David Attenborough has long had a fan club amongst the climate change fraternity….they had already co-opted the BBC to their cause with Roger Harrabin’s help but  felt they needed the likes of David Attenborough, TV Royalty, to successfully sell the global warming message to a doubting public exploiting the status, authority and respect he has built up over the decades.

He finally surrendered to the lobbyists and is now busy promoting the ‘science’….not all are convinced that he hasn’t sold his own soul in doing so:

From WUWT:

Has David Attenborough Become A Propaganda Mouthpiece Promoting Climate Fear?

Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University.

David Attenborough was my favorite wildlife cinematographer and each year I fed my students numerous clips to make biology and ecology come alive. Researching the plight of the polar bears, I began to worry that “my hero” had decided to use his spectacular wildlife videos to promote catastrophic climate change.

The first example that raised my suspicions was his portrayal of polar bears feeding on walruses, with a narration suggesting it was a new behavior desperately driven by climate change. But for us ecologists who know better: shame on you David Attenborough. He ignored documented wildlife history, and cherry-picked a dramatic scene to promote climate fear.

Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows polar bears have been hunting walruses since recorded history, and most certainly before that time.

Shameful propaganda Sir David!

…to deny them their fun…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RgO5xpn5ZI

Via Bishop Hill.

This article examines the changes that have been wrought on the BBC’s science broadcasting….essentially the dumbing down and the belief that the audience can’t understand the science and therefore should just ‘obey’ the diktats of scientists and their TV promoters:

The excellent 1996 Horizon episode on Fermat’s Last Theorem was directed by Simon Singh. Whereas Singh in the 1990s had high expectations of his audience, his more recent comments suggest that his view of his fellow humans has diminished:

I suspect that climate numpties (numpty (noun): a reckless, absent-minded or unwise person) are far more common than we might think, and they can be found in the most surprising of places.

This became apparent to me when I was having lunch one day with five physics undergraduates from a London college. They were clearly bright, devoted to physics and fully paid-up fans of the scientific method. However, not one of them was committed to the notions that climate change was happening, that it was largely caused by human activity (eg the burning of fossil fuels) and that there would be trouble ahead unless something changed.

I was baffled – why would little versions of me (for I was a physics undergraduate over two decades ago) not accept manmade climate change when it was backed by overwhelming evidence and endorsed by the vast majority of climate experts, Nobel Laureates and even David Attenborough?

A climate sceptic can either be intelligent or honourable, said Singh, but not both at the same time.

This gesture, like so many other comments made by science commentators/communicators reveals much about how they see the public. Singh’s injunction to the 5 delinquent physicists was not to find out for themselves what the state of the science is — i.e. ‘trust no one’ — but to obey the edicts issued by David King and David Attenborough

 From informing to performing

Put simply, science as it is conceived of by the BBC’s commissioning editors is not a way of understanding material phenomena. It has become instead something to gawp at in slack-jawed wonderment. It has become a spectacle. The transformation here is in the broadcasters’ expectations of the public. Over the course of 14 years, the BBC’s estimation of its audience diminished.

As well as reflecting the broadcasters’ diminished estimation of the viewing public, the transformation of British science broadcasting reflects the transformation of British science. It is remarkable that the descent of Horizon occurs over the era in which the cultural authority of science increased, while institutions like the BBC and Royal Society increasingly seem to express contempt for the public. Whereas Britain’s public institutions once sought to elevate the public, they now condescend, hector and belittle them.

The article finishes off with the thought that climate change has become something that institutions like the BBC have made so essential to their credibility and identity that it just has to be true regardless of whether it is or not:

There are many lessons in Ehrlich’s failures, which reveal the ‘politics and ideology’ at work in the ideas that are still promoted by the BBC and Royal Society. They have not been thrown away by Horizon. Indeed, just as climate change rescued Ehrlich’s ideas, climate change and neomalthusianism ideas seem to have rescued the institutions that identify themselves with them. That’s not to say that ‘climate change is not happening’, but that if it wasn’t, The Royal Society, The BBC, the institutions that fund public science, and so many tired old broadcasters might have to invent it.

I think this could be filed under ‘Mission Creep’ for the climate alarmists who find ever more ingenious ways of inflicting their madness upon us.

Nothing to do with BBC bias but an astonishing illustration of how the lunacy is taking over every aspect of life……they now want to measure the carbon footprint of criminals….putting an environmental cost on crime…and they speculate that perhaps police could respond not to the seriousness of the crime but to the amount of carbon emitted by the perp….no seriously…via Bishop Hill:

From one of our illustrious MPs (Labour):

In terms of crime itself, I think what they are getting at in the carbon cost of particular crimes is that murder is by far the top of the list, serious wounding second. Serious wounding there is a lot more of so it generates a much bigger carbon footprint. Do you think we will ever get to the day, for instance, where police response times will be analysed not just on the physical and emotional nature of the crime but the carbon nature of the crime? What I am thinking is that the analysis showed that the carbon footprint of crime by non-dwelling is higher than crime by dwelling itself. Do you think we would ever make crime in a non-dwelling a higher response?

