WHAT YOU WON’T SEE ON THE BBC

…is this sort of journalistic inquiry by the quietly brilliant blog Harmless Sky. Here, it rips apart the idea that green energy – and in particular wind power – is gaining traction as an industry. The stark reality is that people aren’t investing their cash in wind power because it’s not a viable proposition. Share prices have slumped despite the ridiculously massive government subsidies. This reality check ought to be high on the agenda of the latest round of UN climate talks, which opened today, and the BBC should be analysing such issues with robust fierceness. Instead, Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s resident greenie parrot, spouts the usual eco-nut nonsense about his peoples’ worries that “agreement” (ie more measures to hobble the developed world)will not be reached. Oh, and our investigative-journalist-of-the-year Roger has apparently deliberately also ignored (for now at least) the hottest news about the UN talks: that IPCC boss Patchy Pachauri is under investigation again.

SPLATTERGATE…

I was away at the weekend so have only just picked up on the full horrors of the Splattergate film saga, in which kids who do not believe in global warming lunacy are blown up by their teacher and their body parts spattered on their warmist chums. Richard North has covered what warming fanatics really want to do with their opponents admirably (scroll down for several items on the topic); I particularly liked his links to Hitler’s treatment of dissenters or those considered impure.

What I haven’t seen mentioned is that Richard Curtis, the creative genius behind this whole disgusting wheeze, is a particular darling of the BBC and remains a trustee of its favourite charity, the warmist zealots Comic Relief. And the BBC website gives acres of space here to the makers of the film for them to explain that the whole escapade was OK really, it’s just been seen in some senstive quarters as bad taste. As usual, there’s not a peep in the story from anyone who would spell out that the makers are arguably certifiable, warped lunatics who have a central hold on BBC ideology.

TAKING THE BISCUIT…

The extremist mindset of the boys and girls of the BBC is laid bare in an exchange of letters between a few highly-paid BBC “stars” who do not want to strike next week and those who do. Those “stars” – led by the likes of James Naughtie and Jeremy Paxman (paid, of course, massive salaries out of your money) – say that the NUJ strike, aimed at blacking out Dave Cameron’s speech at his party conference, should not go ahead because it will demonstrate political bias. Putting aside for a second the risibility of the idea that the BBC is not biased, the reponse from Ian Pollock, the BBC NUJ branch chairman, illustrates graphically the cloud cuckoo-land nature of the BBC worldview. He says:

“Frankly, I do not take kindly to non-members trying to unpick democratically taken decisions (NB, only a tiny fraction of the 17,000 workforce voted for the strike)…There is a simple fact…the other political conferences would have been targeted too but fell outside our scope because of the long-winded niceties of calling strikes. Not one NUJ member…has suggested targeting the Tories because we don’t like them(!)…They simply happen to be the first in line….If you have better tactical suggestions for conducting strikes…I will be glad to hear them. But I have to tell you that taking Shaun the Sheep cartoons off air will not cut the mustard.”

Many years ago, I was a BBC NUJ father of the chapel. Even by the standards of demented BBC militancy and arrogance, this takes the biscuit.

NUCLEAR NONSENSE

The greenie news editors at the BBC salivate every time they hear about plans to build a nuclear power station. It’s their chance to create more anti-development propaganda. The subject matter today is Sri Lanka, one of the poorer countries on this earth, with a GDP per head of around £3,500. They desperately need cheap energy to make their lives more comfortable and to generate more wealth.

So when the Sri Lanka government decides to build a nuclear power station to help ameliorate poverty, what is the BBC response? Simples, as they say. Let’s talk to a few greenie agitators and stir up a rumpus. The story is specially risible, even by the corporation’s standards set by Black, Harrabin and co. First, the island is “too small” for a nuclear power plant. That will be an island that is 25,000 square miles (more than a quarter of the size of the UK). Second, there’s enough power available from “renewables”. Cobblers. Here’s the latest report on why the said renewables will never be economically viable, anywhere.

What the BBC really wants is to keep Sri Lanka in a permanent poverty, trapped in the European middle class greenie idyll of “sustainable” and “ecologically sound”. What’s completely missing from this story is – predictably – any mention of the case for providing cheap, affordable energy. But then the BBC is not in the business of providing balanced coverage of such matters.

BLACK WATER….

Today’s a bit of a red-letter day in that the Royal Society – the BBC’s favourite bunch of warmist zealots – has been forced by its members to modify its predictions about climate change so that it now says, according to today’s Times:

“The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

Nothing so far on the BBC website about this, but Richard Black ploughs on relentlessly in his warmist furrow. This morning, he reports another of the endless stream of alarmist features in Nature, this one about “water security”, another greenie obsession. From my reading, the article itself does not mention much about climate change, concentrating instead on pollution. But have no fear, our non-scientist Richard is determined to put his own spin on things, so he turns to the world’s most alarmist organisation, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, despite the fact that – as he himself acknowledges – they had nothing to do with the report or the research it is allegedly based upon. This is what they say, with wearying predictability:

“Climate change is going to affect the amount of water that comes in as precipitation; and if you overlay that on an already stressed population, we’re rolling the dice.”

With Alice in Wonderland erudition and sophistication like that, you can really tell where the BBC’s £1bn a year expenditure on broadcast journalism is going.

