34 Responses to BBC VERSUS REALITY

  1. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Great stuff. Either all these highly qualified scientists and the co-founder of Greenpeace have been long-time readers of this blog, or they’re all secretly on the payroll of Big Oil™, or they actually know what they’re talking about.

    I think every single point made by scientists and the ex-Greenpeace boss has been raised many times on this blog.


  2. Natsman says:

    One wonders how the BBC (and the Guardian, for that matter) can be allowed to continue as entities.

    With this whole AGW nonsense imploding, why do they continue to push it?  After all, their captive public don’t buy it any more and laugh in the faces of the alarmist warm-mongers as their house of cards collapses wholesale.  Nobody believes in it any more (if they ever did).

    The gallows calls for the whole unedifying AGW spectacle to be put to rest for good, but I suppose too many livelihoods depend on the scam now, for it to be finally and irrevocably abandoned.

    And so we continue to pay with our lifestyles, money, and economic future.

    There is a lot to answer for.


  3. tinks says:

    This excellent David. It should be shown in schools to counter-balance the Al Gorey one.

    The Guardian bit is interesting, I didn’t know that… for I was frothing in the mouth over the Hamiltons. Propaganda works… to a point.


  4. Louis Robinson says:

    Having not read “Trial By Conspiracy” by Jonathan Boyd Hunt I thought I’d order it on amazon.com. Would you believe $400 for a new copy. I chose a used paperback at 0.99c. Thanks for the tip-off and valuable posting, David. 


  5. Cassandra King says:

    The BBC and its print arm the guardian, both utterly corrupt, both working closely together for years.



  6. Peter Parker says:

    Always fun to watch a compilation of ridiculous BBC propaganda pieces about MMGW – and Durkin’s ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ still stands as one of the best documentaries of all time. However, I’m not really feeling the link to the Hamilton’s and cash for questions. The claim that it woz the Hamilton’s wot won it for Labour in 1997 is preposterous. Try Black Wednesday and the ERM fiasco which destroyed Tory claims to be financially competent. Major’s pathetic ‘Cones Hotline’ and ‘Back To Basics’ campaign (cue a cavalcade of Tory sleaze listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Basics_(campaign)  Yes, Hamilton may have been stitched up by AlFayed and the Guardian – but it was a side show – and hardly comparable to the man-made global warming hoax – the greatest scientific and political fraud in history.


  7. Durotrigan says:

    Apologies for being off-topic, but do you think that the BBC will cover the following story? It is to be officially announced on Saturday that Tommy Robinson will leave the EDL and venture into electoral politics. He is to join the British Freedom Party: <!–[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser /> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]–>http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/11/tommy-robinson-to-leave-edl-for-british.html


  8. Martin says:

    The reason is simple, within the mass media there are virtually no hacks with a scientific background, also even in the so called right wing press the majority of the hacks are left wing.

    Not to mention that few media organisations dare take on the BBC, ITV has virtually no news gathering left and it’s political reporting is long gone other than the 6:30 and 10:00 news.

    Sky seem to buy into the greenery nonsense, but many at Sky are ex beeboids.

    As for the BBC Trust..get stuffed.


  9. Gerald says:

    Among the unemployment news yesterday was a report of the the closure of the Lynemouth aluminium smelting plat of Alcan.

    Yes the plant is 40 years old but concentrating the mind of international management was … forthcoming energy price rises because of greenie generation plus the forthcoming carbon trading schemes.

    Thats 500 employees shafted by the “MMGW” scam!


    • Umbongo says:


      But surely there are all those thousands of jobs which are going to be created building windmills, solar arrays and what have you (until the flood of taxpayers’ money runs out anyway).  The only problem is that most of the actual manufacture (rather than the installation) of windmills etc is carried on abroad.  So yes thousands – even tens of thousands – of jobs will be created but not here.

      To the warmists losing 515 real jobs in an industry which shouldn’t exist (massive carbon footprint and all that) is a worthwhile sacrifice.  I wonder how much export earnings will be lost or import expenditure will be created by the closure of Lynemouth.


      • matthew rowe says:

        When Anglesey aluminium went it took about 1500 jobs ! when the wind farms went up they created er 12 ish and at the end of this year most of those will be gone when the turbines run out of usable life!
        Good trade off ain’t it !


        • tinks says:

          Don’t understand what you are saying here. These turbines can’t ahve been up very long.


          • matthew rowe says:

            They have been there since 1992 and have been constantly breaking over the last few years due to the high salt corrosion the trade off was the wind turbines were used as a bluff to cover the welsh gov’s screwing around over the nuclear power station !


  10. john in cheshire says:

    The bbc and the guardian, as national service providers, are collectively traitors to our country.Mr Rusbridger, and Mr Thompson, I don’t know how they sleep at night doing what they do to undermine the fabric of our country. I hope someone is keeping a list so they, together with all the others, can eventually be brought to justice; and age should have no barrier to treachery.


