Great propaganda job here on the BBC this morning. First up, we had David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change to explain why claims that the costs of green energy and other low carbon technologies will lead to sharp rises in fuel bills, are wrong. Then, we had a “debate” between Matthew Sinclair, Director of Tax Payers’ Alliance and George Monbiot, journalist and green campaigner, discuss whether increased taxation a good way of tackling climate change. Note the interruptions Matthew has to deal with compared with the silence that accompanied Monbiot’s moonbat pronouncements. This was all about the BBC suggesting that a/Green energy will not add to our energy bills when all the evidence shows it already has and b/The BBC suggesting that higher taxes are the way to deal with “climate change”. Unbelievable to think we finance this lunacy.
GREEN ENERGY IS CHEAP ENERGY
Bookmark the permalink.
I had the misfortune to hear this crap morning – I had to turn it off before I drove off the road. When is the BBC going to give a sensible debate on this – or anything?
Fat chance. The BBC IS green energy, they’ll never shoot themselves in the foot over that one, too much depends upon it.
One has to bear in mind, of course, that all their transmissions are exclusively driven courtesy of wind turbines and solar panels, whose subsidies must now account for a large portion of the licence “tax”…
I’ve never understood why they wheel out the Moonbat so frequently – as if HIS opinion is worth a light (incandescent, or otherwise…).
Anyway, the pension fund depends upon this ideology, and that, we know, is sacrosanct.
I’m rather fond of moonbat. Like polly toynbee, he has great comedy value
Wasn`t he a product of Stow Public school?
Funny how the BBC lose their estuary accent prejudices when the Toynbees and Monbiots are far more value to them as enlightened toffs of fine pedigree and bearing.
Lord and Lady Melbury…me old mucker!
Oh not this pension fund thing again. Last time I checked the biggest company the BBC pension fund invested in was BP. The or two green energy companies were way down the list, just below Nintendo. It would make more sense to plug the Wii rather than aolar panels if the aim of our reporting was to featherbed our retirement.
I have to say having listened to this I have to respectfully disagree with DV’s analysis. Interruptions are pretty even stevens and the chap from the TPA even got to plug his book!
Apropos of the BBC pension fund: it is a fully paid-up member of the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change(IIGCC) whose objective is http://www.iigcc.org/docs/PDF/Public/RevisedIIGCCInvestorStatementonClimateChange.pdf
” [to bring] investors together to use their significant collective influence to engage in dialogues with policymakers, investors and companies to accelerate the shift to a low carbon economy.”
I happen to know something about pension funds and, like the massive super-carriers of finance that they are, they cannot be turned on a sixpence. However, if you have a long-term policy – as the BBCPF has – which mandates substantial (or even complete) investment in warmist-approved stocks, over the years the portfolio of the fund will, believe it or not, be dominated by such investments. It won’t happen tomorrow or the day after but by, say, 2020 the fund will be in full compliance with IIGCC ambitions.
Even a scientist should be able to appreciate that tomorrow’s pensions are dependent on the fund managers’ decisions made today. Accordingly your colleagues in the pension fund should be aware of their vulnerability in this regard. If – as I believe – CAGW (and the science on which it is based) is a crock then future BBC pensions will be fairly meagre. Accordingly, were I reporting for the BBC on climate change (or even asked for a disinterested opinion on the same subject), I’d be sorely tempted to massage the facts (or just ignore the inconvenient ones) to make my retirement income more secure.
As to “massaging the facts”: BP, although primarily an oil company, would regard itself as an energy company. Contrary to your implication, it is fully on the CAGW bandwagon. It currently benefits from the avalanche of taxpayers’ money thrown down the CAGW toilet and anticipates such benefits to continue or even increase. Consequently, the BBC pension fund can expect to gain directly and substantially from BP’s cashflow connected to CAGW as long as those flows – which, BTW, are not a by-product of wealth-creation but depend on the life support coerced from taxpayers world-wide – continue.
That you seek to imply that there is no (potential) conflict of interest between a desire to have a comfortable retirement and reportage directly affecting the underpinnig of that comfort, is a damning comment on your journalistic abilities and/or your profound ignorance of how the world of finance works. This does not surprise me since even your colleagues who pretend to financial expertise consistently miss the obvious for the same reasons.