GREEN TOSH….

If there’s a green story, you can rely on the BBC to take the most alarmist line, and then exaggerate further. David Shukman is at it again here; reporting without qualification of the faintest whiff of doubt fears that scientists think that 20% of plant species are “at risk”. His source for the scare is International Union for the Conservation of Nature, a neutral-sounding body that actually is made up of climate change zealots. If you doubt me, look here. The solution, of course, is to ban the burning of fossil fuels, to impose more green taxes and have a world government under Ban-Ki-Moon and his henchmen.

What Mr Shukman carefully doesn’t mention is that there are many scientists who believe that such reports are a load of tosh. Stephen Budiansky’s blog cogently shows why here; the whole biodiversity movement, which Mr Shukman is so stridently publicising, is built on pillars of sand.

THINGS YOU WON’T SEE ON THE BBC

Richard Black, discussing windfarms, gives unmoderated almost endless space to a nutter who wants to get rid of Britain’s planning laws so that millions of acres of our countryside can be blighted by these unnecessary monstrosities. He fails to mention anything about the huge cost or the level of subsidy required – facts easily available to him via Christopher Booker’s column.

This BBC article tells us that Wembley stadium is selling halal meat to its customers whether they like it or not. But don’t worry, friends. It has a quote from a Muslim saying that slitting an unstunned and fully conscious animal’s throat – as is required in this barbaric ritual – is not cruel. Missing from the BBC is any mention that to their eternal shame, Waitrose, Tesco’s and M and S have all, like Wembley, been lying through their teeth about their alleged commitment to animal welfare. All of them think it’s OK to sell us without telling us meat that has been slaughtered in this vile way. For the BBC, of course, it’s not an issue; anything Muslims do in the name of their religion must be condoned – or brushed under the carpet.

BLACK CARBON SCAM

One of the relentless goals of the greenies is to hit the poor. They are driving up the cost of energy and green taxes in the lunatic belief that CO2 causes global warming; the consequence is millions are being forced into fuel poverty. They have banned DDT and because of it, millions have died of malaria. Now they have another target – the cooking stoves of 3bn people worlwide, which according to the jackboot administrators of the UN, produce something called “black” carbon, the latest greenie villain of the peace. Note how BBC alarmist-in-chief Roger Harrabin says the effect has not been quantified but nevertheless, the fumes must be scrubbed and capped and contained because nameless, faceless scientists and bureaucrats say so. The next thing that will happen is that schemes will be drawn up – costing billions – to provide useless new stoves, and yet another aid/manufacturing/subsidy scam will be in full scale production.

I’m all for making homes safer, particularly as thousands in the developing world do die in avoidable fires, but the way forward is to provide cheap, reliable electricity – and the greenies are doing everything in their powers to prevent that because they hate fossil fuels.

IT NEVER RAINS BUT IT POURS….

I’m not an expert on oil spills, and do not feel qualified to decide whether the Deepwater Horizon well leak was a “disaster”. There was loss of life, and some damage to the environment, and a major negative effect on BP’s balance sheet, and therefore it was a serious incident; but all the indications are that the impact has been much less than had been forecast. To the BBCl, of course, it’s still a “disaster”, even when the good news is reported that there is confirmation that the well has finally been capped. That’s because they love Obama and hate oil production, and everything to do with it, and because they are involved in a major eco-camapign to force us to shift to other forms of energy.

WINE LIES…

One of the constant idiocies of the BBC’s reporting of climate change is the misleading choice of pictures used in stories. Power stations are picked, for example, to show hazardous “smoke” – the reality is that what is shown is steam. Then there’s endless pictures of ice shelves, icebergs, cracks in the ice, not to mention stormy seas, or the aftermath of mudslides, hurricanes, monsoons and the like. All of which are perfectly natural, though not in the BBC’s book; they are the harbingers of doom.

Heatwaves are a bit more tricky of course, because it’s difficult to represent “heat” as such. Have no fear, though, Richard Black has come to the rescue in his latest one-sided alarmist nonsense, a warning from lunatic Cleggeron and Friends of the Earth spokesmen that power stations should in future be built to avoid rising seas (even though they haven’t risen yet). The heat dimension is cunningly illustrated with a glass of wine, with the caption that a consolation of us all frying in the heat will be that it will at least be possible to cultivate home-grown wine.

Well I have news for Richard. Although the British climate is not ideal, English wine-producing grapes have been grown in the UK since Roman times, and in Norman England, there were 39 vineyards. By Henry VIII’s reign, the number had grown to 139. What reduced wine production in the nineteenth century was not climate but a switch to free trade and a reduction of duties on wine imports which meant that British producers could not match the prices of their more intensive French competitors. A further twist in the knife came during the first world war with sugar rationing. The actual number of vineyards in production today is 381, which is 50 less than in 1988 when the current phase of warming is supposed to have started. In 1991, there were about 1,000 hectares of vineyards, roughly the same as now (although the figure went up by 200 hectares in 2009, no doubt fuelled by the warmist propaganda about better growing conditions). And the year of the highest amount of wine produced was 1988, when temperatures were supposedly one degree less than now.

A picture is worth a thousand words…of BBC propaganda.