Richard Black is the man most obviously at the delivery end of the BBC’s deeply biased approach to greenie reporting, as readers of this blog well know.
This post unusually requires going back in time because I have only just got access to the transcripts, they take time to prepare. It’s worth re-visiting because they show the extent to which Mr Black works with others at the BBC to pursue and exaggerate the green agenda.
Back on November 14, he decided that – at the bidding of an extremist outfit called Client Earth (motto: ‘Justice for the Planet’; patrons, those scientific experts – Coldplay)- he would elevate the perennial greenie bogymen ‘atmospheric pollutants’ (in this case, especially nitrogen dioxide) to a whole new level of menace.
And in the process he had a willing partner, Today presenter James Naughtie. Between them, they told us that because of this new peril, triggered, of course, by vile capitalist activities such as power generation, flying and driving, we now face in the air that we breath a bigger daily danger than the London smogs of the 1950s.
For Mr Black the story had a double bonus, because the rise in nitrogen dioxide, he claimed, was due to two factors: flouting of that nice, benevolent EU’s atmospheric standards laws, and (boo hiss) second, “government cut backs” that had led to a failure to test for the gas properly.
To reinforce his utter outrage that EU standards are being breached , he turned to those nice, totally non-baised people at Client Earth, who obligingly stuck in the boot even further: they blamed the government’s “localism agenda” for this flagrant crime against humanity. What’s needed, therefore, is billions to be spent in introducing new car emissions laws (those nasty motorists must be curbed at all or any cost) – and by the way, we must also abandon any idea of a third runway at Heathrow. That would allow too many proles to be able to fly abroad on their holidays.
In other words, this was a perfect storm for Mr Black, all his green propaganda targets rolled into one alarmist orgy.
Now, I am not an expert in air pollution and don’t claim to be. But I have spent some time looking very carefully at the evidence about atmospheric gunk and the one thing that is clear is that if nitrogen dioxide at current atmospheric levels is the killer that it’s claimed to be, the evidence is not exactly easy to find, nor can it be described as a definite killer (which even the UN admit). Of course if you breath too much of it in, it has side effects; but even the most alarming of greenie sites have nothing that nails a massive area of risk.
And on the other side of the coin, there is clear evidence that the greenie obsession with amospheric pollution is another of the scares that has been totally over-cooked. Junk Science, for example, here demonstrates that one of the eco scares regarded as the nadir of nasty industrial smog was not as lethal as was claimed. The World Health Organisation, of course – in line with their UN anti-capitalist agenda – claim that millions are dying every year because of such pollution, and the EU says that 310,000 of its citizens meet a similar fate. But my guess is that this is trumpeted on the same basis as most greenie scares. Scratch the surface, and those figures (as Junk Science shows) are built on statistical sleight-of-hand linked with dubious models.
Which brings me to the second phase of the Black-Naughtie manipulation of this story.
Today carried an item that morning which was an interview with Joan Walley, the strident and blatantly alarmist Labour MP who chairs the parliamentary select committee responsible for air quality. Naturally, her committee, being part of the Westminster bubble, has swallowed the alarmist view of the topic wholesale. Miss Walley wanted, of course, massive increased spending on dealing with nitrogen dioxide to meet EU standards, and so-called “interviewer” James Naughtie sounded suitably aghast as she recounted the tale of woe.
But did he challenge the evidence? Did he ask on what basis such figures of doom are conjured up? Did he ask her why we must slavishly follow EU laws? Did he for one second think about the consequences on the cost of motoring and flying of tougher emissions laws?
Er, no. Mr Naughtie’s main concern was simply to amplify Ms Walley’s alarmist message. he asked:
What you’re saying, in effect, is that as many people are suffering, and indeed dying early, now, as a cause of pollution than they were when the smogs were a subject of public outrage in the 50s?
This, of course, was the cue for Ms Walley to deliver another sharp kick the government’s way, and to amplify her alarmist message still further – and she duly delivered, exactly as Mr Naughtie intended.
And there we have it. Richard Black set the agenda, and Today obligingly followed and magnified it. I am not clear where the evidence is that nitrogen dioxide is killing as many people as the London smogs of the 1950s, but it certainly was not provided by Mr Black or Mr Naughtie, and if it’s common knowledge, I have not been able to find it. And the UN actually state in its report on the gas:
The few long-term studies have not shown evidence for association between NO2 and mortality.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Of course, Mr Black would deny he influenced Mr Naughtie, and vice versa. But this shows how the BBC climate propaganda machine works -hand in glove with any alarmist who shouts loudly enough.
