Monthly Archives: June 2011

The BBC’s climate change page is aptly named. There is a torrent, a blizzard, a hurricane of the stuff – with helpful links to almost every piece of claptrap alarmist propaganda that the corporation has ever published.

The Conservative MEP Roger Helmer is not happy about this and he wrote to DG Mark Thompson to tell him so. Of course, Mr Thompson was too busy to answer directly matters he regarded so trivial, especially, no doubt, as Mr Helmer is a hated eurosceptic and totally unimportant in the BBC worldview, so he delegated the task. And here’s the surprise. The woman he chose for the task is Liz Howell, who – it seems – has just been appointed to the post of Head of BBC Weather. Quite what the qualifications are for this elevated, role, I don’t know.

So I googled her. I expected a Met office lackey, but no; – I could find no trace of any such mention of related qualifications. She has also risen virtually without trace, her previous post being only a new media editor. Despite this apparent significant lack of relevant scientific training, she nonetheless has been swift to put one of our elected representatives in his place. This is the opening paragraph of her reply to Mr Helmer’s complaint:

Thank you for your correspondence concerning the Climate Change page on the BBC’s Weather website. Firstly, it is worth pointing out that in terms of impartiality, the BBC has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

There, straightaway, re-iterated, in 35 words, we have all the arrogance, the partisan politics, the nonsense and the lies contained in he BBC’s stance on this topic. Miss Howell betrays that she hasn’t got a clue about or interest in scientific methodology, and also that she will pig-headedly stick to the carefully-concocted major lie that there is a “consensus” on the topic. She also confirms, creepily, that the BBC has “come to a view” on this topic. Of course, she doesn’t say how; evidently, transparency does not come into such corporation deliberation.

Ms Howell further demonstrates – as this reply will have been approved by His Highness Mr T himself – that this attitude has been engineered, is condoned and has been approved at the very apex of the corporation.

Ms Howell goes on to provide an excuse for why there might not many climate sceptic stories on her propaganda page (I could find none today) – apparently her “aggregation index” means that any such material – being “transient” – would only be there for a few weeks.

Finally, she condescendingly tells Mr Helmer as a sop that his worries might not be in vain. She states:

…it might be possible to add something to the permanent links on the page which gives a clear sense of the divisions that exist on this issue.

And pigs, I suggest, might fly. Test one might be at least a mention of yesterday’s report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation that energy bills have risen by hundreds of pounds a year because of ludicrous warmist stealth taxes. It’s reported by the Daily Mail here and here; but there’s not a peep about the Foundation or the report on the BBC website.

h/t a Cambridge friend – thank you. Mr Helmer’s letter and its reply are not available, as far as I can find, online. I have a copy but have not posted it in full for reasons of space. The key points are above – there is nothing that qualifies Ms Howell’s position.

There’s nothing that greenies at the BBC like more than wallowing in dung. They’ve been doing it for years, and there’s an obsession to find out how much of the “potent” (BBC word) greenhouse gas methane cows expel. Here, for those who might rub their eyes with disbelief, is a nice BBC propaganda film devoted to the pursuit. And here is the latest report in the obsession, a detailed paper into processes within cow faeces conducted by a whole phalanx of “researchers” with loads of funding but nothing-better-to-do, including one gentleman – I kid you not – with the surname Bull.

I would laugh if the BBC coverage of this idiocy wasn’t so vomit-making. it’s a whole article devoted to such tommyrot, with the usual one-sided invocation of the alarmist creed at the end:

Dr Gill stressed that larger studies will be needed to pin down a more precise functional relationship between the two. But because methane is a greenhouse gas more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, such precise numbers will be of great use. “There definitely is a need for better estimates of methane emissions from animals,” she said.

I’ve commented before on the close links between the BBC and the fanatical lobby group Sandbag, which it now seems is now directly involved in writing greenie government policy – to the extent that at least 1,500 UK jobs have been lost because of the insane, unilateral desire to implement carbon taxes. This is beyond a joke. These pig-ignorant greenies are wrecking people’s lives on an increasingly massive scale and there is no way of stopping them. It’s Terminator time. These nutters really do have the keys to the madhouse and the BBC – as ever – is in on the act, spreading its eco-nut masters’ bidding.

Update: And as the BBC supports the de-industrialisation of Britain, Richard Black continues his one-sided trumpeting of those who want to tip money down the drain on projects that will shore up and accelerate the process. His favoured scheme today is the “greening” of Britain, when what we actually need is encouragement of business development. His chosen interest group is the Woodland Trust, an innocent sounding, tree-hugger-type organisation – in reality, they spread climate change lies to schools on an organised basis and are part of the quangocracy of government-backed green activists (in this case, the National Environmental Research Council whose board includes the notorious Juliet Slingo of the Met Office)who are spearheading our decline. And meanwhile, the corporation reports energy price rises – and the misery caused to our old folk – without a breath of a mention that the reason for these obscene hikes is entirely the government’s green policy.