirror their masters in government, wallowing in ignorance of science. Dangerous Luddites !
So we’re going to have an official UK population of 70 million in the next couple of decades, well I think we’re already at 70 million. But anyway, why didn’t the BBC bring up climate change with this story? How on earth are we supposed to cut CO2 emissions when we’re adding another 15% or so to the population?
Uncontrolled population growth Worldwide, whilst at the same time fighting the evils of climate change.
I’m sure there’s a paradox somewhere, but only the left have the capacity to set us all straight. – Over to the BBC then…….