The BBC is great at balance. When it suits. Did you catch this balanced debate between wetter than a very wet fish Tim Yeo and foaming at the mouth raving loony Lib-Dem Ed Davey?
GREEN AND GREENER
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- vlad Nov 22, 03:42
Midweek 20th November 2024
Same line as VD to Jezza. Almost as if it’s the party line at the BBC. - JohnC Nov 22, 02:48
Midweek 20th November 2024
This is how it works Digg. It’s no different from the BBC. Positions are mandated for certain ethnic groups by… - Zephir Nov 22, 01:56
Midweek 20th November 2024
As mentioned in Youtube comments: To all advertisers, including Faguar, stop trying to sell black people to us, that shit… - Mustapha Sheikup al-Beebi Nov 22, 01:00
Midweek 20th November 2024
We all know how impartial the BBC is and how hard it tries to give both sides of any issue.… - StewGreen Nov 22, 01:00
Midweek 20th November 2024
Blue line gang backdating offences https://twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1859528690163495212 Then the whole process was unlawful and did amount to harassment. - StewGreen Nov 22, 00:09
Midweek 20th November 2024
Libmob don’t know the price of things 1Kg sugar is now just 89p at B&M It is £1 at Poundland… - vlad Nov 21, 23:37
Midweek 20th November 2024
It’s called ‘Unleashed’ – not a word I would apply to BoJo. Like being savaged by a dead sheep. - Sluff Nov 21, 22:30
Midweek 20th November 2024
After watching by accident the fawning sycophancy of the 10 pm BBC news to John Prescott, there can be no…
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
Link doesn’t work!
“Today!” – hot off the press @ DECC/switch the country-off.co.uk/eco-fascists-greenpeace/wwf-running-the-country:
Triple bonus green energy scheme – bigger bills, will mean – no industry and rolling blackouts into the bargain!! “It’s a win, win, win!
Yeo versus Davy, a match of perfect idiots, could it get any worse, yes, they are both eco-green agenda advocates and as thick as planks.
Dimwit politicians and advocates of alarmism – correlation = causation= CCA.
The great plan?
£16/tonne floor price for CO2 emissions= the end of heavy industry in the UK and this idiot tax will be paid for by you and me.
Hmm joined up thinking gone out of the window – again – how will we pay when all our jobs have gone, or is that the plan – it will not matter, the winter death rates will see an end to all our miseries.
Stop press – Dim lights at Davy and Yeo, will shortly be switched off permanently when the lights go off next winter.
There’s a great link to these nutters here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/16/wwf_living_planet_report/
I remember that link being posted before. Everyone who follows this website should read the article, because it reveals the real, unabashed agenda of the eco-fascists. Depressingly, they are driving the agenda and have been doing so for years which is why are we getting nowhere with a nuclear and now shale gas strategy. Every major political party in Britain are held in their thrall. Back to the Dark Ages everybody, it’s inevitable.
Someone should tell these two idiots that it is the governments duty to supply energy and water in sufficient, affordable quantities as required. There is no sustainability problem except in tiny minds who look to the UN and the EU as experts (in stupidity obviously).
My boys were doing ‘Death of a Salesman’.
I think I may now be looking at ‘Death of a BBC Career’.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100159647/griff-rhys-jones-joins-the-fight-against-the-evil-wind-farms/
I do wish someone had the balls to stand up and shout loudly on Toady (and elsewhere): “There is NO problem with carbon or CO2, emission control is pointless and fruitless, expensive and unnecessary – WHY do you continue to make it an issue, when the world and its brother can find the facts which contradict your beliefs for themselves, and don’t believe any of it”
“0709 The government is to unveil its draft Energy Bill.
Dr David Toke, senior lecturer in Energy Policy at the University of Birmingham, gives his view on why the UK energy policy has failed to settle for more than a decade.”
That’s how the ‘Today’ website puts it and Sarah M’s introduction on the programme didn’t give us any other information about senior lecturer, Dr David Toke.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9722000/9722691.stm
As Umbongo wrote the other day, it comes to something when listeners have to do their own research to find out exactly who they’re listening to – simply because they can’t trust the BBC to provide that information.
Googling Dr. Toke shows that he’s not just a “senior lecturer in Energy Policy at the University of Birmingham”, he’s also the Green Party’s “energy advisor” and has stood for the party in local elections.
