Windfarms. Why they are a matter of faith for the BBC as Biased BBC’s Alan explains…
“What the papers did say apparently was that 70% of people in the UK love windfarms and would welcome them spreading across the UK…so says the Independent and Roger Harrabin. The BBC launched its own little pro windfarm offensive this morning on the Today programme….strangely all coinciding with the report that the government may cut subsidies to them. The Greens have marshalled their forces and they are on the offensive.
Far from me to doubt the truth of this latest poll….what was the selection process for choosing who to poll? Did they flick through the wind turbine construction applications at the local planning offices….kind of think they might have.
But who am I to doubt it in reality because here is Rob Norris, a spokesman for RenewableUK, the trade association representing the wind industry, to put me right….he said: “This poll is evidence of the true level of support for wind energy in the UK……. the better-informed majority understand the many benefits.”
I’m just ignorant obviously.
Today had Evan Davis interviewing a Lincolnshire County Council representative who was issuing advice that applications for wind turbines would not now have the presumption that they would be acceptable.
Davis wanted to know if he was a sceptic and then asked if centuries ago he would have been opposing church spires in our landscape. Funny how Davis stoops to abuse rather than judging the merits of the explicit argument that the interviewee laid out quite clearly for his actions….never mind how reasonable those were… he must have some agenda or luddite tendency…because windfarms are so wonderful and 70% of people want them.
Thank goodness we had Tim Yeo on the Today programme to further our education……the Planet will burn unless we have these turbines, the price of CO2 will be extortionate if we don’t act now….yes off shore windfarms are too expensive….the answer is vast windfarms on land. I wonder how many windturbines Yeo has on his own land? I’m sure it’s purely for the benefit of the Earth and nothing to do with the bundles of cash that are pushed the landowner’s way to persuade them to be ‘green’.
However it seems he is quite prepared to forget his principles and the Earth when it comes to votes in his own constituency…..
Tim Yeo has pledged his full support to opponents of a wind farm at Chedburgh.
“I fully understand why anybody in a community as beautiful as this will be concerned. On shore wind turbines are visually a very considerable intrusion on any landscape. This happens to be one of the most beautiful parts of my constituency which stretches from here to the coast.”
“You don’t have to take a view about whether you are in favour or against wind energy in principle. This is not about that.”
“But where they are clearly quite inappropriate for the local community as, in my view, they most obviously are here, the voice of the local people should be decisive.”
“Now, unfortunately, of course that is not the way it actually works .”
Strange the inquisitive Davis didn’t ask him about his blatant hypocrisy….perhaps he is a sceptic and a luddite! We’ll never know as the respectful Davis didn’t ask.
The BBC…never knowingly unbiased.
Yes, we can expect BBC’s high-cost greenie propagandists to turn on Osborne even more now:-
“Osborne versus wind farms”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/politics/2012/june/osborne-versus-wind-farms
“‘Wind farms are green tokenism’:
Actor Griff Rhys Jones attacks turbines and says it is not elitist to care about the countryside.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147860/Wind-farms-green-tokenism-Actor-Griff-Rhys-Jones-attacks-turbines-says-elitist-care-countryside.html#ixzz1wqAJqyKR
Thats one luvvy that will not be getting an invite from the BBC again, the black list has one more name on it.
“Is this the end of wind farms?
Osborne demands Government subsidies are slashed by a quarter.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154106/Is-end-wind-farms-UK-George-Osborne-slashes-subsidies.html#ixzz1wqBBNwI2
like wind turdbines, the bBC are all about “spin” and they will interview anyone who fits their agenda
they are a national disgrace, the trouble is, unfortunately most viewers take them at face value.
I particularly dislike the the smug smirky way that local beeberk presenters (Look East) announce that yet another (bloody useless) wind farm is getting the go-ahead to despoil a tract of our fair region. Why do they all love these massive pieces of crap?
When the Lincs guy mentioned the opportunities for fracking back came the reply that this was all very well but the price of gas was going to shoot up in coming years.
The droids need to pick up an economic text book and learn what ceteris paribus the effect of increasing the supply of a good has on its price.
Or if that’s too much for them (which it is) perhaps just look across the Atlantic and see what effect fracking has had on the gas price there.
