Did you see that BBC climate change activist Richard Black has concluded that there is little demand for nuclear energy?
“There is little public appetite across the world for building new nuclear reactors, a poll for the BBC indicates. In countries with nuclear programmes, people are significantly more opposed than they were in 2005, with only the UK and US bucking the trend. Most believe that boosting efficiency and renewables can meet their needs. Just 22% agreed that “nuclear power is relatively safe and an important source of electricity, and we should build more nuclear power plants”.”
It’s interesting to see the BBC take such an active interest in this and I am sure the fact that the poll results facilitate the eco-wacko agenda is purely coincidental.
Well the never asked anyone on Anglesey because up here we and nearly every public official well apart from the 3 ex pat English Grundy reading tofu chewing morons from Bangor , is desperate to get the new one started in fact Black why don’t you come up to Amlwch and talk about wind farms ! as they will probably throw you off the Menai bridge !
The BBC only respects public opinion when it suits them.
When polls show anti-EU feeling, a desire for the return of the death penalty or a lack of appreciation of the obvious benefits of immigration and the diversity it brings we don’t get any favourable comment from the BBC.
Instead, we get the infamous BBC analysis to gently explain why public opinion is wrong.
They know when public opinion is wrong and they know when public opinion is right .
That`s why they want a telly tax and not voluntary public subscription .
Two points:
1) I note that Mr Black credits an organisation called GlobeScan for this research.
From their website: ‘GlobeScan is a founding partner of COMplus, a diverse global alliance of organisations committed to bringing sustainable development closer to the people through inspiring and innovative communication approaches’
Not just in it for the market reasearch then?
‘Funding partner’….how quaint!
You may recall the pro-Obama and anti-US survey results trumpeted in 2008 by this outfit and the BBC. Of course the BBC channelled some of our licence fees to this research which was done in countries other than the US.
2) I note from the survey results there was no polling in the Middle East. Now what I would like to see is a Beeb with a clipboard in downtown Tehran asking the question ‘Have you guys an appetite for building new nuclear reactors?’
Saw the top line claim on his twitter feed.
That he cited a BBC poll as evidence of anything, much less a BBC ‘report’ in support of a BBC ‘view’ was enough to decide it was hardly worth bothering with.
More BBC corruption and reporting favourably on financial vested interests of the BBC staff then?
Strange attitude to electricity generation from an organisation which not only depends on technology, but has seemed determined to get involved in every new type of medium and distribution available. But then hypocrisy is par for the course.
Perhaps the BBC might like to poll people on whether or not they’d be interested in having their fuel bills lowered dramatically with the introduction of shale gas? Just an idea.
Nuclear (or even Thorium) power and shale gas = UK energy issues solved, bills lowered hugely, masses of jobs and industry created. Oh, and real, dependable (carbon-friendly) energy created for the benefit of all.
Perhaps someone should explain all this to Mr Black and Mr Huhne..?
plus it stops the despoilation of the countryside by windfarms
we desperately need to invest heavily in Thorium reactors. Cheap very very safe, the nuclear waste cannot be used for weapons. I cannot see a downside.
The case for Thorium makes massively more sense than the case for the inneficient, ugly, expensive, useless wind-farms!
Add shale gas and we could even export some energy, too.
Who? Richard Black? Oh, HIM – is he still employed?
Yep as there will always be a job for a tired old glove puppet like him mind he has gone very green on the inside so I hope his paym??? soz controller washes their hands after use !
I suspect the polls will be markedly different when the lights start to go out and the heating goes off. Too late by then, of course.
God forbid that power shortages would ever force the sacred BBC off the air!
“There is little PUBLIC appetite across the world for building new nuclear reactors, a poll for the BBC indicates.”
Yet another rigged poll from the masters of the art of getting any answer they want by rigging a poll to agree with their prejudice?