Oh Umbongo. Let’s just look at the new figures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/sites/helpadvice/pages/top-100-investments.shtml You play spot the green power company and then tell me how many companies are above them in terms of investement by the BBC pension fund.
Oh there you are David, I thought you had disappeared or summat š .
I have enclosed a couple of graphs about declining sea levels, it seems the BBC is desperately hiding this evidence from the publix =-O or maybe they just have not found them for some strange reason, anyhoo thought you might like to present them to your editor along with a science story about why sea levels are not rising as promised by the BBC.
Have yourself a great day.
Oh dear, it looks like our Lysenko student David Gregory has failed to respond?
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, for fear of their jobs or offending the fabricated consensus, facing the reality of the CAGW fraud.
Cassandra,
That’s pathetic. Yes, sea levels fell in 2010; they also fell during 1994, 1998, 2004 and 2007. Yet sea levels are higher now than they were twenty years ago. Can you figure out why that might be the case?
This might help if you are very much confused:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_msl.gif
Also; using graphs that cover no more than the last 9 years is ludicrous when trying to determine long term global trends.
Here is a chart of sea level since 1870. It might be difficult for you to understand seeing as it doesn’t include a picture of Homer Simpson… but would you say that sea levels have been rising or falling over the last 140 years?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif
–
Anyway this graphic clearly demonstrates that i am correct and you are wrong:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvuj3vgsIx1qa0uujo1_500.png
Who is paying you to keep quiet about this stuff Cassandra?
Isn’t BP also one of the largest funders of the University of East Anglia Climate Change Unit?
Out of interest, David, is any of the BBC pension fund invested in the Guardian Media Group or Apple? š
David Gregory
A pension fund invests long-term. As I wrote, no substantial pension fund can turn on a sixpence. It takes years to realign its portfolio. Either the BBCPF is going to follow the IIGCC statement of policy which it has signed up to or it isn’t. I assume it will unless you are claiming (and backing up your claim with evidence of the present substantially “non-warmist” portfolio structure) that the BBCPF has signed up to something that it knowingly will not follow. Assuming that the BBCPF has signed up in good faith then over the next 10/15 years its portfolio will gradually come to reflect the IIGCC “low-carbon” mania.
You refer to evidence that today’s BBCPF portfolio is spread widely. So it may be, but this is the consequence of investment policies in existence for at least a generation: give it another generation (with the IIGCC policies) and the portfolio will look substantially different. Is that so difficult to understand? Am I blinding you with the “science” of pension fund management? I doubt it, but your refusal to engage with what I actually wrote is revealing in itself. All I said was that there must be a potential conflict of interest if massaging the facts (eg on CAGW) can have a positive consequence on one’s future welfare (eg the return on the BBCPF’s “low carbon” portfolio at retirement).
Of course the BBBC are in favour of taxing us all into ‘renewables’ – one wouldn’t expect any other response from the gutless morons. The fact the BBBC won’t even mention the dreaded ‘Shale Gas’ phenomenon speaks volumes for their journliastic cowardice and their complete fear of a big, fat truth coming down the tracks.
Shale gas has the potential to change everything about the way energy in the UK is organised and sold. It could create vast numbers of new jobs and dramatically lower household energy bills for everyone in the UK. Chris Huhne and his cowardly mates in the BBBC don’t want you to know this. They REALLY don’t want you to know this.
In America, Shale Gas (‘fracking’) has halved domestic fuel bills, provided thousands of new jobs, a new industry, and even left the US as a net exporter of gas. China is now making public noises about developing its own vast reserves of shale gas – likewise, many other nations now awakening to the energy goldmines on their own doorsteps. Whilst not a totally ‘clean’ energy, ‘fracking’ is certainly cleaner than coal mining.
So, in the UK – and in every discussion about our energy needs and the options available – there is a MASSIVE elephant in the room: Shale gas. But don’t go thinking the BBBC will pay it any mind – it’s a fossil fuel and despite it’s apparent abaundance, it’s cheapness, it’s transformative potential and it’s ‘secure energy’ status for the next few decades it has been decided – by eco-alarmists, NGOs and unelected activits – that it’s potential to derail the ‘green renewables’ phoney industry is too great to allow it to breathe the air of publicity.