The droids have the nerve to plume themselves as journalists and reporters when in reality they are third-rate shills trying to be fourth-rate entertainers
The supposed rise in gas wholesale prices has been a major justification for the windmill fraud, this unfounded supposition is in fact nothing more than a blatant attempt to make windmill generated power seem to be comparable with real fossil fuel generated electricity at some point in the future.
Of course the windmill fraudsters know full well that world wide fracking would make gas cheaper than water and give the world an extra couple of centuries of supply in which tome new tech would supply new methods. This is the BBC and the windmill fraud and eco fascism in action, lies are their speciality.
I totally agree that the prediction of gas price rises using the past few years as a guide is utterly false since it fails to recognise the big increase in supply from shale gas.
Also the virtual irrelevance of renewables is nicely indicated in this diagram
That is one diagram you will never see on the BBC!
Find the ‘hydro and wind’ line and laugh.
Great link!
Yes, they tried to obscure the facts – the pink line in “Primary supply” is “hydro, wind, imports and nuclear” all together (never before seen those bundled together!)
The nuclear contribution at 13.9% is 11 times larger than hydro and wind together (1.2%)!
I cried
That diagram tries to disguise the fact that 44% of our electricity comes from nuclear power. Or have I read the diagram wrong.
Not sure what you mean by disguise? The total of all inputs to the Power Stations is around 86.9. Nuclear provides 13.9 of the total, ie. around 16%.
How do you get 44%?
“Dislike wind farms? Then the BBC thinks you’re both mad and a NIMBY.”
By James Slack.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2154376/Dislike-wind-farms-Then-BBC-thinks-youre-mad-NIMBY.html#ixzz1wqGjNYe1
All that the BBC say on this subject is merely intended to show their “solidarity” with fellow workers in the “wind industry”.
If only we could harness all these leftie blowhards to the national grid and let them rant and aerate(halitosis not a hindrance)…we could help poor Gaia out as she goes puce due to lack of air.
100 kiddies windmills and a cheese straw for Evan and friends down at Brighton beach(where else) ought to do it.
Would the BBC muppets in science give me a reference for a luvverly state grant?…you know, I think they would!
Of course, HARRABIN, BLACK and all the BBC high-cost greenies wil increase their political efforts to stop this sort of rebellion against their mass wind farm expansionism.
“The wind farm rebellion blows across Britain as campaigners take heart from village’s victory.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152460/The-wind-farm-rebellion-blows-Britain-campaigners-heart-villages-victory.html#ixzz1wqIucoFB
The Telegraph poll seems to paint a different picture:
Yes, wind farms do not work 92.02% (2,409 votes)
No, we need to invest as much as possible in renewable energy 7.98% (209 votes)
Go and vote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9309164/Wind-farm-subsidies-should-be-cut-by-25-per-cent-Treasury.html
The results of that poll are interesting so far, not least given the sample size (big) and methodology. This latter was not the usual ‘we’ve asked some special folk to represent what you think’ per the BBC (or Indy… the most liked on their article on their poll being quite interesting in its own right), but an open invitation embraced by choice. There’s a metaphor or two in there too.
I guess 10:1 not going the ‘correct’ way would be another ‘split’ in Beebworld, if referred to.
Which they won’t.
That market rate talents as referred to in other posts here either don’t know any facts or, worse, obscure those that don’t suit, is further indictment of the joke that is Helen ‘I’m up for DG’ Boaden’s ‘genetic impartiality’.
Propaganda backed by censorship is not world class public broadcasting, it is re-education and misinformation that is not to be trusted.
Wind farms are abhorrent, and the BBC’s propaganda in favour utterly unjustifiable. Private Eye has done good work chronicling the wind farm fraud over the last couple of years. However I have to laugh at the idea that the Telegraph poll constitutes ‘evidence’ one way or the other. Yes, the sample size is large, but the sample is also a) self-selecting; and b) drawn entirely from Telegraph readers. A proper pollster would be in stitches if you suggested that the results of this ‘poll’ meant anything.
‘However I have to laugh at the idea that the Telegraph poll constitutes ‘evidence’ one way or the other.
Agree. Hence I used the word ‘interesting’ only. I find all polls as good as the motivations of those that conduct them, so not very.