The BBC obviously asked a random selection of anti nuclear activists/CND/greenpiss/fiends(scum)of the earth/world wild lies fund for their opinons and guess what?
Most people who hate nuclear power dont want nuclear power, now knock me down with a feather! Who would have thought that eh?
Obviously Black is simply passing on his spoon fed lies to the public, I wonder how much healthier his bank account is?
not even that, look at the pie charts further down the page and you “71% thought their country “could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind”.
isn’t quite true. It’a 34% AND the question is framed as “a possibility” so the 71% of agree srongly/somewhat agree aren’t saying their country could, should or would do that; they are probably stating they would be happy with that possibility, I bet 0.001% think it likely.
…and you have to get to the last 4 of 28 paragraphs to read an opposing voice (which in reality shows the fluff of the previous paragraphs.)
The sole side-quote on that article is from Greenpeace. Also, since this is a poll of public opinion, why did the BBC go to an (effectively) campaigning organisation for this? There are a number of (on the face of it) politically neutral international polling organisations who could do this kind of thing.
Coming to the poll itself, if you look at the 2 questions posed http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc2011_energy/demoquest.html#quest they are hardly examples of “neutral” questioning. There are two questions only and within each of the possible answers there are multiple responses which do not admit of unequivocal replies. This is simply a crap poll undertaken by a campaigning organisation for a warmist propaganda outfit (and paid for by the taxpayer). The “results” are garbage. Of course Black is trumpeting the results but it is evident (by this and other of his “reports”) that he has as much idea of statistical analysis or polling methodology as my cat.
Do all these meaningless polls cost the same?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054298/BBC-spends-50-000-meaningless-poll-asking-world-Obama-McCain-president.html
I wouldn’t be surprised if commissioning GlobalScan is a form of subsidy thrown at organisations toeing the BBC line and supporting the BBC narrative. For years the BBC supported (still supports?) the Guardian by placing (almost) all its job advertising in the Guardian media section. I bet that the BBC didn’t even negotiate a bulk discount for its custom either.
I see that Globescan used to be known as “Environics International”
I think the clue to its mission statement is in the title
A reminder for BBC-greenies:
“Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power.
Japan’s disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix.”
(by George Monbiot)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
I keep saying this, but Black must be the worst “journalist” at the BBC. His does not even try to have any balance at all in his articles. He has become a sad parody of himself.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Goebbels
The problem for Black and his propagandists at the BBC is that the economics of the lie are starting to hit peoples pockets. Hypothermia brought on by the elderly trying to save money is a real problem that will only get worse because of people like him. He is a disgrace to humanity.
‘He is a disgrace to humanity.’
I disagree.
He is just a normal, commonplace example of a man who has a sort of intelligence but is easily led, especially if he thinks it will bring him the praise of the powerful and influential of his time.
Demented ideas tend to corrupt ordinary people. Would the the lesser lights of the Soviet and Hitlerite regimes have committed their vile crimes if Lenin or Hitler had never been born?
Black isn’t the real problem. It’s the BBC culture. If Balck had chosen a career as a plumber, doctor or teacher the BBC would have found another yes man to push its agenda.
You mean “He is just following orders” and if “he didn’t do it someone else would”
Where have I heard that before. People are responsible for their actions.
Black is supposed to be a BBC “journalist” and as such he has a responsibilty to report fairly and not drole on like some half-witted activist staight out of the 6th form, we know that, he knows that and the BBC know that.
Part of the problem lies within the mindset that sees nothing intrinsically (or morally) wrong with creating ‘advertorials’ encouraging the murder of children who dare to question AGW’s dominant narrative in the classroom. I’m speaking, of course, of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317079/Richard-Curtis-exploding-schoolchildren-climate-change-video-withdrawn.html
Curtis is a favourite son of the Beeb, his ‘Hampstead Socialism’ fitting very nicely with the way BBC execs like to conduct things. It took public outrage to make these morons (the ’10:10′ organisation, for whom Curtis was writing and directing) think twice about showing the final video. Really? It occurred to nobody that ‘killing’ children to make a political point might actually be offensive to viewers?
