Monthly Archives: March 2013

John Humphrys this morning presented a programme examining the state of the Christian religion:

For the faithful it’s a time of celebration and anticipation, a welcome relief from the problems of recent times. Recent decades have seen both churches beset by a series of issues and scandals: child sex abuse and ecclesiastical cover-ups; the place and role of women within the church; falling congregations; tensions arising from human rights and equality legislation

Are these crises too serious to overcome or too good to waste? Can the new pope and archbishop not only heal the rifts within their own churches but also find ways to speak meaningfully to societies that no longer automatically see them as moral authorities? Have these churches got anything to say to a culture that is unprecedentedly diverse and more secular than before? And is anyone still listening?

No problem with that, except of course it is yet another dig at the Christian Church whilst the BBC steadfastly refuses to do anything similar with Islam.

Christianity has suffered its problems with controversy on women in the Church, gays and sex abuse scandals.  All serious enough to merit a look.

At the same time we have people being killed , burnt out of their homes and churches, suffering massive discrimination all because they are Christian…or rather not Muslim.

We have critics of Islam hunted down and killed or numerous atempts made to kill  them, we have bombs going off in European cities because ‘non Muslim’ troops are liberating Muslims from dictators….a job apparently only suitable for other Muslims, we have Sunnis killing Shias in Iraq and Syria, we have Muslims intent on wiping out the Jews in Palestine.

And yet the BBC doesn’t like to admit Islam is in crisis or examine its problems and the consequences of those problems too closely….but even Muslims recognise there is a huge problem:

Violent fatwas worry Muslim governments
Rulers in Muslim countries are coming to terms with the fact that their religion is in a deep crisis. One sign is the growing number of fatwas or legal pronouncement ordering the murder of atheists, apostates, Israeli civilians ..
Training European imams is Islam’s toughest challenge
Most imams in Europe are foreign-born and incapable of reconciling their own Islamic background with that of the West. When this is the case as in Great Britain some young Muslims can be tempted by terrorism.

When Christianity is on the wane its problems become less important and yet the BBC still examines them…..but Islam has all the same problems and a few more of its own to add to the mix….. and Islam is on a surge in the UK ,  it might be wise to investigate the consequences but the BBC will not do so.

As I said no problem with criticism of Christianity or any other religion…as long as they are treated equally in this respect.

And the exact same criticisms might apply to the secular priesthood of the BBC…who gave them the moral authority to set the agenda….and is anyone still listening?

This morning on the Today programme John Simpson gave us an almost upbeat report on Iraq’s prospects:

‘Iraq’s future is starting to look brighter – if only its people were allowed a little peace.

So does this mean the invasion was justified? Iraqis are divided about it. Shias and Kurds, the big beneficiaries from Saddam’s overthrow, tend to agree. Most Sunnis, the big losers from it, do not.’

Sunnis of course being the beneficiaries of Saddam’s generosity…and the minority which ruled with a fist of iron. 

Simpson finished by saying that Iraq could have a bright future if only people realised that that the glass was half full….it might be time to ‘turn the page’.

Curiously the BBC website on their frontpage has chosen to miss out most of the optimistic stuff in this selection of edits from John Simpson which paints an altogether bleaker picture of Iraq….Iraq is no better…there is no future in this country  etc.

When the Iraqis have people at the BBC who do everything they can to make out Iraq is a basket case beset by violence then the country and its people will continue to struggle to pull themselves out of the mire as people who might be willing to help are put off and confidence in the country ebbs away.

BBC minions playing politics with Iraqi lives should perhaps listen to John Simpson and keep their noses out….or at least tell the truth…hard to do I know, give it a go, some Iraqi child might live to tell the tale.

Time for another one of these…a bit late but here we go ….

The BBC have, in their wisdom, decreed that climate change is occurring, it is man-made and that it is resulting in ever more extreme, or weird, weather.

They have established between themselves that because the science is settled there need be no debate about that science…all that is left to do is to convince us, the Public, that the measures that are being taken to lessen the impact of climate change, or rather to reduce climate change itself, are urgently needed.

They no longer debate the science but now indulge in promoting doomsday scenarios dramatising the effects of that supposed extremely weird weather in order to scare us into accepting highly expensive and inconvenient measures whilst also producing programmes and articles reporting the inordinate success of the green technology in producing electricity and reducing carbon emissions.

One latest example could be this as highlighted by Bishop Hill in which the BBC lazily, or all too readily, accepted a press release from the Scottish government and from the WWF, both of course highly pleased with the closure of a coal power station….whilst no other voice, for instance asking where was all the power going to come from if they keep closing down reliable and cheap methods of power generation, was heard.

All that is left is to decide how many wind turbines we need.

