Matt Ridley observes in his excellent book The Rational Optimist:
Despite a doubling of the world population, even the raw number of people living in absolute poverty (defined as less than a 1985 dollar a day) has fallen since the 1950s, let alone the percentage living in such absolute poverty. That number is, of course, still all too horribly high, but the trend is hardly a cause for despair. The United Nations estimates that poverty was reduced more in the last 50 years than in the previous 500.
He goes on to explain that population growth has not led to the mass starvation that greenies have been predicting with monotonous regularity since the 1970s. There has been a revolution in food production that has tripled the yield of staple plants and ensured that – while there is still a long way to go – most on our wonderful planet have full bellies and increasing life expectancy.
But that doesn’t stop the BBC from trumpeting this alarmist report about starvation caused by climate change as if it were a certainty. They stick to their unquestioning acceptance of the green creed emblazoned on every BBC door: millions are going to die because of our nasty, selfish, capitalist ways. The subtext makes International Socialists look subtle. The report is from the same Doomsday script as has been rehearsed dozens of times before, based on the same flimsy models. And the reporter quotes without a trace of balance the preposterous opinion that we can limit – as if we had supernatural powers – global temperature rises as easily as switching a thermostat. Jennifer Carpenter is clearly yet another of the army BBC climate-change activists without the remotest comprehension of science or development history.
I would have thought the BBC would be trumpeting this as a success story for International “Aid ” ?
More like International AIDs, T.B at the rate we`re going!
This headline ‘
Climate to wreak havoc on food supply, predicts report’ rather frames the problem of sensible science reporting, especially in an era of twitter feed topline impressions.
I’m just waiting for the BBC E Coli strain to take hold. That’ll sort the boys from the, er, boys…
Natsman,
I am sure the BBC “boys” will be really miffed that their cucumber supply has been interrupted.
Every persons name is mentioned in the quotes except:
“A leading climatologist told BBC News that ….”
So why is he anonomous? Is this tit-bit used to add some weight to the propaganda?
“We should normally identify on-air and online sources of information and significant contributors, and provide their credentials, so that our audiences can judge their status.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-accuracy-avoiding-misleading-audiences/
So why is this persons name a secret?
Because they daren’t say that “the studio cleaning lady pontificated that…”, perhaps?
JHT,
Because they fabricated the quote.
Grant, how could you suggest such a thing? =-O
Because this whole report was prompted by one of Harrabin’s or Black’s friends in the Warmist game sending them an email. It’s happened before. They just don’t want their name on it because it’s too obvious.
‘Many critics are saying/many people claim/experts agree/the science is telling us.
The BBC either uses sources it cannot reveal without looking guilty of bias or makes up its own fake experts who they cannot name because they dont actually exist.
The BBC is a bit like their question time audience, faked and rigged and made up. The key is to spot where these experts or groups are not named and when attribution is missing you just know they have something to hide.
If it`s not Daniel Corbett, it `ll be Wincey Willis.
Dan has gone to N.Z…a true critic of the BBC would want to get a long way away from its influence!