So-called charities like Oxfam and WWF are without doubt the leaders of climate change hysteria. They demonstrated this at the recent formal UN climate change talks by smashing the Saudia Arabia nameplate in pieces and despositing it in a hotel lavatory bowl, sparking a diplomatic incident. Their grievance was apparently that the Saudi desire to keep selling oil so that our cars can run and we can keep warm was blocking their desire for new, more extreme climate change measures. The behaviour of the WWF and Oxfam delegates offended even the climate change loonies who attend such events and now the offenders have been ‘disciplined’ and suspended from future talks for a limited period.
In his report of the furore, Richard Black, that continually objective BBC doyen of climate change reporting, makes no bones that he is displeased. But not with with the nutters at Oxfam and WWF – in his book it seems that they have every right to be frustrated. No, his real worry seems to be that despite the wonderful Obama, the US is unlikely to pass anti-emissions legislation any time soon. His attitude is illustrated graphically by the picture chosen to accompany the story: of a giant Saudi oil tanker. It’s big oil stopping progress on climate change, don’t ya know? And against that, any yobbery is fine.
I think Black’s main goal was to sanitize the environmentals behind the vandalism. We’re supposed to accept the UN Warmist Secretary’s word that the environmental activists are usually charming and erudite companions.
Of course, the BBC never highlights the fact that nearly all violent protest comes from the Left.
‘Direct Action’ – the mantra of the left since at least the ’60s. Always necessary because their sense of moral conviction/moral outrage/conscience was better developed than anyone elses.
Now the Sparts of this world think that other groups’/peoples’ opinions are irrelevant, except in as much as they define their own.
I nearly wet myself when I read tihs bit in the report
“Saudi Arabia is a forgiving society, and our culture allows us to forgive whoever commits a wrong against us, as long as he or she admits it and apologises,” said Mr Al-Sabban…”
Ha ha ha ha ha
One thing Black doesn’t point out is that not one of these people are elected by anyone. But the BBC do not do democracy.
They do democracy only when ‘their sort of person’ is getting elected. For example, when Ken Livingturd was elected Mayor of London they didn’t mind him sticking his nose into everything, but as soon as Boris got elected it was seen as ‘political interference’
Has the BBC’s review of science reporting been cancelled?
“Now we have heard – from a source close to the BBC – that the BBC Trust’s much-vaunted review of the accuracy and impartiality of its science coverage has been cancelled. Could it be that the BBC has realised that, in view of the damage done to the Climategate inquires by not properly representing the well justified concerns and evidence of sceptics, their review would also have little credibility if the critics of their science coverage is excluded, and conversely, that if this input is allowed, then the review would inevitably have to reach some very unpalatable conclusions.”
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=319
What is it about Saudi Arabia that makes a piece of childish vandalism a story at all?
Black isn’t displeased by President Obama’s lack of action. Like all ‘liberal’, socialist eco-hysteric types he loves to be let down and betrayed on a regular basis. This is what give them the opportunity to complain about how bad things are, so displaying their own clever, sensitive and caring natures.