Click to access aer_2003.pdf
http://www.ukrivers.net/nonewnukes/news.html
http://birminghamnewsroom.com/2010/05/local-election-results/
Now, why in the name of responsible journalism didn’t the ‘Today’ programme tell us that Dr David Toke is the Green Party energy advisor? You would think that it was a highly relevant detail and they certainly had the time/space to mention it.
. . . and for sheer chutzpah, considering the cost of wind factories and other “renewables” (for not much return in the way of energy, although the profits generated by the taxpayer are generous eg the PM’s father-in-law garners about £1,000/day) Toke stated that “nuclear power is “very uncompetitive” . . . and would be “impossible to sell to investors” unless the government signs a blank cheque. “
‘in the name of responsible journalism‘
BBC and responsible journalism… in name only.
Ah.. that’s who he is – thank you Craig. You see I heard the bile in his voice as he explained that ‘those stupid tories on the backbenches had been hoodwinked into voting for nuclear power’ (in quotes but as close to verbatim as I can remember) and it was obvious that he had some axe to grind (plus of course the fact that he wasn’t making an ounce of sense).
I barely check anymore, even for the entertainment value, but has Mr. Black given up blogging for twitter?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/richardblack/
(at time of writing, no blogs, even interactive ones)
I guess it is easier to blot out or block any who might find what he has written is ill-informed and mis-educational.
Hardly ‘on-Charter’ though?
The future’s 140 char or less, the future of interactive discussion (chez BBC) is Black.
Just checked and he’s blocked me on Twitter, so that’s good for my blood pressure 🙂
‘The BBC – We want your views (well, not yours, obviously)’
Ain’t it just grand to devolve your ‘broadcasts’ funded by all licence fee payers to pro/personal/not sure what accounts where responsibilities and accountabilities are so vague no one is either responsible or accountable but can punt out their propaganda in the name of the BBC without question?
They discussed the cost of energy increasing, but no one mentioned ‘shale gas’ during the whole discussion. Strange when US gas prices have tumbled to around 25% of their previous level.
Or is ‘shale gas’ something that is on the BBC’s ‘do not discuss’ list.
Bishop Hill reveals that at a recent seminar at No 10 “experts” (not disclosed by our rulers and not named in the report in the Independent on Sunday – the Guardian manqué) the prospects for shale gas in the UK were dismissed out of hand. Bishop Hill also disclosed that the “experts” consulted did not include Cuadrilla Resources, the explorers/discovers of shale gas in the North West. A Cuadrilla spokesman stated that “we were not invited. Nor were we consulted about potential shale gas production in the future. I was surprised to see negative statements from people who have never seen our core data or open hole log data. They may consider getting their facts in line next time since this is such an important issue to the country.”
So, in the grand tradition of the crooks of climate “science” (enabled by the BBC), the underlying data – particularly if they don’t support their case – are ignored by the carefully selected “experts.
The fix is in.
‘“experts” consulted did not include Cuadrilla Resources, the explorers/discovers of shale gas in the North West’
One is sure however, that of all mystery shoppers present, there was consensus that they ‘got it about right’?
Is there not one, single aspect of this benighted isle not being ‘fixed’ by a very small minority who a) have no clue, b) are only interested in themselves and c) shamelessly give a couldn’t give a fig for who knows it?
For ‘balance’..
http://www.channel4.com/news/energy-bill-to-keep-the-lights-on-in-a-low-carbon-age
C4 as usual tears into the government with a… PR as news release.
Odd.
Maybe they liked this bit?
The assumption is always that we must have x% of energy generated by “renewables” by 2020 or 2050 or whatever. There’s never a suggestion that this target is bollocks or, more to the point, that the reason for the target is bollocks on stilts. Although Channel 4 now and again puts its head over the parapet, it’s usual voice is that of Channel 4 news with Jon Snow at the helm. The sheer lunatic enthusiasm of the greenies is summed up in this admiring (?) quote from a Channel 4 report re the position in 2050 here: One vision sees biomass-fired power plants equipped with carbon capture and storage effectively sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and sending it off for geological storage.
F*ck me – if the nutters have their way, we’ll be lucky if there’s tallow to make candles by then.
‘Renewables’ is a complete fiction. Are they saying no fossil fuels or other finite resources are used in the manufacture, transport, installation and maintenance of wind turbines? I don’t think so. Another shameless deception by the eco-fascists – and, as with all their mantras, if they repeat it often enough it becomes fact.
Sorry in advance for the following outburst, but I’ve just been watching that fucking Twat Davey on Channel 4 news, and felt obliged to shout at the telly.
