Why is that the BBC presents the decision as to whether we ruin our British coastline through the building of legions of on-shore wind farms as lying within the gift of the politically biased RSPB? The BBC ran an item this morning which suggested that so long as the developers of these monstrous wind-farms are “sensitive” to specific areas outlined by the RSPB, then they have the green light to go ahead. So that makes it OK then?  There is substantial opposition to these on-shore wind-farms on just about every basis one could imagine – economic, scientific, political – and yet the BBC chooses to frame this within the context of what the RSPB considers acceptable. Not in my name, to borrow a phrase. 


Well, Spring may have long since sprung but cuckoos can always be heard on the BBC. This morning we are serenaded by the news that a number of UK bird species are laying eggs significantly earlier than they were 40 years ago, and this can be put down to..what else? – climate change! I think the BBC will use any story that suggesrs AGW even if, as in this case, there is no causal connection between that which is observed and the alleged climate change. Since the climate is always changing, why does the BBC not provide a platform for those voices which challenge the AGW hysteria? I’ll tell you why – because the BBC seeks to cultivate and instil the environmentalist agenda at every turn and as this report demonstrates they will use every cheep trick in the book to do so.


The headline says it all “Activists start leaving eco-camp”. The story concerns the activities of militant greenies determined to stop the UK developing necessary future power provision. In this case the BBC notes that on Saturday a group of about 100 campaigners, “some carrying drums and banners” (Will the 1960’s ever really go away?) marched from the camp to the power station. One must assume that everyone in Kent approves of the actions of these lunatic fringers since the BBC seems unable to offer up any other opinions other than those of these “climate change activists.”


The Eco-loons are on the march in Kent on the first day of a week-long protest against plans to build a new coal-fired power station. Hundreds of activists are camping in a field outside the Kingsnorth plant. Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas told the rally new coal-fired power stations were a “crime against humanity” To understand the gravitas of the event just reflect on the BBC news that “Campaigners, some dressed in animal costumes, carried banners and placards and blew whistles and played tambourines as they marched.” Quite. There is no attempt made here to actually consider the science of the issue nor to ask if these ranting eco-loons are representative of the views held by the people of Kent. However we can be certain that Ms Lucas and her “war-crimes” hysteria resonates with the views held by the State Broadcaster.


. Well, you all seemed to have plenty to say about BBC1’s absolutely ridiculous “Christkickers” sorry I mean “Bonekickers” so I bet you just can’t wait to tune in to BBC2’s forthcoming “Burn Up”! It’s a “two-part, provocative drama set in the real-life context of climate change”. It gets better! This ..ahem…”topical thriller sees oil company executives, environmental activists and politicians collide in the battle between economic success and ecological responsibility”.

Penry-Jones stars as Tom, who, having been named the new head of Arrow Oil, finds his life unravelling as he’s pulled into a high-stakes game of power and international intrigue. Campbell plays his colleague Holly, whose covert collaboration with environmentalists puts her in great jeopardy, and Whitford plays Tom’s best friend Mack, a charismatic yet unscrupulous oil industry lobbyist. This sounds like a classic. I wonder did Greenpeace approve? BBC propaganda comes in many guises – this new drama is just the continuation of AGW by other means..


I had the misfortune to listen to BBC’s PM programme today and in particular to the segment running on “Renewable Energy” that ran from 5.30 to 5.45pm. This was PURE unadultered environmental propaganda – I could not believe the lack of balance even by BBC standards. Note how Nigel Lawson’s “adaption” suggestions are dismissed at the end of this little 15 minute pro-green diatribe with NO attempt to provide any balance. Shocking.

Who ate all the pies?

More nonsense reporting from the BBC. A generous portion of the BBC’s bias lies in giving credence to outlandish leftist notions- such as that the cause of food shortages is obesity.

Why exactly the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine is calculating the costs of John Prescott’s sad “condition” is one of many unanswered questions from this report.

Let’s just consider some real news shall we? How about Alistair Darling’s attack on EU grain tariffs, which actually do keep food prices high? I couldn’t find a BBC story on it or the backlash. Or how about the story mentioned in this report of how the UK Treasury is dealing with its debt problems by raking in from the high fuel prices which make food so expensive?

How about a bit more on the impact of biofuels on food production? Some number crunching there would be more than welcome.

The war on fatties is pure diversion from the machinations of politicians. The BBC is entirely complicit in these. Politics, statism, and the manipulation of the populace is the BBC’s stock in trade.


I am sure that many readers will share my view that the Butterflies which frequent our British countryside are an attractive adornment and we should do what we can to ensure that they flourish. However the population of UK butterflies fell last year as a result of a wet summer. It happens and of course it is regrettable but the one thing that we can ALL be clear about is that the wet summer of 2007 had NOTHING to do with AGW. And so, I read the BBC’s report on this and sure enough – the “Biodiversity Minister” (Turn in your grave, George Orwell) Joan Ruddock gets to assert that “Butterfly populations also indicate the speed and extent of climate change.” It’s remarkable the way in which the AGW agenda is promoted at every opportunity and no rebuttal is permitted. We may seek biodiversity but assuredly when to comes to the topic of “climate change” diversity of opinion is not required.

Notable balance corrected

Newsbusters has done a great job of bringing this story to light– how an activist got the ear of a BBC journalist, Roger Harrabin, and bent an environmental story that began with a definite note of climate reality and ended up toeing the same old same old BBC AGW line.

Classic activist argumentation was apparently used, such as “It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics. Their voice is heard everywhere, on every channel. They are deliberately obstructing the emergence of the truth.”

The email dialogue apparently came to light because environmentalist Jo Abbess fell to blabbing about it online to her pals. Thanks to Jennifer Marohasy and Newsbusters the BBC’s willingness to appease the environmental activists is exposed.

What do they think they’re doing?

Well, hello, hello, hello. Simply incredible the certainty with which the BBC report the findings of one group of UK scientists on the sun-spots – warming link alleged link. Keep in mind the following is just the link descriptor, which is the first thing a viewer reads before clicking to read the article itself:

“The idea that the Earth’s climate is determined by cosmic rays and the Sun’s activity is discredited by UK scientists.”

Note the subtle avoidance of saying “disproved” by using something perhaps stronger- the great argument of all man-centred warmists, ridicule. Damn, those crazy sun-spotters are so past-tense they’re already finished- discredited no less.

But anyway, to proceed to the article, which begins in highly suggestive terms:

“Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun’s activity.”

Well I always thought that outside of opinion pieces a journalist was supposed to source subjective judgements like “compelling”, but maybe that’s a quibble.

But then, I’d quibble with the following statement too:

“This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure.”

At the very least under very heavy pressure. Heavy stuff indeed. Yet which is it that was pressurizing the cosmic ray theory (hardly rocket science anyway)? Is it the implied series of pieces of evidence which preceded “the latest”, or is it “the latest”? It’s not clear to me, and do you know, I don’t think it’s supposed to be.

Bottom line (literally): …”we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions”.

So not a bit politicised at the BBC, is it?