  11. Umbongo says:

    It may be that the Guardian + Fayed + the BBC did for Hamilton but, with respect, this just dilutes the CAGW counter-message of the first half of the video.  Conflating the scandal of the BBC propagandising for the warmists with allegations of a conspiracy involving the Guardian to destroy the Conservative Party is a step too far.  There may indeed be a conspiracy but we know CAGW is a scam; I would stay with certainty and keep bashing the BBC with that stick.

    As it happens, I was fairly politically active through the early years of the Major administration but, after Mrs T’s removal, was an increasingly disillusioned member of the Conservative Party.  The Party was tired (after 13 years in power).  It was led by an uninspired and uninspiring compromise candidate.  Pace Jonathan Boyd Hunt but there was an element of sleaze in the parliamentary party although, compared with what occurred under Labour, it was incredibly small time.  Even so, it’s more than possible that Hamilton was unfairly targeted and, of course, it suited the Guardian to spotlight Conservative party failings.

    I mean no disrespect to JBH nor to the assiduousness of his work in getting to the bottom of the Hamiton affair but to many out here (well, to me) this is not particularly important: disgusting if true but, in the scheme of things, a small part of recent history.  I consider that Hamilton’s fate – if JBH is correct – is a warning of what can be achieved by a corrupt media and corrupt political institutions.

    Nevertheless, I think that this website should keep providing wide-ranging evidence (which it does daily, hourly even) about the BBC’s bias.  We should try, unlike the BBC, to separate facts from opinion.  Doubtless the BBC (with or without its partner in print) is the major medium for the transmission of flagrantly left-wing propaganda in the UK.  As we have seen, particularly in the last couple of days, the BBC is seriously implicated in corrupt (although apparently disinterested) bought and paid for “green” propaganda.  The video attests to this corruption – or the very effective first half does – by letting us hear voices which the BBC, in disregard of its statutory duty, prefers to keep silent.


  12. My Site (click to edit) says:

    Last night’s Newsnight promo…


    Susan Watts is looking at the role of climate change in extreme weather events and whether it is possible to pin point which events are man-made and which not.’

    The science is apparently more than settled. If in a rather odd place. Places.
    Over there… and over there. But, not there. Yet. Apparently.


    • John Horne Tooke says:

      Susan Watts is looking at the role of climate change in extreme weather events and whether it is possible to pin point which events are man-made and which not.’ 

      That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard. Is she going to get large sums of public cash for this “research”?

      “In our chaotic climate, it is impossible (indeed meaningless) to try to attribute a specific (eg severe) weather event to anthropogenic global warming. Hence, it is a false dichotomy to suppose that some recently-occurring drought or flood is either on the one hand caused by global warming, or on the other hand is merely due to natural climate variability.”


      • Richard Pinder says:

        This is from the Mensa International Science forum.

        Man made CO2 is natural CO2 which has been fossilised for millions of years and does not have the Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 15ppm of the increase in CO2 in over 100 years is due to Man & 85ppm due to Nature, this is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere.

        So the idiots at the BBC must conclude that 15 percent of extreme weather events must be caused by man. That is if they think carbon dioxide now rules Climate Change, but did not do so a hundred years ago.
        Computer models predict that the atmosphere six miles above the surface would warm at twice the rate of the surface temperature, increasing extreme weather events such as droughts and reducing extreme weather events such as hurricanes. The fact that this has not happened in the satellite era, and is not happening, is one of the main factors that prove that Climate Science is in one hell of a mess.
        Only recently the work of
        Fredric Miskolczi provides the answer to this problem. Fredric Miskolczi’s theory also explains the Greenhouse effect on Mars by correcting the work of Arthur Milne. But I note that the rebuttal of Miskolczi uses Milne to prove Miskolczi’s theory wrong. This is why the rebuttal is being ignored at Oxford.
        I also have been informed that his theory has been proved by the Atmospheric pressures and temperatures of Venus even though there are problems with the lack of data as regards the time period of the thermal inertia at the surface.
        The details of this should show up on the Mensa Science forum, early in the new year.


  13. noggin says:

    one would love to have el beeb reporters, their so called experts, finger of doom scientists, all in a room, and have them had a bloody ripping into & given a fact based reality check. in fact just like this…

    ok this is Australia, but a drivelling blind view press pack, tv knobs, and obligatory finger off doomer its all here…..
    and no surprises, took to the cleaners, and again no surprises resort to ad hom attacks in the end.

    think well get it on el beeb???? that ll be the day
    shame on them


    • My Site (click to edit) says:

      Thanks for that.

      Just watched it.