Follow the trail of pseudo science bogey men, CO2/ocean acidification/sea level rise/more and more powerful storms and hurricanes/more rain and less rain/more droughts and floods/melting of the poles/smaller animals/trees unable to climb mountains/earlier springs.
Its a perfect representation of Lysenko science, no evidence needed because the scare is enough and plenty of rent seeking watermellons all too eager to spread the lies, all for a good cause you understand comrade!
Scare the masses into accepting socio political changes that they would never normally accept, use guilt and fear as political weapons and buy off the scum of the earth like Black and the BBC to flog it all.
PNS = post normal science. The aim is to affect socio political change by presenting false and falsified evidence and the BBC are a leading player in the fraud of the age pimped be moral degenerates, freaks, criminals and the scum of earth.
Back when Black pimped the lies about ocean acidification he lavished airtime by the prime time hour, until it was found that it was a load of bollocks, then quietly forgotten. No appologies and no retractions and no revisiting the story and certainly at no stage any dissenter/denier invited to comment.
Black reduced to scraping the very bottom of the barrel by accepting the most ludicrous nonsense from watermellon whack jobs. A patently ridiculous person. What next? dragons and trolls and witches casting spells.
Yes. indeed. Richard Black is like a snake-oil salesman from Western movies. He even looks like one. A total charlatan.
paraphrasing casandra: “…pimping moral degenerates, freaks, criminals, scum of earth and watermellon whack jobs.”
Nice! 😀
‘Client Earth’ have a ‘vested interest in climate alarmism – it is their stock-in-trade. One look at their ‘vision’ (on their website) confirms all the very worst fears a healthy skeptic might harbour. Their stated aim is to use the law as ‘tool for social change’, whilst (worryingly) working to ‘enforce laws when governments fail to do so’…and ‘innovating ideas’ to ‘move through the whole EU and beyond.’ Social engineering, in other words, using the law and powerful contacts in government and (sympathetic) media to circumvent democracy and facilitate their agenda by the back door.
It’s chilling stuff; precisely the kind of unelected, anti-democratic behaviour we as climate skeptics have now, sadly, had to become so accustomed to facing. Eco-zealots simply don’t consider basic democracy up to the job; this is because (as they know only too well) most people are sensible enough to spot a fraud at fifty paces. For these advocates, other means to achieve a stated goal have now to be found.
Climate alarmists try to circumvent the democratic process at every turn and one very useful way is through the production of bogus ‘reports’ (which also happen to be very handy for the BBC). This cannot be overstated. Clueless morons in MSM, the BBC in particular (if recent revelations are to be believed), need to fill the airwaves – where content – increasingly, any content – is, of course, king.
Outfits like Client Earth (and the even the very name causes me to visibly cringe) meet that insatiable demand for content – their outward veneer of ‘respectability’ (it’s written by lawyers!) allows MSM commentators to excuse their total lack of journalistic integrity by claiming merely to be reporting the findings of ‘experts’, even if those ‘experts’ are self-appointed advocates on a mission all of their own.
The fact that Black and Naughtie hitched their bleary-eyed wagons to such self-serving tosh merely highlights the wholsesale collapse of ‘impartiality’ on climate issues at the BBC – the proAGW agenda is a viral disease at the BBC – one which has now pretty much wholly infected its host. I can’t think of a single ‘name’ at the BBC now prepared to speak out against the dominant narrative on AGW at the Corporation – indeed, I don’t believe any such brave and principled individual now exists within it, so complete has the ‘climate cleansing’ been there.
Those who have in the past dared to speak out against the dominant narrative on AGW (Bellamy, Ball, etc) have quickly been shown the door. The only reason Attenborough has lasted this long is because, unwilling to publicly commit on the issue for a decade or more, he has been forced, at 85, to finally tow the line on AGW (however half-heartedly) or face his long overdue retirement. The sad picture of this frail, much-respected and highly-principled old man being made to publicly profess on BBC TV his ‘belief’ in AGW is chillingly reminiscent of any number of kidnap videos from Iraq in which the unfortunate prisoner is forced to say things clearly against their will on pain of execution… Of course Attenborough’s healthy North American sales might also have persuaded the craven midgets at the BBC World to hesistate sending Attenborough into exile.