We know that the Tories allegedly joined forces with the Guardian to spread racist smears about UKIP….but it turns out there might have been a third person in that marriage of convenience:

David Cameron woos BBC News chief at Chequers and ‘says he relies on him as antidote to Eurosceptic Press’

David Cameron will have been pleased the BBC wheeled on EU enthusiasts Tony Blair, Kenneth Clarke and Michael Heseltine to portray the victory of Ukip as a ‘populist’ aberration.

The PM entertained BBC news chief James Harding at Chequers, telling him – according to Broadcasting House talk – that he relied on the corporation to provide an antidote to the Eurosceptic views of some newspapers and voters.

The BBC in cahoots with a political party to do down another political party during an election?

‘according to Broadcasting House talk ‘…..if it was found to be true, and Nigel Farage should be making a hell of a stink about this allegation to find out if it is, who would go?  Surely Tony Hall not just Harding.

The BBC might claim that they Cameron may have made such a suggestion but they didn’t act upon it…..some might counter that with evidence from the BBC’s actual coverage which might be less than supportive of the BBC’s case.

Probably one of the most damaging and dangerous allegations about the BBC that could be made….so it owuld be interesthing to see if anything is made of this by UKIP or other Media.

Dan Hodges has become ever more desperate at the prospect of UKIP getting a permanent place in the hearts and minds, and on the voting slips, of the British people….even more so than the BBC, almost.

He’s denounced them as racist, and when he realised that this was not such a good idea as UKIP routed the other parties and he was ridiculed by thousands of comments under his articles, he’s decided to claim well, actually, not many people really voted for UKIP at all…apparently the Tories won the elections.

Anyway here is a comment, from ‘dissidentjunk’, under Hodge’s cry in the wilderness which might be of interest…..

One year to the general election….we could probably fill an open thread every day with the BBC’s bias as the charities, pressure groups and think tanks clamour for airtime, so readily given, to pronounce the coming apocalypse if the Tories get voted into power again….only today we heard the anthem for doomed youth blasting out on the BBC as yet another left leaning charity, Save The Children, warns us that welfare cuts and the cost of living crisis are going to  ‘sentence’ the young to a life of poverty in the near future….sounding remarkably like a Labour Party broadcast.

Hi all. I’ve been away for a few days so apologies this is late. For my sins, I watched a little of BBC World News. It is arguably even worse than what we endure in the UK!!!

As noted in the last post the big battalions are mobilising to defend the European Supremacy and Domination over us.

You might note a couple of things…that when the die-hards list the benefits of the European Adventure the BBC doesn’t counter with the disadvantages….that when UKIP, and its voters, are called nasty and racist the BBC doesn’t step in to challenge that….that when some dissembling politician says he is in favour of ‘controlled immigration’ and that UKIP wants to stop all immigration and start a race war the BBC again doesn’t correct that claim.

You could have heard all those claims, and more,  made today in an interview on the Today programme between Jim Naughtie and Tony Blair (08:10).

Why Tony Blair should be given prime spot on the Today programme is beyond me….or would be if I didn’t think the BBC had an agenda.

You might think that the BBC had dragged in Blair to point the finger of blame at him for the mess the political parties find themselves now in due to his policy of open door immigration and ever closer submission to the EU behemoth…but you’d be wrong.

It turned out to be a lightweight session with Naughtie lobbing in a few feeder questions to allow Blair to justify mass immigration, staying in Europe and to smear UKIP and its voters.

Naughtie asked the questions, Blair gave his spiel and they moved on to the next one without Naughtie challenging anything.  Job done.

Should the EU hand back some powers to the nation states?   Yes…but…..we can’t really do anything serious without Europe….we must take on those who are  anti-Europe, anti-Immigration….confront, expose and take them on.

You want a more positive case made for Europe?  Yes…..the rationale for Europe is stronger than ever….it’s all about power…weight, influence and power…you need alliances to exercise that…Europe is the answer (not NATO or the US? Naughtie doesn’t ask)   and this was the man who spurned the UN & Europe…..

[Note here Blair admits the purpose of Europe was to diminish the nation state]

Isn’t the likelihood of exit higher than ever?  No…and it is against the interests of the country.

What would you advise Ed Miliband to do?  Say no to referendum and keep the borders wide open.

Nick Clegg tried that argument and look what happened.  The problem with the LibDems is that their failure had nothing to do with Europe…or Immigration…their problem is that they are too right wing.