Large samples can help, but again can also be as skewed as where they are from.
I find your projections, also, interesting, though:
a) self-selecting – possibly more honest than ‘being selected’? In decades of BBC polls I have never been asked nor have I met anyone who has. Possibly not on the ‘right’ lists?
b) drawn entirely from Telegraph readers. Suggests an odd prejudice of your own. The demographic could arguably be seen as better educated and better off I guess. But that may work in favour of being more able to assess the science over the political dogma and/or rhetoric. It’s hardly a ‘wingist’ issue as the most fervent supporters of renewables/wind are the Coalition top echelons.
So what point you think you are making I am unsure.
I’m also unclear that your view of what is ‘proper’ in terms of pollsters or the polls they conduct is governed by accuracy or a desire to be proven right.
I’m hard-pressed to recall any poll that was not simply a job creation scheme for some number crunchers indulged by a media estate that has either a 24/7 news maw to fill or agenda to push.
To be truly representative, polls have to be randomised. This means they can’t simply include those who choose to vote (‘self-select’). And Telegraph readers represent a very specific and small demographic spread (ask the advertising department!) Which makes the outcome representative of not very much. A similar poll of Guardian readers would give very different results. I wouldn’t agree with it, mind.
So many lies and so much information missing, in other words a perfect BBC toady show?
Tim Yeo, allowed to lie his way through the interview because the BBC fully agree and support those lies, no hard edged interview with Yeo because he sings from the same hymn sheet of lies as the BBC. And as for this lying scumbags claim that if all windmills were scrapped it would lower bills by a mere twelve pounds a year? Just another lying scumbag on the take and on the make. And note that comrade toady forgot to ask Yeo if he was personally profiting from the wind farm fraud.
Notice at the end how Yeo implied that a full 12% of the UK energy was generated by RENEWABLES deftly getting around the reality of winds terrible and sporadic actual contribution to the grid. This is where the BBC works in harmony with the windmill fraud, they work hard to peddle wind farm lies while working just as hard to keep the truth from the air and the truth is quite incredible, just how useless wind farms are, how little actual net electricity they produce, just which landowners are raking in money.
Critics and anti wind campaigners? Not invited of course, that would spoil the narrative somewhat, when I say somewhat I mean completely, this is after all the BBC. The windmill fraudsters and the BBC and the left wing press working so closely together you might think they were one and the same, they are. If it matters to the eco fraud you can be sure the BBC will air the propaganda and lies.
The rigged poll? Even comrade Even had to admit that the poll “may not have been entirely impartial” BBC speak for rigged, but that is the BBC for you. Rigged polls are what the BBC are all about, not for them real polls because real polls show windmills are hated, not for the BBC an interview with a sceptic anti wind campaigner because that would give air time to their ideological enemies and those enemies just happen to have the facts and figures that prove wind farms are a complete fraud.
The entire report was a perfect study in BBC bias, a master class for North Korea or Persian TV to follow and copy.
“Renewables”? I notice Evan failed to ask Yeo what constituted “renewables” (although it included “wind”). Evan also failed to ask Yeo where the 12% figure was sourced. I suspected, as is usual with scum like Yeo, the figure was simply plucked out of the air and Yeo assumed – quite correctly – that it would be unchallenged by Evan.
A 10 second google uncovered this information which is a table statutorily provided by the UK electricity industry concerning the fuel mix of their supplies. It shows that renewables currently provide less than 6% of the total. Oh dear, so Yeo was lying after all. What a surprise! Well, not a surprise to you, not to me and, most probably, not even to Evan. But, there again, unlike you and me Evan wasn’t interested. If he had been he’d have asked.
Good catch. I assume the line of defense for this dogma is that it would be 12% if all of it worked all the time and at peak efficiency. But Davis already “knows” it to be true, as anyone with religious faith will understand.
Indeed, Evan appears to be another possessor of this arcane knowledge concerning the efficacy of wind factories that is withheld from the rest of us who live outside the watermelon bubble.
However, one of my points was that if a lowly commenter on B-BBC can get hold of this info in less than 10 seconds googling, what “research” is being done by Evan and his assistants at “Today?