All in all, we climate skeptics know we still have a huge fight on our hands. There are an overwhelming number of vested interests, just like Client Earth, now firmly embedded into policy making, government and media, making the task of weeding them back out that much more difficult. They are called upon to serve the dominant narrative and in doing so discover for themselves a bogus legitimacy that can then be used to further promote the AGW dogma (and their own usefulness). For the skeptics, it means the mountain sometimes seems insurmountable; with so much (public) money and political and media access our opponents in the climate alarmism industry seem all too often to be unassailable.
On the subject of AGW, MSM organisations like the BBC have become little more than uncritical, unprincipled mouthpieces for alarmist propaganda, enlessly parroting a dogma of despair and fear, whilst selectively reporting on climate in a manner that borders unbridled dishonesty. One wonders if any BBC journalist writing or broadcasting this drivel ever stops to consider how they have now become little more than a faceless government employee; paid to promote the official line, to maintain the dominant narrative, to reinforce the prevailing dogma. Dissent is not to be tolerated (as we have seen), outright disobedience will, of course, be punished.
I rarely opine on AGW because I’ve enough to worry about on the topic of the BBC’s insidious antisemitism and demonisation of Israel. But Dogstar cleverly highlights factors that fit the BBC’s biased approach to both issues equally.
Agenda-driven ‘experts’ are dragged in to bolster up a preordained agenda. ‘Bogus’ reports, surveys and inquiries are brought in to substantiate allegations, but their vested interests are never mentioned, and as with AGW, MSM commentators will “excuse their total lack of journalistic integrity by claiming merely to be reporting the findings of ‘experts’.”
The insatiable demand for content is fed and nurtured in a kind of self perpetuating continuum.
Similarly, the BBC’s Israel-bashing agenda and its ‘Jewish lobby’ obsession, combined with the ingratiating flattery of the Islamic audience is another viral disease at the BBC, which should, but apparently does not, highlight the wholesale collapse of claims of impartiality.
As for ‘those in the past who have dared to speak out against the dominant narrative”, are there any on the ‘Israel’ issue? Richard Littlejohn’s ham-fisted 2007 documentary “The War on Britain’s Jews,” wasn’t even on the BBC. As far as I can see, there’s no Bellamy-Ball equivalent to even be shown the door. No prominent TV historian, sociologist or celebrity broadcaster has ever ventured to disgrace him/herself by putting the “case for Israel’ on the air any serious shape or form, even if such an offer were on the table.
Those without scientific expertise are totally reliant on others when considering the AGW question. Opining on the I/P situation from a position of ignorance is of little value, but when all the information on offer is skewed and distorted by prejudice and misplaced political allegiance it’s of no value whatsoever, and is positively sinister.
thanks Robin for your post (and the others who add comment) – I just know when I hear some new angle on The Today re Climate Change such as this about nitrogen dioxide that there is another side – and I know the BBC will not give it.
Joining Attenborough in the national (and biased) treasure apartment at the White City is creepy, ever-smiling, not very eminent physicist Brian Cox who finds “climate change deniers” both irritating and idiotic. As Dogstar implies, one word out of place by Cox (or even Attenborough) on the CAGW religion and it’s probable they’d find themselves in the outer darkness with Bellamy.
He’s a fine one to talk about anyone else being irritating! 😀
Cox is called, Mr Boolocks face.
I find that telling people that David Bellamy has effectively been banned from the BBC – even as an interviewee – surprises them. They remember he was a frequent face on the box, a frequent fruity voice on the radio. They find it hard to accept immediately that his absence is because he challenged the Global Warming cult – I tell them to go check it WHY he has been banned.
This is easier for them to check than some complicated bit of science where they will find conflicting views. They already accept Bellamy’s absence – they just had not noticed it – and it is then easy for them to check the reason. It is a black-and-white case.
And THAT is what can start to create doubt in the minds of people who otherwise believe the BBC will always be impartial and could never tell lies. Bellamy was a crusty but well-favoured character, people recognise that as a botanist he has a deep interest in the environment. So if he is a sceptic – maybe there is proper cause to be sceptic.
Most people have not heard of any of the sceotic scientists, or the statisticians who have demolished the Hockey Stick, or of websites like WattsUpWithThat, ClimateAudit or BishopHill. But everyone knows dear old David Bellamy, and if such an iconic figure is unhappy about Warmism people may start to think again.
I then follow up with the fact that the BBC’s chief scientific correspondent David Whitehouse is also deeply critical of Warmism – and of the BBC’s serious distortions of the debate.
JA
David Whitehouse is, of course, no longer with the BBC. He was, I believe, made “redundant” after too many sceptical contributions to the BBC science reportage.