We are now witnessing one biggest organised cover-ups of information in our lifetimes. It is a national scandal that shale gas has not been presented to the UK population as a positive boon, a game-changer, for the decades ahead.
Slightly off topic – It looks like somebody is a little miffed about Climategate 2
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/15/norfolk-vice.html
Something else you won’t see on the beeb.
shocking stuff
Yes, indeed. Agents of the State raid the home of a dissident writer on suspicion that he may have thought about possibly committing a potential crime at some point, and the Most Ethical Broadcaster Ever can’t see the problem. Meanwhile, the cleanliness-chalenged Occutards at St Paul’s are lauded for sticking it to The Man.
“Electricity bills to rocket by 25% because of ‘green’ targets, says Government”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074299/Electricity-bills-rocket-25-green-targets-say-Government.html#ixzz1gcKdskVz
“Quarter of homes ‘face fuel poverty’: Green taxes add to burden for struggling families”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068933/Quarter-homes-face-fuel-poverty-Green-taxes-add-burden-struggling-families.html#ixzz1gcPzv3hm
Climate zealots ensure Africans get priority over British people:-
“Anger at aid to help Africa cope with climate change: As UK faces economic meltdown, ministers hand over £330m ”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066878/Huhne-pledge-1billion-British-taxpayers-money-help-AFRICA-fight-climate-change.html#ixzz1gcRZdCIu
The Thought For the Day this morning backed the BBC narrative as predicted.
John Bell…leader of the Tartan Taize Tendency up in Balermory…redefined faith in terms of turbines erected and none of that Hebrews tosh on the same subject…thank you very much!
Funny how the likes of Dawkins recreate themselves as homespun theologians…and Bell would much rather be Brian Cox and pushing magnets somewhere under Switzerland.
As Father Ted…seemingly a real scripturally-backed cleric in comparison to wee John…might say “today we are whatever we want to be!”.
Seems that the Iona Community are planning for war with Canada…Kyoto deserves nothing less.
Hopefully by the time they`ve raised the shortbread needed, John will have found a job as Alex Salmonds sock puppet of a prelate.
Faith is in things unseen Bellboy…and wind turbines are a little too visible to count!
Bells piece followed on from a piece about the Chinese authorities and their wicked behaviour towards the people of Wukan in China.
If only Bell and his like knew what real persecution was, then sucking up to Monbiot etc would not register as being what real Christianity concerns itself with.
Hard to imagine where Watchman Nee or Lui Xiobao stand on Kyoto…and only a pampered padded poltroon like Dumb Bell would even think it worth the asking!
I don’t know about the UK, but the rising fuel costs in the US is caused by a deliberate policy from on high to force green nonsense on the public. The Junior Senator from Illinois declared His intention to do this in January 2008, long before He even became The Obamessiah.
Since being anointed….sorry…elected, He has refused to allow lots of oil and shale drilling, let the EPA strangle a lot more, condoned the subsidizing of biofuel corn which causes food prices to skyrocket, and thrown billions of dollars down the green toilet and in the pockets of His moneymen. I have cited chapter and verse before.
If anyone thinks Britain is any different, I’d bet you’re wrong. The BBC, of course, would be ideologically in favor of all of this even without the pensions issue, as the Corporation is full of Watermelons.
What I don’t understand is why normal interviewees don’t actually say : will you shut up for a few seconds and let me answer your question and/or explain my position on the subject. The interviewees need to indulge in asymmetrical warfare when it comes to the bbc. And the first line of attack is to not be a docile player, to be manipulated by the socialist interrogator. If normal people adopted the attitude of refusing to play by the bbc’s rules, the audience would soon realise what is being done to them by the perfidious bbc.
That’s a simple one to answer. If the intreviewee complains the interviewer simply moves the interview into an argument about interuptions. The interviewee therefore gets no opportunity to put out their message (the only reason they are on the programme). Interviewer wins.
If the interviewee then complains that s/he was stopped from making their point the BBC just says that they made a complaint on air and it was addressed on air.
The whole point of interuptions is to stop the message the BBC don’t want heard.