To help us the BBC, whilst no longer allowing debate about the actual science, promotes the success of wind farms and the urgency that the reduction in fossil fuel use requires to save the planet….never mind the Chinese et al building hundreds of coal fired power stations as we close down our own very cheap and reliable ones.

However it seems possible that the BBC are back pedalling on the ‘science is settled’ dogma.

Recent events have highlighted the uncertainties about the science….even the IPCC has admitted that there has been no warming for 17 years…not only that but many reports are surfacing that say the planet is not as sensitive to temperature change as they predicted. Along with that numerous climate change lobby claims about the ‘science’ have proven to be wrong….as well as much of the propaganda such as Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.

Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’, which indicated there was no Medieval Warm Period, was proven to be wrong, the IPCC models have proven to be wrong.

And recently we had a similar ‘Hockey Stick’ graph released which they claimed backed up Mann.

This latest effort has been thoroughly examined and found wanting…there are numerous, large discrepancies that indicate that the graph does not correspond with the actual data it was supposedly based upon…some suggest the figures have been deliberately manipulated to give the ‘right’ result.

What is interesting is that the BBC seem to have completely ignored this new report despite it being in Science magazine and headlined across numerous journals and newspapers. I haven’t been able to find any sign of it on their website nor on their twitter accounts.

There might be numerous reasons for that…one being that as the science is settled they no longer want to stir up debate again….or that because of the controversy over Mann’s Hockey Stick they decided to wait it out and see what was said about this new one by other scientists or indeed bloggers.

Or…possibly, just possibly, it could be that the BBC have seen the light….that at the moment nature and the science seem to be pointing to a far less intense warming than predicted…and the BBC are sitting on the fence whilst not admitting both their own science and their ‘no sceptics allowed’ policies are wrong.

The new, dodgy, hockey stick graph shows precisely why Sceptics are vital for the health of science… without them and the questions they raise just how much dodgy science would get approved upon which disastrous political decisions would be based with enormous economic and social consequences?

The BBC has done this country a huge disservice by banning the sceptical voice….we have only had the pleasure of hearing the sound of one hand clapping as some scientists applaud their own genius.

But as I said it seems that the BBC have had second thoughts, at least to a certain degree…..not leaping on ‘research’ that says the 20^th century is the hottest for 11,000 years, Richard Black would have been all over it, and Roger Harrabin has linked to a report about the failure of electric cars in Norway….

roger harrabin ‏@RHarrabin Electric cars are wobbling – even on Norway’s roads via Reuters http://planetark.org/wen/68152

and this morning on ‘What the papers say’ we were informed of the Daly Mail’s story about the complete failure of the global warming narrative….and of course Harrabin actually reporting the slow down much to the annoyance of the Met. Office.

It looks as if the BBC may be hedging its bets and sitting tight until something conclusive turns up…or at least until there is an upturn in the temperature trend….one year of warm weather and we will be off again, the sceptics proven wrong and an ever more urgent demands for more wind farms.

The question is just how long will they wait? If the standstill in global warming continues when will the BBC start to a question the ‘science’? When will they allow sceptics to have their say…whether it is to question the science…is global warming even happening, if so is it CO2 that causes it, is it beneficial or not for the planet, or to ask are the measures taken either way the correct ones to deal with the situation?

The two websites below provide information that will help you judge the truth, not about climate change, but about the value of wind farms and similar remedies and just how much power they generate…and thereby also judge the BBC’s reporting…is it a true picture or an exaggeration of the benefits of wind turbines for example.

 bmreports……gives real time data on the generation of power by different means.

And the National Grid ‘Future Energy Scenario’  which gives various scenarios for the generation of power.

 There is also Gridwatch which gives data for power generation.

Facts and Figures

The current capacity of wind power connected to the transmission system that we forecast for is 5.5GW (Jan 2013). This capacity is expected to continue to increase during 2013/14 and could reach 32GW of wind generation capacity by 2020.

The Climate Change Act 2008 and the Renewable Energy Directive 2009, introduced by the brothers Miliband demand that we generate 15% of our power by renewables by 2020,  80% by 2050 using 1990 as a baseline.

Air/water heat pumps are the answer to heating our homes and reducing power use…installed in 1.5million homes by 2015,  2.5m homes by 2020 and 9m homes by 2030.

Loft and cavity wall insulation is also of great benefit…paying for itself within 5 years.

All new build homes will be zero carbon by 2016.

Lighting is 10% of domestic demand….low energy bulbs have reduced demand by 25% since 2005.

All electrical appliances are now more efficient and reduce power use.

Smart meters with time use tariffs will be introduced to all homes by 2019…..only useful if they are based on price tariffs and have appliances which automatically switch off on peak power say….may mean a 4% reduction in demand.

Electric vehicles are a key component of the carbon reduction plan…judging by Norway’s experience that isn’t going to work.

Much of the coal power generation capacity will be closed by 2023, nuclear will not be built until a similar time whilst gas will be providing 39Gw by 2030.