      Never been too keen on Lord M’s advocacy, as he has veered into gotcha territory too often to be a reliable quoted source when one cherry vulture lapse seems enough to outweigh anything else in the pre-determined narrative pea-brain media world we inhabit, but I have to say he acquitted himself well. Can’t fault the ability to answer directly and call up pertinent support to order. More than his waffling opponent could muster.

      Especially as Lord M was one person in what I sensed was a less than home team crowd. The first 40 mins was fine, but then the chairman, who seemed a smidge ‘of a view’ himself, opened things up to the flea-brains. And they were swatted. Justifiably. The questions were inane dogma, and deserved all they got.

      If the BBC covered such a thing I am sure it would have been deemed a crushing defeat for denial, arther at odds to the cooemnst the YouTube has below. Wonder how the Oz media reported it.

      The main shame to me was that the whole thing revolved around arguments on the rates of warming with, that I heard, no attempt to delve further into the ‘insurance policy’ argument intoned, over and over, by the ecomomist.

      Whilst Lord M was always having to defend on this narrow front, this other bloke never had to justify a thing, as it appears speakers could not counter each other.

      If, as seems likely, the warming continues, then mitigation is a huge issue. However, if all the money has been blown on prevention, and possibly down a massive green hole in so doing, then there is a bit of a problem still. Especially if the A aspect of AGW is not that significant vs. other factors. Even on the insurance claim which, as allowed to stand was reasonable, but never challenged further in terms of the damage such a diversion of funds will impose on future generations ability to cope.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Thanks for the link, noggin.  The only thing I’d add here is that Denniss took the usual defense of last resort that we heard from David Gregory: even if we don’t know what’s going on, we must take preventative measures anyway, just in case.  Denniss’ insurance scenario is typical of that mindset.  Unfortunately, while it appears reasonable and clever on the surface, it ultimately stifles debate. You have a concern?  Irrelevant, because it’s unwise not to take precautions regardless.  That the precautions are destructive is then easily swept aside.

      Just one more way the Warmists – or even the self-proclaimed agnostics – stifle debate.


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        PS: I stopped listening to Denniss after he said that the Climate Change debate was no longer a question of Left and Right politics by citing Arnold Schwarzenegger as proof.


  14. cjhartnett says:

    I`ll not bother to check up on this…but sense that Susan Watts is more qualified than the other Beeboids in matters scientific.
    That does not excuse the BBC from employing arts graduates from Oxbridge as science correspondents…the likes of Flanders in economics either are not qualified or didn`t learn a damned thing about independence, rigorous enquiry and following the facts-no matter how difficult they may prove to be.
    I don`t think that the BBC are capable of influencing these graduates unless they want the money and the fame..that they are happy to sell their souls on the milk-round only shows the moral pigmies that eighteen years at Blairs feet have produced for the rest of us.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Watts does have science credentials, unlike the top men given such responsibility at the BBC. Flanders knows about economics, but her credentials are all about policy.  Policy is inherently partisan, and that’s her background.  So it’s no surprise that everything she says about economics is slanted in one direction.
      Her credentials are of the first order, but of little to no value to the viewer when she’s consistently wrong about results and consistently partisan.  It’s one thing to have an in-house “expert” on a topic to explain the details of an issue to the public in a way which helps them better understand what’s behind and event (Robert Peston is actually good at that), but quite another when that “expert” starts making policy statements and prognostications.  Both Flanders and Peston do that, and Flanders’ track record is very poor.


      • cjhartnett says:

        Luckily we have the Internet these days.
        All those wrong predictions and howlers don`t go away these days…and I`ll be surprised if the BBC and political class don`t try to come up with some equivalent of shredding their old guff on the Euro and the like, before too long.
        Mandelson, Lambert, Bryant, Flanders etc…let me count the ways that they`ve been howlingly wrong, yet still get the conversation stone to hold forth as if they had been right throughout.
        Only wish we`d have had it with Heath, Williams and Benn…


  15. My Site (click to edit) says:

    This caught my eye..


    The next day the leaders didn’t formally discuss the eurozone at all – focusing instead on such immediately pressing matters as climate change’

    If Mr. Black it would be a no-brainer, but I merely ponder if Mr. R had soem tongue in his own cheek as opposed to its usual location.


    • John Horne Tooke says:

      ‘..focusing instead on such immediately pressing matters as climate change’ 

      Is Cameron et al going to stop the climate from changing? What does that bring to mind?


  16. thespecialone says:

    Here if the full film of the clip that you have posted.  It is more evidence that the BBC, governments, eco-facists, IPCC, UEA, Met Office etc etc are just lying scumbags.


  17. racesome says:

    This website could be an excellent resource for the bias of the BBC – but your denial of scientific reality destroys your credibility.

    Far from being biased towards climate change science, the BBC has given far too much credence to you climate change deniers.

    Every national science academy on the planet confirms the science. You deniers are cranks.