I was very struck by this blog this morning, by Joseph D’Aleo, in which he relates that many diligent scientists – even thoose previously blinded by climate change fervour – are having doubts about the ozone hole scare. This, you may recall was the 1990-or-so sprinbgboard for the whole AGW industry, and showed the greenies how they could taste blood, make politicians jump and win their prized goal of new laws, if they yelled loudly enough on the save-the-world theme.
So I started digging into what the BBC has broadcast on this topic. It proved a fascinating and horrifying voyage. First, it was not long before I found the propagandist fingerprints of Richard Black. Here, he proclaims that it’s nasty capitalists who have made the hole worse, but also that AGW is in on the act, too. And here, in April 2010 – despite the fact that, as Joseph D’Aleo points out, those diligent scientists had been providing evidence since 2007 that the ozone scare was overblown – he now maintains that the threat is getting worse.
But this was all very predictable and is not what really caught my eye. I next found “My Risks”, a huge area of the BBC website previously unknown to me. The page I first came across explained that CFCs (the chemicals that greenies fingered as being responsible for ozone depletion) are being progessively banned by the EU towards a total ban in 2015. It makes very sure that the 18,000 boys and girls on the BBC payroll do not transgress. Here is what it says:
A refrigerant register is maintained at all BBC premises detailing: equipment containing ozone-depleting substances (e.g. air conditioning equipment, chillers, fire protection systems); type and quantity of gas used; any losses/replacements to demonstrate if losses have occurred.
Well blow me, so that’s where my licence fee goes; on tracking the minutest trace of CFCs.
I dug deeper into the environment section of“My Risks”. What I found is astonishing; it’s nothing less than a how-to-do, how-to-act manual on AGW fanaticism. It shows that every BBC employee is indoctrinated in the religion in literally a whole catalogue of greenie-infused regulations and instructions. I quote one page in full to show the full horror of what I am talking about and then you can dig for yourself.
All Managers should:
* Identify all environmental impacts associated with your activity
* Understand and keep up to date with BBC environmental management requirements associated with your work activity and communicate these to your staff.
* Ensure that your environmental impacts are reflected in your Division’s Environmental Risk Register
* Set local environmental objectives and targets in line with corporate and divisional environmental objectives and targets.
* Review activities that have an environmental impact to see whether they can be changed, if practicable, to stop or reduce the impact
* Plan environmental controls and measures in advance of activities. Obtain specialist advice at the early stages of planning activities if required.
* Ensure compliance monitoring is undertaken to ensure that the BBC’s environmental requirements are being met and control measures are being implemented effectively. If monitoring shows that controls are inadequate or could be improved, take action accordingly. Ensure any issues raised are logged and tracked through to completion.
* Ensure performance monitoring, including monitoring progress against objectives and targets, is undertaken in your area where applicable.
* Ensure the environmental training requirements of your staff are identified and implemented.
* Ensure emergency response plans are documented and tested for your area.
* Cooperate with the Management Review process as required.
There is much, much more, but I think I have made the point. It leads me to ask what the hell is the BBC? Is it a broadcasting organisation? I fear not. It seems that far more important are the rules for inculcating at every level the green creed.
I think Martin should do some digging here –
Manual Handling
Manual Handling Awareness (Half-day)
Manual Handling Assessor (2-day)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/safety/myrisks_home/safety_basics/training.aspx.shtml
Stop Press:
“I know that our viewers are angry. We’ll listen – and learn: BBC boss Mark Thompson on the Eastenders story”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1345213/I-know-viewers-angry-Well-listen–learn-BBC-boss-Mark-Thompson-Eastenders-story.html#ixzz1ARKiATYQ
How uncharacteristic of the BBC, they usually do neither.
It is time to cut off the money supply to this bloody cancer in our midst. The BBC is the last vestages of a Socialist propaganda machine. Scrap it and all the other socialist monoliths that lurk in our society.
Do you think everytime a reporter takes to a helicopter to report a story for the 6pm news they have to fill in a form to show that they have complied with that list that Robin has identified? Forget climate change – I just think all the fuel that is used is a waste of the earth’s resources and that cost savings could be made – so often the report could be given as well from the studio.
It also applies to all the reports that are made by someone standing outside the law courts, parliament or somewhere else in London. Why have a reporter standing out in the freezing cold when only a couple of miles away there is a warm studio? While I would consider the financial cost if you care about these things (as the managers should according to what Robin has found) shouldn’t they also consider that reports should be from the studio rather than as an outside broadcast are ‘greener’ as well. (all the lights, the travel, etc etc)
This is a bureaucratic exercise in a bureaucratic organisation and so is no surprise to me. Every government department, council, quango etc will have a document that is something similar, I expect.
Anyway, how much difference does it make to the environment?
Take this for example:
* Review activities that have an environmental impact to see whether they can be changed, if practicable, to stop or reduce the impact
All they have to do is review their activities. Do they change anything as a result? Seems doubtful, except for maybe a little bit of tinkering at the edges.
Its looks to me mostly just the usual corporate ” ‘elf ‘n’ safety” baggage to combat the lucrative Employment Law industry and ambulance chasers, ever since that wonderfully reasonable-sounding “Employers duty of care” principle was given us in the Blair years. (Not for nothing Blair lot were mostly all lawyers). It goes hand in glove with the expansion of internal “Training Departments” and “Risk Registers”, “Putting risk mitigation plans in place”. Sort of stuff makes you lose the will to live.
There may be a bit of green hijack in there but sadly you will find this legal bindweed throttling most large organisations.