Wind will provide 32Gw by 2020 and 55 by 2030…..2009 we had 2GW installed, 280Mw built in 2012 and 2Gw looking for consent and 2.9Gw in planning.

Other renewables are of negligible value.

Here are some actual generation figures for wind:

Peak power delivered by wind at 0300 am and 1100 pm, very useful…wind provides 5% of our electricity, coal 44%, nuclear 22% and gas 24%….so just how many more wind turbines do we need to replace coal?

This graph is from the National Grid’s ‘Future Energy Scenario’ (page 55), sorry about the quality…it is the middle ‘gone green’ scenario and shows that demand could be met by conventional means even in 2030….so presumably we will be paying not only for the same conventional generating sources as now plus all the renewables as well…no wonder our bills are soaring ever upwards….

This is of interest from the head of the IPCC:

‘I would like to start by saying that I am not deaf to those who do not agree with the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Nor, indeed, to those who do not agree with the findings – or, in some cases, the existence – of the IPCC.

Such scepticism is inevitable, and has been the case with every area of new knowledge that has burst into human consciousness.

We who are on the side of the consensus must remind ourselves that the evolution of knowledge thrives on debate.’

 The BBC hasn’t reported this yet…it seems to have greatly disturbed the green lobbyists as their capturing of young and impressionable minds is put at risk……..

Climate debate cut from national curriculum for children up to 14 

Exclusive: New draft guidelines for key stages 1 to 3 criticised by scientists for ‘abdicating duty to future generations’

The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue.

Roger Harrabin’s mate, Dr Joe Smith is also less than impressed.

This morning on the Today programme  (51 mins)we had the pleasure of Labour’s Margaret Hodge …..not to be questioned as to the tax dealings of her brother’s company Stemcor, or her use of family trusts, but to be given free rein to slander and malign the Coalition’s attempts to deal with tax avoidance.

She was allowed to claim that the Coalition had no policies, no staff  or investment to tackle the problem and that it was all essentially being done on the back of an envelope….there should be more resources..’just think John for every one pound invested we get 10 back!’

John Humphrys said nothing and let her get away with that without interruption or comment.

Humphrys then brought on Danny Alexander and interrupted constantly.  Humphrys demanded to know why Alexander was running such a shambolic and ineffective operation….why didn’t he know about certain tax dodges?

‘Somebody should have known…why didn’t you know??

Alexander revealed the truth that of course the government and HMRC were looking intensively at such schemes and were successfully putting a stop to many of them…they have invested £1 bn and will be taking in £9 bn extra tax revenue because of the measures implemented.

John Humphrys stamps on Alexander when he says that this is far better than under Labour.

It seems OK for Hodge to lie through her teeth without challenge but mention Labour and you get slapped down pretty sharpish.

Humphrys realises he is onto a loser and falls back on a rather pathetic attempt to make the Coalition look bad….asking  ‘you, the Coalition, keep saying you are doing things…why haven’t you done them?’

What a hopeless interview….Humphrys must know exactly what measures the government has taken to tackle tax avoidance…..and if not why not?

‘Today‘ is supposed to be our premier news programme. 

You’d get more news, and more accurate news, from a crystal ball.

This may be of interest to the more expert of our readers who can probably show me where I have gone wrong in my calculations…the BBC are pretty quick to highlight apparent success of power generation by ‘renewables’…but should they be digging a bit deeper…are wind turbines any where near as good as even the very modest claims that are made for them?

Having seen the BBC report on Scottish renewables I had  a look and checked some of the figures…not being a climate expert, or technically literate or brilliant with numbers this may be all wrong but have  a look yourself:

Scotland produces 126% of its power needs.
Of that 26.8%  is generated by renewables.

Around 36% of ‘consumed’ power comes from renewables.

The rest comes from conventional sources.

Consumed power is obviously 100% of Scotland’s needs  and yet it generates 126%……the surplus is exported.

Those figures suggest that conventional sources still produce 99.2% of power generated  as renewables produce 26.8% in total.  (You could claim renewables only produce 0.8% of Scottish power depending how you report the figures)

Therefore Scotland is paying for all the renewable sources on top of its conventional capacity which could by itself still keep the lights on in Scotland.

Scotland gets money back for its exported power…but is it at a price that repays the investment in renewables that produce it?  And what happens when they have closed the sources of that power down…the revenue stream that subsidises renewables dries up?
It is also apparent that wind farms are not producing anywhere near the power that they promise…it is hydro that is producing the bulk of the renewable power and in a far more efficient way…and that is considering hydro is itself only (I believe) 25-30% efficient…whilst the Scottish government claims wind is uniquely 40% efficient in Scotland.
In 2011:

Onshore wind capacity = 3.6 Gw…..it generated 7,004 GwHr
Hydro capacity …………= 1.5 Gw……it generated 5,332 GwHr

Giving a generation figure per Gw of capacity:

OSW….1945.5 GwHr/Gw capacity
Hydro…3554.7 GwHr/Gw capacity
Hydro is more expensive but it looks far more efficient at converting capacity to actual power.