Umbongo
Yes – I tell people that David Whitehouse left the BBC – but I do not know whether that was entirely due to his views on Global Warming, so I do not say that.
But now he is outside the tent, he seems to be doing an excellent job pissing back in !
John Anderson,
“I find that telling people that David Bellamy has effectively been banned from the BBC – even as an interviewee – surprises them.”
Well yes, it would surprise them seeing as it’s complete bwollocks.
David Bellamy on “Breakfast” BBC 2001
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0531645/
“The Way We Went Wild” BBC 2004
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0415461/
“The Daily Politics” BBC 2005
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0552499/
“The Funny Side of…” BBC 2009
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1548743/
“James May’s Toy Stories” BBC 2009
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1544293/
“The Politics Show” BBC 2011:
Bellamy’s last TV series was in 1994. He claims to have gone from ‘pro’ to ‘anti’ climate change sometime between 2000 and 2004. Was he “banned” for those 7 or 8 years as well? How come he wasn’t snapped up by ITV, Sky or any other TV company?
Perhaps the simple truth is that he’d just reached the end of his shelf life. Shock! Horror!
The Krankies haven’t been on the BBC since 1982! Have they been “banned” as well???
You need to try harder, young Dez. Bellamy certainly was not past his sell-by date in 2004. As well as his own series, he often used to appear on TV or radio as a guest. The only recent item on BBC you cite is on the obscure local “Politics Show”. I can recall seeing him or hearing him many times after his last TV series which you say was back in 1994. But in the past few years – ZILCH.
He happens to be someone that most viewers and listeners know – but he is never called in if the subject is Global Warming. Why not – because he does not believe in Warmism.
He knows more science and environment stuff in his little finger than clowns like Richard Black. He would rip Black to pieces. But he is effectively now a non-person at the BBC. It really is futile of you to deny this.
and as you keep telling us, young Dez, Sky was not commissioning much stuff – the Sky Channel does not major on environment programmes in the way the BBC does. Nor does ITV. The BBC was Bellamy’s main home, as everyone but you would recognise. He is now a pariah there.
“He knows more science and environment stuff in his little finger than clowns like Richard Black. He would rip Black to pieces.”
Well here he is on C4 in 2009:
You said he’d been “banned from the BBC – even as an interviewee” and yet he’s appeared on the BBC more than any other channel in the last 10 years.
But you never answered my question. Why haven’t The Krankies been on the BBC since 1982?
Probably because someone found out that they were into “swinging”, and other nefarious sexual activities, but more likely because the captive viewing audience couldn’t stand them.
That’s two for starters, Dez, old Dez…
You will not have seen a free debate amongst Atmospheric Physicists live on the BBC, talking about the calibration of Carbon Dioxide Warming in the Atmosphere using the chemical method or the use of the CO2 Atmosphere of Mars as a proxy. And you never will unless a Parliamentary Committee can be persuaded to get rid of the BBC Trust.
Dez,
Happy Christmas !
Now if i’ve upset you, perhaps you would like to share with us how many others have endured those two provocative words uttered in that order on the BBC in the last 10 years.
If you have any examples, then I will apologise unreservedly.
Thank you John,
Happy Christmas to you too!
Dez,
I apologise unreservedly (nearly) to you.
It’s just that chap with the two hampsters I find somewhat disconcerting given my suspicion of their provenance.
Perhaps of some interest to my skeptical friends here:
Lies, damned Lies and Enviro-Fraud
Thanks for the link. It is simply terrific – and the killer is the video!
Its all about preception, and the BBC have become experts at the art of manipulating perceptions, perverting them in order to present a wholly false and illusary version of reality.
This is the BBC in action, as the gulf between observed reality and percieved reality widens the BBC is locked into a cycle of lying and cheating and deception that will in the end bring about its downfall, if they dont know this, have not learned the lessons of history then they deserve everything thats coming their way.
As an Astronomer, I do not know of any significant change in atmospheric opaqueness. There are sometimes red sunsets caused by volcanic events. But the most substantial changes are caused by Cloud Albedo. As a Mensa member I suggest it is just another case of inferior minds at work.
Nice work, Robin. Funny how the problems are blamed on Tory Cuts™, Camerom’s localization policies, and not enough spending. Watermelon politics at its finest. Those of us skeptical of the Warmist trend years ago said that a primary concern was that it all seemed to be driven by neo-Marxists who want to use this “crisis” to advance a political agenda, and it turns out we were right.