My conclusion is that either no research is done prior to these nonsense interviews (since the purpose of the interview is not to elicit knowledge but to propagandise for the approved BBC “line”) or, just as likely and much worse, the research is done and its results ignored.
Mind you, ignoring unfriendly facts thrown up by research is one of the features (actually the feature) of warmism and climate “science”: if the data don’t agree with the theory, the climate “scientists” dump the data.
I believe Yeo thinks we should be bribed to accept wind farms, I would rather have a secure and affordable energy supply. I will leave corruption to the likes of Yeo, the experts.
“We’ll never know as the respectful Davis didn’t ask.”
But, of course, they never ask do they. These people describe themselves as “journalists” and, since they’re working for the BBC, “fearless” and, laughably, “impartial”. But if the obvious question – as in this case – would have discomfitted Yeo and, by extension, warmists everywhere it never would be asked.
Another example of an obvious question which was never asked was Humphrys’ failure to ask the thugs demonstrating in Athens for all bankers to be lynched, the rich to be impoverished and for Greece to keep on spending (while not paying any taxes) what exactly was the alternative considering Greece was (and is) going down the tubes. The answer might even have been interesting but, whatever it was, it would have been enlightening. Unfortunately for us outside his magic circle, enlightening hoi polloi is not the role Humphrys sees for his “journalism”. Rather its purpose is to convey the Humphrys view of the world to us ignorati out here.
In general with the BBC, the simple reason why the obvious question is not asked might be that the answer (or, in Yeo’s case, the probable waffle/lack of answer) could damage the BBC “line” on whatever’s under “discussion”. Of course – and this is the reason I would go for – it’s more than possible that these “journalists”, supposedly at the top of their profession are, in reality, equivalent to the mass of our politicians – lazy, corrupt and incompetent.
Again, the bias (and incompetence) are so blatant, it’s (almost) funny . . or would be if the BBC’s domination of the broadcast news/current affairs medium wasn’t almost all-encompassing.
I see elsewhere Humphreys is paid around a third of a million a year. But he is principled and doesn’t pass it through a company to dodge tax like more than a few of his mates. I think he should be put on performance related pay. That we he would be paid nothing and we all would save a fortune.
If wind farms are so good does that mean the Nulabour Islington and Hampstead Gardens will be covered in them.
I think it is only right that the Cultural marxists comrades should have them there. It might make up for these areas lack of people from our countries great multicultural community.
On the face of it, this is proof positive that renewable energy is the way to go – I mean even the public are behind it.
Now in normal circumstances such self evident prrof would be dangled before our eyes and shoved in our faces. We’d see the whole document.
So it is somewhat odd that they haven’t given us a PDF of the report for us to digest at our own leisure.
Hmmm I wonder why?
Germany is going the green route
Click to access 2012_01_09_EIKE_Germa_energy_turnaround_english.pdf
Now you know why they invented the word “Schadenfreude”
Is the site under DOS attack or something? – haven’t been able to e through or 2 hrs.
or alternatively “..get through for 2hrs”
And the run up to the latest ecofascisti love in continues on the BBC toady with Blacks propaganda piece about how ecofascism started with a book by one R Carson called ‘silent spring’ or how economic industrial development was destroying the earth.
It was of course a bag of lies and this one book has killed more people than Hitler managed via the ban on DDT. Not mentioned was that ecofascism was encouraged as a method of destroying the West via de industrialisation and was financed by the KGB, a method of attacking the West in conjunction with Union infiltration. This 60s generation is now in key positions of power and authority and de industrialisation of the West continues apace, this is what they were programmed for in the first place.
It is called the watermellon ideology, a coating of green to hide the red underneath and a very effective way of recruiting young impressionable fools to the cause of Marxist revolutionary warfare. Get these young fools to believe that capitalism is destroying the earth and feed these fools a steady diet of Marxist ideology, brainwash them into believing that by destroying the West the earth would be saved.
The bulk of the BBC movers and shakers started off in these Marxist revolutionary incubators called universities, now they reflect this brainwashing in everything they do. An insulated bubble of comrades who think alike, have the same friends and beliefs and history.
IIRC over 1 million people dies every year from Malaria, a disease that can be easily eradicated through the use of DDT.