I could be wrong…check it yourself…used this site (one unlikely to downplay the ‘success’ of renewables) for the figures and also this site from the Scottish Government.

Whilst CO2 reduction is the only game in town it seems that the wind turbine is not the answer.

No one has told the BBC yet…or they certainly aren’t telling us.

Some more wide open acres of blog to note the BBC’s foul play for those not out enjoying the sunshine.

Up to 20,000 patients may have died unnecessarily under the care of the NHS.

Whilst they have been given a decent burial the BBC seems to be attempting to bury the bad news…or at least the Labour Party’s involvement in it as the government of the day.

The BBC has consistently, across different platforms, avoided using the word ‘Labour’ when talking about this subject…even in a 10 minute interview with Labour’s Andy Burnham..no mention….that’s just not possible is it?

The impression you may get is that it is under the Coalition’s government that all this happened.

The refusal to even mention ‘Labour’ can only lead to one conclusion…th BBC intends that whilst they can’t avoid the dates being linked to Labour nothing else will be…it can only be an organised,  concerted effort, considering it is being carried out across different platforms and from different reporters, that this ploy is operating to distance ‘Labour’ from any blame.

No mention of ‘Labour’ at all in this frontpage report

No mention of ‘Labour’ in this interview with Sir Brian Jarman.

No mention of ‘Labour’ in this interview on the Today programme  (08:32)with Labour’s Shadow Health Minister Andy Burnham.

What sort of euphemisms did John Humphry’s use instead of Labour government?

The ‘Department of Health’

Or information was brought ‘to attention of senior NHS officials’

Andy Burnham was ‘Secretary of State’ or ‘former health minister’…..or it was ‘Your government’.

Never one single mention of the word ‘Labour’.

This is what Professor Sir Brian Jarman told us:

His attempt to collate information on death rates was ‘unpopular with ministers and was resisted for years’.

They didn’t like the fact that he was gathering the statistics.

In 2007 he issued a report but the Labour government added this phrase…

‘We advise readers to take no notice of this data.’

Humphrys laid all the blame at the feet of David Nicholson…who undoubtedly played his part…but who was in charge and who set the targets culture up?

A Lancet report suggests that troops coming back from the frontline are more likely to be violent.

Nicky Campbell is running a phone-in asking:  ‘Does the Army mess you up?’

When we have Muslim suicide bombers telling us they are acting in the name of Islam does the BBC ask:  ‘Does being a Muslim mess you up?’

No…it says they are madmen or criminals perverting that glorious religion.

The BBC is all too keen to kick the Army or the Police…which is odd really when you read from the BBC’s own report that in fact those in the Army are less criminal than civilians:

‘Overall criminal activity was slightly lower in military personnel than in people of the same age in the wider population. Some 94% of men returning from combat zones will not offend.’

That story gets 2nd billing on the Frontpage…the one below gets no report at all on the website…….

By coincidence the Muslim Brotherhood have released a document decalring the UN’s statement on the rights of women will destroy society as it goes against the tenets of Islam.

The BBC’s response on 5Live…to bring on a ‘women’s rights’ campaigner…a Muslim, who declares the Muslim brotherhood have it all wrong…Islam isn’t like that at all.

From the Washington Post:

‘Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood say UN document on violence against women violates Islamic rules.’

It seems that the story only made an appearance on 5Live to push the BBC’s very own interpretation of Islam…..it’s a wonderful, enlightened, peaceful religion that embraces tolerance for other religions and empowers women.

 Via Bishop Hill

This video demonstrates perfectly why the BBC’s refusal to engage in debate about climate change is a damning breach of trust as it abandons its own values and responsibilities to ‘inform, educate and  entertain’.

There are three main questions that need to be answered when talking about climate change:

1.  Is climate change happening?

2. If so what is causing that change?

3. Is any such change good or bad for the planet?

You almost have to answer that last question first in reality because only if you do that can you decide a course of action should mankind then be found responsible to any extent.

If climate change is in fact mostly beneficial is it the sensible thing to take drastic actions that have seriously detrimental effects on the economy, lifestyles and well being of the population…especially when other nations carry on regardless?

Regardless of what is causing climate change the BBC should be allowing a wide variety of voices and opinions to be heard instead of the usual advocates clammering to close down industry.

Is fossil fuel in fact, as suggested in this video, the saviour of Planet Earth from an ever growing population, saving forests from being hacked down and increasing crop yields incredibly.  And is CO2 more food than pollutant for the planet?

At the very least the BBC must reappraise the effects of climate change……benefit or detriment?