The BBC will never, ever promote any doubt that their green ideology is the one that must be followed, whatever the cost, because they’re part of it, lock, stock and barrel.
Imagine a red car, a red wall, or anything red for that matter, and slap a coat of white over it. However many times you do this, you’ll never eliminate the underlying red, it always bleeds through, eventually.
The only way around it is to paint over the white with another colour first, to block the red pigment, and THEN put your white on. Heaven forbid, either green or black work quite well.
The BBC is rather like this. Distinctly red, refuses to be covered over, and the only way to do it should be with green or black, but in this particular case this remedy only makes matters worse.
They won’t change, ever – they can’t, and consequently should be systematically dismembered and sold for firewood.
“…[The BBC] won’t change, ever – they can’t, and consequently should be systematically dismembered and sold for firewood…”
That will never be allowed to happen. Heaven forfend the cosy North London Oxbridge Club, vaguely (and oh-so-fashionably) left-wing and unashamedly self-congratulatory, should ever have to go find an honest job, when the BBBC provides, almost as an unspoken right to these morons, straight out of University, an effortless living for so many of them – naturally enough, at vast public expense. Well, it’s not real money, is it?
Follow the money.
Sorry Robin, this is off topic but I want to alert Preisser about a new youtube from Helen Boaden
Thanks. Back to the great climate debate
‘The excellent session we had on the Euro’
Like this one, aslo citing BBC stats to support BBC claims?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/12/the_challenge_of_reporting.html#comments
Where the good lady’s latest ‘broadcast’ is sliced, diced and served up with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.
Bowels in… or out, Helen… in all honesty, for a ‘nation’s perspective’?
At least Richard Addy can leave the BBC ‘though choice’.
24,999,999 licence fee compellees still can’t.
‘Saying just go to the website… is a cop out’
Might want to mention that to the ‘spokesperson’ quoted in the Telegrpah doing just that over the Polar Bear deception, Ms. Market Rate. Lest you be deemed to be a clueless hypocrite.
Interesting. Poll-driven, but confused. The audiencd is interested, but doesn’t understand any of it. Answer: repeat basic talking points. No wonder people get the impression of a Narrative. I’m sure the same thing applies to the AGW story.
I’ll be checking out the other CoJ videos on the Eurozone as well, particularly “Two Eds”.
Amazing, Helen, I’m a licence payer but the Beeb places me in a minority as compared to its worldwide ‘customers’. Funny how the BBC always panders to freeloaders.
Preaching to the converted here of course. Most people accept what they hear on the TV, which is why the BBC, Black and Harriban are so dangerous. It saddens me when I see school children’s projects ‘inpired’ by the fear and the fraud.
Big State economics and it’s bottomless pit available to the well connected will always result in greed and deception – for as long as they can get away with it.
Of course, when Climate Change become untenable, they will think of something else to frighten and coerce us with.
Wonder if the Israeli “settlers” would be cut more slack if they put up the odd wind turbine or two and ran a salinated fountain on cycle power nearby?
Bet those Palestinians would continue to spit and litter…and so Israels could only be applauded for its eco-loveliness!
Worth a go?
Green outside but red inside – that links to James Delingpole’s recent book “Watermelons” attacking the Warmists.
Here is Delingpole in an extended interview in the US – ranging across UK and US politics and the Euro debacle as well as Warmism :
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/12/uncommon-knowledge-with-james-delingpole.php
Robin,
“Back on November 14, [Richard Black] decided that – at the bidding of an extremist outfit called Client Earth… he would elevate the perennial greenie bogymen ‘atmospheric pollutants’ (in this case, especially nitrogen dioxide) to a whole new level of menace.”
Black’s article is clearly about the Environmental Audit Committee’s “Follow-up Report” which was published the same day. What evidence do you have that it was written “at the bidding” of Client Earth?
If you disagree with the the Audit Committee’s report why aren’t you challenging their findings? In what way is Richard Black responsible for those findings?
“Between them , they [Naughtie & Black] told us that because of this new peril, triggered, of course, by vile capitalist activities such as power generation, flying and driving, we now face in the air that we breath a bigger daily danger than the London smogs of the 1950s.”
No they didn’t. They recounted what was in the Audit Committee report. Do you not understand the difference?
“Now, I am not an expert in air pollution and don’t claim to be. But I have spent some time looking very carefully at the evidence about atmospheric gunk and the one thing that is clear is that if nitrogen dioxide at current atmospheric levels is the killer that it’s claimed to be, the evidence is not exactly easy to find, nor can it be described as a definite killer (which even the UN admit).”