Did you make a ‘mistake’ about immigration when you were in office?   No,  you have to have proper controls but to allow that to trend into anti-immigrant feeling is a huge mistake…..if you look a little deeper at UKIP’s facade you get something a little nasty and unpleasant…..

Nothing nasty and unpleasant about Blair & Co….

…and Blair excitedly tells us……just look at the wonders of London and the incredible vibrancy and cosmopolitan feel that immigrants have brought to it.

So no difficult questions, no challenges to his answers and no counters to the smears he propagates against anyone who wants to limit immigration or divorce Europe…..no accusations that Blair himself is the architect of this ‘disaster’.

Note Naughtie suggesting Blair’s immigration policy was merely a ‘mistake’….that suggests they had a genuine attempt at implementing a suitable immigration policy but got it wrong….whereas we know that the strategy was a deliberate and calculated attempt to carry out a policy the results of which were known and expected…..mass immigration, job losses and wage cuts for the working class, housing shortages and social problems.

Blair says he is all in favour, and always has been, of controlled immigration…an obvious lie….Naughtie said nothing.

Blair then claims UKIP wants to stop all immigration and incites anti-immigrant feeling….again not true….they accept immigration but want it controlled…just as Blair said he does.  Again nothing from Naughtie.

When Blair calls UKIP racist Naughtie again says nothing…and yet there is nothing racist about UKIP’s policies…to conflate a few tweets from fringe members with party policy is highly dishonest….there are just as many such people in any other party which have their own fringe elements.

Just another ‘interview’ from a Labour supporting Naughtie on the pro-immigration, pro-Europe BBC feeding questions to the boss and giving him a platform to perform.

The machine is in motion.  It’s going to be a long year.

The day after the Euro elections end the pro-Europe propaganda begins. (H/T  Is the BBC biased?)

Mark Easton, the BBC’s very own pro-immigration/Europe Goebbels is back on our screens (23 mins 50) telling us that we all secretly long to be European, that in fact, due to ‘waves of European migrnats landing on our shores over 1000’s of years’ we are a country shaped by Europe.

Conclusion?  We should happily accept uncounted numbers of Europeans flooding over our borders without question and embrace ‘Europe’….you just have to ask…is this an opportunity or a threat?

Apparently we are becoming more European in our culture and daily life…he didn’t expand on that….probably because it was bollocks.

Or rather, ‘we’ as in the rich and edumacated…the poor, the tabloid readers, the less well educated  who don’t travel, don’t broaden their horizons and don’t have enlightened values thereof..and hence don’t realise what a boon it is to be subsumed by a European bureaucratic empire and swamped by a never ending stream of immigrants taking the housing, jobs, school places and NHS resources, naturally oppose Europe in their ignorance and prejudice.

The fools.

But hang…they don’t travel? My postman has just come back from Mauritius…with brown legs dangling out of his issue shorts to prove it….and just like him millions of working class people have travelled the world….done the old hippy trail, motorbiked around Europe, followed the football around the world, sat on the beaches in Australia, and yes toured the sights and cafes of Europe.  They are just as sophisticated, educated and worldly wise as any smug journalist on a BBC expenses junket in a linen jacket…a lot more so in fact.

People like Easton, ignorant, patrician, prejudiced and lying through their teeth, and paid for by my licence fee and using it to talk down to half the people in this country, just like his mates the politicians do, are heading for a fall.

Revolution? UKIP? Yes please. Sign me up.

This was blatant propaganda quite clearly timed to try and counter any ideas you might have that the bandwagon is rolling to exit Europe and thoughts you might entertain of jumping on board.

It is in fact a rehash of Easton’s previous fabrication about identity and immigration that we have looked at before:

Dulce et Decorum est, pro Ipsos MORI?

Easton tried to tell us that we were becoming less ‘national’, less connected to our own country…more a global citizen.

Problem is the stats just didn’t back up Easton’s interpretation…not in that survey, nor in numerous other ones that have been done.

Easton is pro-European and pro-immigration…and his BBC reports are shaped by those prejudices.

There is hardly a word that comes out of his mouth that can be trusted…there is nothing impartial or balanced about his reports.

I would have thought that it was fairly obvious to his bosses that he is totally unsuitable to present any programme about these subjects bearing in mind his clear bias.

Remember Easton is the man who told us the British Crime Survey was a thing of beauty…unchanging, reliable, representative, independent and informative…..no, it isn’t…it’s just as unreliable and dodgy as any set of stats….its computer system and software change all the time, the people who run it change, of the 40,000 people it boasts of surveying only about 1,400 make it through to the final analysis…and who does the final analysis?  A bloke sat at a desk in the Government’s Home Office who decides if each one can be classified as a crime or not…and therefore decide whether crime has gone up or down.

Reliable? Independent? My backside it is.  And neither is Easton.