That same absolutist, authoritive tone – albeit less homicidal – is ever-present in anything the pro-AGW brigade have to say, never moreso than when the BBC is handily doing the propaganda for them (at our expense).
I get the feeling poor old David Attenborough has been rail-roaded into parroting this AGW nonsense. It’s a shame; his latest series, ‘Frozen Planet’, has been fascinating and absolutely stunning to watch – a genuine example of fantastic natural history programme-making. It’s a tragedy that the final episode has been hijacked by AGW zealots intent on undermining every genuine environmental point the series had, up until then, made very quietly and subtly by suggestion alone.
Black does not report this:
“Climate change fears ‘have been exaggerated’ say scientists who claim apocalyptic predictions are unlikely”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2065954/Climate-change-fears-exaggerated-say-scientists-claim-apocalyptic-predictions-unlikely.html#ixzz1eiYF8X9L
Note the pathetic quote by the alarmist Bob Ward.
“…however that this one study is unlikely to supersede all the science that has gone before.”
I expect he would not have said this if the research showed the opposite.
To be fair – that new piece of research is also reported on the BBC website – but NOT by Black or Harrabin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603
What I don’t get is that the Mail – and other newspapers – run screaming front-page headlines about massive increases in fuel bills – but cannot join the dots and see that much of the increase is based on highly questionable “science”. Huhne should be a public pariah, “Green” should be as shameful as BNP, and most of the BBC “environment reporters” should be put in the stocks for all their propagandizing.
So the BBC have another Enviromental reporter. How many more are there?
International airlines first class passenger lists , 5 star hotels and preferential lists at global warming junket seminars could tell you .
Huhne’s looking more and more like a marked man. I’m sure Call Me Dave only puts up with him and barmy pro-AGW ideas out some sort of Community Care requirement. It’s just a matter of time now, as the economic realities of winter set in, before the tabloids turn on Huhne’s spiteful ‘green tax’ with a vengeance. The danger is he will try to beef up the already dangerous ‘green’ legislation prior to what he knows is coming – in the same way those criminals in the last NuLabour government piled on the p*sspoor legilslation even as they stared electoral defeat in the face.
O/T but this is hilarious. How did this bloke get a PHD?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/crus-dr-phil-jones-world-renowned-climatologist-cant-even-plot-a-trend-in-excel/
At 14:20 28/05/2008, David Thompson wrote:
Thanks Phil.
I’ve pointed everyone to the press release, and have chatted with only one person, a guy from the BBC. He seemed very informed and clever. The only point I didn’t like was that he kept trying to get me to say what I think the skeptics will think – I kept telling
him I don’t know, but he obviously wanted more. Anyway, I hope you don’t mind that I suggested he could chat with you if needed. His name and email are: Richard Black,
[1]???@bbc.co.uk
-Dave
At 14:20 28/05/2008, David Thompson wrote:
Thanks Phil.
I’ve pointed everyone to the press release, and have chatted with only one person, a guy from the BBC. He seemed very informed and clever. The only point I didn’t like was that he kept trying to get me to say what I think the skeptics will think – I kept telling
him I don’t know, but he obviously wanted more. Anyway, I hope you don’t mind that I suggested he could chat with you if needed. His name and email are: Richard Black,
[1]???@bbc.co.uk
-Dave
So good, you posted twice… š
A mistake – but I’ll go with your explanation.
š
Thank heavens the UK and US are ‘bucking’ the trend from eco loonies like Black
“Nuclear power? Yes please!: A former opponent calls on Chris Huhne to embrace the energy source that’s cheap AND good for the environment”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066726/Nuclear-power-Yes–A-opponent-calls-Chris-Huhne-embrace-energy-source-thats-cheap-AND-good-environment.html#ixzz1euTobZMe