Though of course thats no reason why the bBC shouldn’t be closed down and sold off immediately.
‘BBC environmental management requirements’ – more PC bollocks that wastes the licence fee and keeps a few more Shepherds Bush lefties in jobs above their abilities.
Can this be the same BBC I used to work for in the 1970s? (Broadcast engineering, since you ask.) One of the favourite “techie” tools at our disposal in those days was an aerosol can of “Colclene” – a cleaning solvent made, if I remember correctly, from 100% Freon, the very same gas/liquid refrigerant that has long since been banned from refrigerators and airconditioners because of its CFC status (ozone layer attacker ). When bored, we engineers would sometimes invert the Colclene can’s cap, fill it with a few squirts of Colclene and watch it bubble and boil away at room temperatre.
Oh the irony – the Beeb’s very own staff contributing, allegedly, to enlarging the ozone hole.
Sadly this kind of sh*t is now quite common and has infiltrated many organisations. A few years ago I was looking at becoming a member of a professional engineering body. Applications to join required a long form to be filled in followed by an interview. To my amazement after the section asking my qualifications it didn’t ask what experience I had , what I had designed , built or managed but every question was somehow related to the environment e.g How did I ensure what I worked on didn’t harm the environment ? , Had I contributed to any environmental inititives at work ? and what health & safety measure had I introduced. I was so disgusted I chucked it all in the bin.
Fast forward to last month when I received a package in the post from them. Having my address on file they must be short on members so sent me some of their monthly journals in an attempt to make me join. After skimming through the journals I decided not to bother. Every other article was about wind turbines and written at the technical level of a slightly dim 16 year old. It makes me seriously worry what future the country has.
So it looks like even Biased BBC’s most hardened commanders are in agreement, that Robin has let his anti-global warming stance cloud his judgement here.
The documents linked to do seem overly bureaucratic, but environmental impact covers things such as noise pollution and property damage – and I suspect we’d all be up in arms if any organisation, let alone the largest broadcaster in the country, ignored such issues.
Commanders? I typed commenters, but the iPad “corrected” me. I think its opinion of you lot is a tad higher than mine tends to be 🙂
Has the cloud of Stupid descended on Scott? Nobody here has stated what Scott, the would-be mind reader or would-be smart arse, with more brass neck than insight, has stated other people here think. It is still green, warmist-driven mania, even if it is bureaucratic. They are not mutually exclusive.
By the way, Scott, I for one am not in a collective. People here are individuals, posting individual opinions. So “you lot” is about as relevant as my addressing you as “you lot”.
“People here are individuals”?
Unless, of course, they happen to disagree with you, in which case you and hippiepooter both decide (wrongly and with no evidence) that they’re the same person posting under multiple pseudonyms.
Still, I suppose it wouldn’t be Biased BBC if a regular commenter WASN’T being a sanctimonious hypocrite…
No, there is no unless about it. We don’t come as a job lot, you know. We don’t decide anything together. We decide individually.
It’s not the disagreeing that is the problem here. It’s that there is always a jibe or an insult with our Scott, isn’t there? Who else does that? Oh, yes, Dez. Beats me why he can’t just state his point without trying to provoke and bait people.
Beware the cloud of Sanctimony & Hypocrisy, Scott. It’s on your tail…and gaining fast.
Bless. I must at least applaud your complete lack of self-awareness. It’s really exceptional when a pot can be so black and not realise it when he’s pointing the finger at a kettle.
More self-serving twisting. Get your facts straight. The fact is you came into the thread calling insults: “really really stupid” – to hippieposter and me, purely because we thought you were someone else. Then you went on to Robin, twisting what other people have said, in order to do it. It is characteristic of you to come into a thread and start on someone. It isn’t characteristic of me or most people who comment here. Nobody insulted you. You could just make your point in a straightforward manner but you set out to provoke with your silly barbs, insults and twisting. That’s what trolls do.
Performing the arduous task of scrolling back up the page, nowhere on this thread have I used the word ‘stupid’.
But oh look, someone did. Someone using the pseudonym Millie Tant. Directed at me.
That’s what I meant by sanctimonious hypocrisy and a lack of self-awareness. Thanks, at least, for helping me prove my point.
Once again, get your facts straight.
Quote from me: “The fact is you came into the thread calling insults: “really really stupid” – to hippieposter and me, purely because we thought you were someone else. ”
Where does that say “this” thread?
You came in with insults and barbs as you are wont to do and you are making yourself look silly crowing about having proved a point when that claim doesn’t stand up to a moment’s scrutiny.
The way we are slowly but surely being reduced to government-controlled zombies will inevitably mean that we are wide open to invasion by some enterprising country (or faith), rather than the Islamic and greenie stealth which is slowly but surely infecting everything today.
I hope sooner rather than later – a sea change in attitude is urgently required before the robotic population merely just lies down and dies from a surfeit of X factor and Eastenders.
Any survivors with half a brain, the capacity for reason and action will be hunted down and incarcerated in the gulags, or eliminated.
Considering how many Beeboids they send traipsing around the planet – a few dozen travelling around the US in November looking for racists, sending nearly as many Beeboids to Chile as there were miners trapped underground, the enormous amount of air travel by enivronmental correspondents – one gets the sense that these rules aren’t enforced much.
What you need to realize is that your BBC greenie is also a full-on hypocrite. You really think they go out of their way to satisfy these objectives? No, it is more to do with the BBCs totalitarian mindset in laying down vague rules that in reality probably mean not much more than switching off the lights when leaving the building!
“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”
Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics