Monthly Archives: December 2011

PARTNERS IN CRIME?

By | |
45 Comments

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.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

THAT SAME OLD KINDA FEELING…

By | |
23 Comments

A Biased BBC reader notes;

“Here’s religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott this morning in sunny Jamaica:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9663000/9663844.stm

But wait: the patois bible isn’t news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8698000/8698533.stm

And much the same story from Pigott in 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7675000/7675544.stm

How many times does this need reporting, and what is the repetition from Jamaica costing us?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Manning the barriers

By | |
18 Comments

Biased BBC contributor Alan observes;

“Mark Mardell joins the chorus of BBC voices vouching for the integrity of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking (should that be stealing ?) massive amounts of US intelligence material.

It seemed yesterday on the Today programme that as with the UK ‘residents’ who were enjoying a stay at a Cuban detention centre the BBC were determined to get British political figures involved in the defence of Manning…..he had a Welsh mother, went to school in Wales for a bit…..Cameron must do something!
Mardell tells us of his trial that:

‘I doubt whether the defence lawyer really has high hopes of getting a more favourable investigating officer, one who will dismiss the case, deeming it not worthy of a court-martial. Instead, it seems he is making his case to the world that this is not a fair trial.’

So not worthy of a court martial…and even if it was it won’t be a fair trial.

It is strange that Mardell shows so much interest in the US judicial system and yet he missed this story from a couple of days back (and I don’t think the BBC covered it at all in fact) about the Blessed and Best Beloved Obama locking up Americans without trial in Guantanamo:

‘Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay. Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing.

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the “war on terror” to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention. The law’s critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

“It’s something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration,” said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch”‘

Perhaps there’s an election coming up?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

ON THE BUSES

By | |
Comments Off on ON THE BUSES

I will be interviewed on BBC5 Live tonight at around 10.05pm concerning this story.

London bus drivers were today accused of holding passengers to ransom as they threatened to strike during next summer’s Olympic Games unless they get a £500 bonus. The 28,000 staff claim they need the money just for turning up to work – because their buses will be so busy. But Boris Johnson today accused transport workers of money-grabbing and asked their Unite union to back down. The claim would slap a £14 million bill on passengers and taxpayers. It is the latest of several demands – totalling nearly £30 million – by transport staff to work during the three-week Games.

Unison’s Peter Kavanagh, the comrade demaning all this extra cash, will be up against me. My view is that if UNISON bus rivers find the prospect of serving the British public and tourists so onerous, they should go and find alternative employment, with almost 250,000 people in London looking for a job.

Have you any thoughts you would like to share with me on this topic?

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Journalistic Double Standards at the BBC Due to Ideology

By | | , , , , , ,
13 Comments

As everyone here knows by now – but people who rely on the BBC for their information will not – the US Justice Department has collaborated with the Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan Police to seize computers and a router from UK citizen Roger Tattersall, who runs the truth-seeking blog Tallbloke’s Talkshop, under the moniker, “Tallbloke”. Tattersall is one of a handful of climate truth-seekers* who had a link to the ClimateGate2 emails posted by a third party on their blogs.

The BBC defined the first release of ClimateGate emails in 2009 as “stolen” and “hacked”. Even though they didn’t actually know what happened. As part of the investigation into what the BBC has described as the stolen emails, the UK authorities asked the US Justice Dept. to instruct WordPress, where Climate Audit is hosted, to hand over all blog records during the days leading up to “FOIA” posting a link to the emails. Tallbloke has posted the legal notice on his blog.

So far, there has been utter silence from the BBC. This is not exactly like WikiHacks abetting Pvt. Bradley Manning’s illegal acquisition – honest people would call it theft – of all that Dept. of Defense data, which was subsequently published by St. Julian Assange and his crew.  In Manning’s case, he was arrested for actually stealing the data, and Assange has been indicted for knowingly receiving stolen goods and publishing it. Even today, the BBC defines that data instead as “leaked:”. The double standard is clear. It’s an editorial choice, driven by the biases of the BBC staff involved. Anyone doing a search of “Manning” and “leaked” on the BBC website will see loads of evidence. The opposite is true for ClimateGate.

Tattersall has not stolen anything, has not published anything, and was not responsible for “FOIA” posting a link to it on his blog. All he did was report that it had happened, and report on the emails after he saw them. Just like the BBC did with the documents Manning stole and Assange published. Today, as it happens, St. Julian has gotten a break in his appeal against being extradited to Sweden, and the BBC is all over it, making sure everyone still has hope for this heroic figure. At the same time, Manning is back in the news because his pre-trial hearing is starting.  As I write this, the BBC News Channel just referred to his act as “leaking”. It now seems to be enshrined in the BBC style guide.

Now Mark Mardell is asking if Manning is a hero or a villain.We know that certain Beeboids think Assange is one.

Pte Manning is the intelligence analyst who US authorities suspect of being behind the hugely embarrassing Wikileaks releases. He was arrested in Iraq last May for illegally downloading material from America’s secret internet network.

Mardell admits it was illegal, which is refreshing. Notice, though, the pathetic editorializing of referring to Defense Dept. classified documents as “America’s secret internet”.

To some he is a hero, to others a villain.

Many in America will feel, if he is guilty, it is quite clear that he is a traitor who has broken his vows to his country and deserves harsh punishment. Some have even said what he and Wikileaks have done amounts to terrorism.

The defence may choose to paint a picture of a disturbed young man, sensitive and gay adrift in a macho culture. They are likely to bring up allegations that he has been subjected to deliberately punitive detention in a military brig.

Get out the tiny violins, folks. None of this justifies breaking the law in any situation. It’s especially ridiculous to use “punitive detention” as an excuse for something he’s already done. But never mind that. The fact that Mardell and the BBC are happy to give voice to those who declare Manning – and by extension, Assange – a hero.  Can someone show me a single example of the BBC giving the same time for praise of a single climate truth-seeker or someone who says we have a right to see the UEA and other climate scientists’ data, as well as their work?

No, of course there isn’t any. The BBC Trust even declared that they don’t have to give time to those voices. And they got a Warmist to do a report saying they need to be even more biased. To the BBC, releasing the ClimateGate emails was wrong, and harmful, and we have no right to see any of it.

Again as I write this, the BBC is giving air time to someone declaring Manning as a hero, a champion for justice and the US Constitution. Another Beeboid in the US got the quote, and has made a separate report saying the exact same thing Mardell did.

Here’s Mardell again on Manning:

But it will be interesting if they put the main point of his many supporters – that what Manning did transcends legal rules and national interests, that information wants to be free, and that truth is more important than government’s desire to keep something secret.

Behind this is a specific allegation – that orders to Manning were illegal.

And there you have the BBC’s Narrative as well. Mardell is at the trial today, and has reported from there for the BBC News Channel as it gets underway. He repeated what he said in his blog, that the defense is that no damage was done by publishing the documents. Funny how that’s exactly the line ex-Beeboid and now Democrat strategist, Katie Connolly, tried to push a year ago. Manning wouldn’t have done this without knowing that Assange would publish it. What the BBC never told you is that Assange’s stated goal is to harm US interests. So it doesn’t matter whether or not any harm was done. An attempted crime is still an illegal act. Mardell knows this – he reads the Washington Post – but curiously leaves that out of his anaylsis. Only one side is given: Manning’s.

Manning and Assange are in the news, and the BBC sees no parallel between their cases and what has happened to Tattersall, someone who has neither stolen, nor published, nor abetted anyone doing either, emails which are not classified.

So where is the BBC reporting on the legal action taken against a UK citizen for being tangentially involved in the publishing of emails from the climate scientists? This is the top level of US government helping to seize personal property from a UK citizen for something someone else did, and over which he had no control. Nobody could have prevented “FOIA” from posting a link on their blog. It’s intimidation at best, oppression at worst. Where’s Rory Cellan-Jones on this? He’s all about freedom of publishing whatever one likes when it’s a paedophile handbook. One would have thought that the Beeboids who were so angry about the emails being published would be eager to jump on someone connected to it. Yet they haven’t made a sound.  Don’t want to give any more air time to “opponents of the consensus”, I guess, as reporting on it would open up discussion about what happened, and the fact that there is evidence of fraud contained within.

A clear double-standard of reporting on the publishing of non-public emails. It’s all driven by the personal ideology of BBC employees. They support St. Julian, so sanitize his publication of classified documents. They support Warmism, so demonize the publication of their emails. This latest round of releases sure hasn’t gotten much play by the BBC. They made a big deal about the arrest of Pvt. Manning for actually stealing classified documents, but are completely silent when international authorities collude to seize private property, as well as server records, of someone who did absolutely nothing, and was only a spectator of an act which may not even be illegal. I understand that there’s so much big news to report today that there isn’t time to do a main report on it.  But why isn’t this worth even the tiniest of news briefs on the website?

When will the BBC start honestly reporting about what’s been going on? If anything, Tallbloke and whoever “FOIA” is are the real heroes. They’re seeking the truth, and informing us all about real law breaking, real collusion to produce agenda-driven data with which to influence governments. They’re seeking truth about the data the UN and all of our respective sovereign governments are using to oppress us, to reduce us, and to control our behavior. The BBC abets this, and tries instead to demonize or suppress information to the contrary.  If it ultimately turns out that these truth-seekers are wrong, that still doesn’t make them criminals for seeking the truth. Yet that’s not how they’re treated by the BBC, in stark contrast to how they treat an actual criminal, and a man who has openly stated his desire to harm US interests.


UPDATE: Now I know why the US Government is involved. One key revelation in the ClimageGate2 emails is that the US Dept. of Energy was colluding with Phil Jones to hide data that harmed the cause, and would give fodder to truth-seekers. The same Dept. of Energy which has thrown $4.7 billion down the Green Energy toilet to Obamessiah moneymen was funding some of Jones’ research. It just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it?

* I refuse to use the term “climate skeptic”, as once one starts using one’s opponents terms, the argument has already been lost. From now on, I’m going to use the term “climate truth-seeker” or similar.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

WIND TURBINE MYTHS

By | |
15 Comments


An astute B-BBC reader asks;  

“Have you watched the 4 programme series called “Thats Britain”. The ‘Wall’ records the “hates” of people in the UK. It is noticeable that, for Progs 1,2,3 and 4, ‘wind turbines’ occupied the second most and most prominent central position of large letters on the ‘Wall’. Consequently, by the BBCs reasoning for the Wall , one must assume this is the biggest personal hate in the UK .
1. Why did the BBC NOT feature an investigation into why wind turbines were consistently considered the biggest “hate”?
2. In Prog.2, why should Julia Bradbury, on viewing the ‘Wall’ precedences, utter the words “Weird! that wind turbines are in second place”?
3. When the ‘Wall’ showed the hate of wind turbines in top spot again in Prog.3, Nick Knowles broadcast comment was that he had reviewed what he thought about wind turbines and now thought they were good. His illiterate opinion had not been solicited.
4. Prog.4 again had wind turbines as the most hated and occupying ‘Wall’ central position with the largest type-face to attract attention again. ‘Wall’ discussion by Nick Knowles regarding the wind turbine most hated comprised of “What is wrong with people?”
I wonder if these BBC public broadcasts were vetted to comply with the £8 billion investment of the BBC Pension Fund through Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change? Where was the impartiality of Nick Knowles broadcast unsolicited opinions? As a retired professionally and academically qualified electrical engineer, I am particularly disgusted that the likes of technical illiterates such as Nick Knowles and other broadcasters can continue to plague the public with wind turbine myths and lies. What do you think?”

I FULLY endorse these questions and I am pretty sure that plenty of those people reading this will share our disgust at the blatant hyping of wind turbine myths and lies by the BBC.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.