This fucking nincompoop is worse than the fucking lunatic Huhne. What the fuck is up with them? Clean energy? Wind farms? Carbon Capture? Climate Change?
For Christ’s sake, why, when the fucking climate has been changing all on its own for four and as half billion fucking years, do they think that their policy is going to change anything? He couldn’t even confirm that it would “only” cost everyone another 100 fucking quid a year.
For God’s sake SOMEONE rid us of these fucking idiots.
Soryy, again. Very cross, must have a lie down…
I could not agree more, how do so many illiterates manage to become MPs, I doubt whether Davies can wipe his arse without assistance! He really is the pits, to quote one J. McEnroe. He is a crook out to steal from the poor as per instructions from that other spoilt rich brat Camoron. They are so stupid they would not have made Grammar School in 1944 when I went,
If you want a straightforward, all-inclusive report on today’s Energy Bill, don’t go to the BBC website.
Besides the two links to the ‘Today’ programme interviews, the BBC News website has just three reports on the bill, two from yesterday.
The first begins:
“The government’s draft energy bill, designed to encourage major investment in cleaner energy generation, could result in higher consumer bills, critics have said.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18144412
So that’s one which is framed as a story about the government being attacked for its energy bill rather than as a report of what the government’s energy bill will say.
The other two are both by Roger Harrabin and even more negative. The headline of the first, also from yesterday, pretty much says it all about his slant:
‘Greens’ concern for draft energy bill’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18121885
Today’s report – the only report today on the BBC News website – by Harrabin again frames the story from the same angle:
‘Energy bill avoids carbon pledge’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18146940
The gist of Harrabin’s article is “Environmentalists wanted …Environmentalists are disappointed…Environmentalists will also be worried that…”
Ed Davey, an anti-nuclear spokespersonage from Greenpeace and an anti-nuclear “professor of energy” are quoted. No nuclear advocates are given space to balance the latter two.
Harrabin ends by using a classic BBC “some” to put his own point of view on the sly: “But some will see this as a bargaining ploy to negotiate down the price of new nuclear rather than a genuine acceptance that there is a price beyond which nuclear should not go.”
Shouldn’t there be a proper, balanced report on the new Energy Bill on the BBC website today, instead of just Roger Harrabin’s environmentalist-led piece?
The “Catherine Mitchell, professor of energy policy at Exeter University” who Roger Harrabin quotes attacking “the nuclear lobby” turns out (after a bit of Googling) to have published a report for the Green Alliance opposing nuclear energy back in 2006. “This work was funded by Greenpeace Environmental Trust,” that report says.
Click to access NewNuclearPower.pdf
Another BBC report quoting a “professor of energy policy” without bothering to report her green baggage then. Typical.
That’s another ‘scientist’ in the pay of Big Green then.
I was reading the bBCs black arm band article about how this government is going nuclear and came across this snippet:
“The fastest and cheapest way to bring down bills and carbon emissions is by ramping up energy efficiency but Ministers have totally failed to deliver on this.”
The interesting thing about this , is I am very green. In fact I have just bought a new security light for the back of the house. Its an LED one and I bought the best on the market (German) and it cost me £260, yes that’s right £260. Now I purchased another last year. (never used it) also German and that cost me £160. Now I can afford to waste my money away on such.
However and a big however is the average guy on the street going to splash out so much for new tech when you can go to B and Q and pick up a 100W security light for £16. Are you bollocks. It’s OK the greens talking about this, that and the other in which to give themselves a hard on, but it costs, you can’t force people to your way of thinking (Even after years of
Global warmingClimate change propaganda.)Now Bush yes the man the left really hate, stated that market forces can be used in which to reduce energy consumption and at the time LED TVs were just coming on line, now almost everybody uses them and yet I have never heard the Greens mention that fact.
Instead they harp on about how the worlds water levels are rising due to rising temps. Actually a new report this week blames the use of ancient ground water around the world to water crops as the main reason.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/340873/title/Pumping_groundwater_raises_sea_level
Now what is the main cause for digging up all that water?
Rising populations, yet the left never mention that, instead they continue to blame the UK for all the worlds ills. Of which the bBC is their biggest flag bearer.
The bBC, the back stabbing traitor in our midst.
A non-BBC greenie assessment of Europe’s energy crisis:
“Europe’s other power crisis: Energy”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1223/europe_s_other_power_crisis_energy
“People will starve to death because of anti-GM zealotry”
by Prof Malcolm Elliot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/9284762/People-will-starve-to-death-because-of-anti-GM-zealotry.html