I’m no expert in air pollution either, but I seriously doubt you’ve spent any time; “looking very carefully at the evidence about atmospheric gunk…”.
Yes it seems to be very difficult to determine if the increased level of NO2 on it’s own is harmful. But was is known is that given the right atmospheric conditions, high concentrations of NO2 can react to produce large amounts of ground level ozone and particulates (the photochemical smog seen in some cities), both of which have been proved to be serious health risks.
“And on the other side of the coin, there is clear evidence that the greenie obsession with amospheric pollution is another of the scares that has been totally over-cooked. Junk Science, for example, here demonstrates that one of the eco scares regarded as the nadir of nasty industrial smog was not as lethal as was claimed.”
Well congratulations, you’ve found a repost of one “opinion piece” in The Washington Times; which apparently is enough for you to decide that Sulfur Dioxide isn’t so bad after all…
So where does sulfur dioxide exist in high enough concentrations to create large amounts of ‘ground level ozone and particulates’? Macclesfield? Holmforth? High Wycome? shouldn’t we be told by the Met Office, every weather forcast?
The Black Country. But the morons are 170 years out of date on that scare story.
What the hell are you banging on about, young Dez ? Robin Horbury’s post was about NO2 – but you are waffling on about sulphur dioxide. Knickers in a twist ?
Just like so many at the BBC, you seem to know sod-all about science.
John Anderson,
If you’d bothered to plough through Robin’s post you’d see that he referred to an article about smog in Donora, USA in October 1948:
“Junk Science, for example, here demonstrates that one of the eco scares regarded as the nadir of nasty industrial smog was not as lethal as was claimed.”
Smogs of that era were primarily caused by Sulphur Dioxide and caused many deaths untill the clean air acts of the 1960’s.
The kind of “photochemical smog” seen these days has different causes (namely NO2) and different effects.
However Robin has found one newspaper article claiming that smog in the 1940’s wasn’t so bad after all.
And from that alone he claims to have enough evidence to show that all this fuss about air pollution is just another “greenie obsession” scare story that’s been “totally over-cooked”?
Just one biased scare mongering dog whistle for funding is more than enough for the BBC to hand over prime time air for any group with any made up scare. How many scares have turned out to be false? and how many have been corrected by the BBC so far?
Ocean acidification? Its a load of made up trash, but that didnt stop the BBC from providing air time did it? Oh and what about the great barrier reef, just a couple of deeply flawed eco fascist made up reports about how the reef was dying off due to the CAGW fraud and it turns out that the reef is doing fine, even growing and the parts affected are affected by other factors and certainly nothing to do with CO2. But the BBC didnt let the facts get in the way of pimping hundreds of unfounded mumbo jumbo trash science reports like the Maldives sinking when in fact they are rising.
The BBC is the world famous purveyor of trash science, of disposable mumbo jumbo scare stories meant to reinforce a fabricated consensus. Kilamanjaro? Polar ice? Polar bears? global temperatures? sea levels? If you cannot see how the CAGW fraud has infected and devalued the BBC then I feel sorry for you. The BBC chose the path of Lysenkoism and will pay the price for that choice in the end.
I am beginning to develop a thick protective skin of pure cynicism whenever the BBC mounts a new scare story. I realise that this could be dangerous, because if aliens really do invade and the BBC says so then I won’t believe them. I also worry that I might – as my new skin grows – disbelieve even minor scare stories. Like if they say it’s going to snow later, I will change into summer shorts. I suppose the best thing to do is to watch Russia Today instead, though even that is really Russian propaganda, but with the sound turned down I can at least imagine Stacey Herbert making lewd suggestions to me as she slags off western capitalism. If, however, it was the beeb’s politically-correct gesture-scrubber Fiona Bruce making lewd suggestions as she slags off western capitalism, I’d throw up because with her pin-sized brain it’s easy to imagine how she got her job, as in “horizontally” and “with all of them”. Rant over….
The following video is one I could take or leave… two sides of the Climategate (1) argument jockeying for position:
BUT the Russian Climate Scientist gives himself away when he states ‘…economic and financial truths to solve the problem’ we have this nonesense in a nutshell. Pay the third world not to consume, throw money at the climate monster and hide the stats using tricks to do so. Money is flowing from the West to the third world to level the wealth, slow the growth and spread the socialism…
Just a thought…
What is true, is that many elderly people are dying because they cannot afford to keep their homes, and themselves, properly warm in yet another cold winter.
Why? Global warmin taxes.