Silent Spring has therefore killed nearly 50 million people, that’s more that Stalin, never mind Hitler!
And the man-made global warming juggernaut driven by the IPCC/UN/WWF/Greenpeace facilitates the agenda perfectly. No wonder the eco-fascists/Marxists will defend this barmpot hypothesis to the last.
Following the item on Today I went to the Independent and found the survey was carried out in ntown and cities, excluding rural areas.
Strange that was detected and questioned on the programme.
In fact the comments page on the Inde had numerous readers pointing this out and deriding wind farms; and that folks was in the leftie press!
Sorry need to repost I omitted the word ‘not’.
Following the item on Today I went to the Independent and found the survey was carried out in town and cities, excluding rural areas.
Strange that was not detected and questioned on the programme.
In fact the comments page on the Inde had numerous readers pointing this out and deriding wind farms; and that folks was in the leftie press!
I think Evan admitted that the poll was not exactly unbiased (in statistical terms) but – as he and Yeo (but not the Lincolnshire councillor) agreed – it could still form the solid “neutral” foundation for Yeo’s lies and Evan’s “impartial” questioning. It’s just another application of the “false but true” doctrine used by the BBC when either it is found out in a big lie (eg its coverage of the war in Lebanon) or just wishes to assert its chosen “line” irrespective of the lack of, or contrary indications arising from, the evidence.
The near top billing this wind farm poll was given on radio news bulletins is very suspicious.
Polls strongly in favour of things the BBC disapproves of, such as control of immigration, leaving the EU or bringing back the death penalty would not be mentioned at all, and at best tucked away in a corner of the BBC website.
‘Renewable’. I’d love someone to explain that one to me.
It’s that ‘sustainable’ one that is the most pie in the sky. How many wind turbines or solar installations would it take to replace just one conventional power station !?
And how much of the earth’s non-sustainable resources are used in their manufacture, maintenance and eventual replacement? They are just a leftie/eco-fascist fantasy, sold through lies and spin.
IIRC Didcot is capable of producing around 4GW. As your average windmill is rated at 2MW thats 2000 windmills to replace it.
However as those 2000 windmills would need a 4GW power station on standby (in case the wind drops) then they’d have to build another Didcot as a backup ….
Ah it all makes such lovely sense. 🙁
I hear the propeller blades are powered by perpetual motion.
Thanks for that Sultan, I’m now totally convinced.
‘I love wind turbines, O’ Brien’.
Taken from a comment in the failygraph now disappeared into the darkness. We are not meant to know about the stunning levels of corruption at the heart of the regime, the BBC put aside its usual hatred for the Tories as it covered up for this common criminal and those who have bought him. Take a look at the degenerate nature of this squalid regime.
from Tim Yeo’s registered business interests at They Work For You.
ITI Energy Limited; suppliers of gasification equipment.
AFC Energy; company developing alkaline fuel cell technology. Address: Unit 71.4 Dunsfold Park, Stovolds Hill, Cranleigh, Surrey, GU6 8TB. Undertake duties as Chair, run board meetings and keep in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £3,750. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 20 March 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 9 May 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 13 June 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 11 July 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 22 August 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 12 September 2011. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 7 October 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £5,000, 14 November 2011. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £5,000, 13 December 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Received payment of £5,000, 10 January 2012. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 9 February 2012)
So Yeo received £41,250 for 104 hours “work???” on a product which can be used by:
Eco City Vehicles plc, Hemming House, Hemming Street, London, E1 5BL; distributes and services London taxis. Duties include chairing board meetings and keeping in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £3,333.33. Hours: 10hrs. (Registered 20 March 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 23 May 2011. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 June 2011. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 August 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 September 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 24 October 2011. Hours: 6 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
A total of £20,000 for 50 hours “work” for an electric car company.
So thats a handy £61,000 in addition to his salary as a Conservative M.P., for which I hope the electors of Suffolk South will duly take into consideration at the next election.
So there you have it, one Tory crook on the take and on the make and in the pocket of the renewables fraudsters. This is your government in action, a bought and paid for stooge perverting and destroying our economy to line his pockets with money he doesnt even need. The BBC loves him, one of their own.
Good research. Sounds like a small-time Gore.