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?


Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to FOOD FOR THOUGHT

  1. london calling says:

    As with Jimmy Saville, the bBC ability to report news in accordance with its charter conflicts with its (in)ability to admit it is wrong over – over CAGW and over Saville, its invention of the “But Labour Says…” school of political analysis.

    It fell for the Eco-activists. It fell for Nice to be Green. As pensioners freeze and power cuts are imminent, it’s not allowed to be wrong, so it will bluster on, fingers in ears, pretending it hasn’t heard the question, pretending it has answered it, pretending the bad people responsible have gone, pretense pretense pretense.

    The only thing to do with the BBC is to close it down, by bye, ridance to the self-appointed liberal metropolitan elite and their mates in the multi-billion-dollar climate-fraud industry.


  2. Phil Ford says:

    I implore all BBBC readers to watch the video linked to in Alan’s post – upbeat, positive and, importantly, backed by real research and real-world satellite data, this is very much a ‘good news’ story for all climate sceptics and yet another significant argument against the madness of the political project known as CAGW.

    Thanks for posting this, Alan – I wish there was a way to get Matt Ridely’s presentation in front of schoolchildren to counter the toxic misinformation currently promoted in UK classrooms by a certain Al Gore…


  3. johnnythefish says:

    The alarmists, BBC included, make ‘climate change’ sound like an unnatural state and portray CO2 as a planet-killing pollutant. To ‘educate and inform’ our children thus is unforgiveable.


  4. Richard Pinder says:

    1. Is climate change happening? Yes, always

    2. If so what is causing that change? The Sun and Galactic Cosmic Rays always

    3. Is any such change good or bad for the planet? Silly question, but then it depends on your opinion. But I think that the worst periods of the Earths Climate where the five snowball Earth events, the last 580 million years ago all which coincide with our presence near vigorous star-making nurseries and since then we have had exceptionally close supernovae explosions which have accounted for short-lived falls in sea-level due to short-lived ice ages. So then I think we would only have a Climate catastrophe if Betelgeuse went supernova.


    • Mark says:

      If Betelgeuse went supernova today, we wouldn’t know about it for over 400 years – the time it would take for its radiation to reach us.


      • Richard Pinder says:

        If Betelgeuse went supernova today, then that would relatively mean that it went supernova 643 years ago.


  5. pah says:

    You always know when an issue, like Climate Change, is a crock of shit dreamt up by politicians and their parasites. The keenest indicator is the solution – tax.

    Politics 101: Any problem solved by tax is not a real problem but an invented one designed to increase the living standards of the political classes.


  6. Bob Nelson says:

    The BBC’s decision to allow only one side of the AGW argument to be aired is based on the lie that 28 ‘climate experts’ came to a consensus at a (secret) meeting. We are now aware that these experts were, in the main, from pro-warming activist organisations.

    The earth, unfortunately for them, has not cooperated with predictions and warming has ceased for at least 16, but possibly 21, years Even the Met Office has reluctantly accepted this. The fact that CO2 emissions have been rapidly increasing during this time tends to sever the connection between CO2 and warming.

    The warmist cause was rocked just before the Copenhagen conference by the release of the Climategate emails which revealed some nefarious goings-on on the part of some warmist scientists.

    All of the apocalyptic predictions made by alarmists and aired parrot-like by the BBC have failed to materialise. In their desperation to maintain both reputations and income they introduced ‘climate change’. They have been milking this inarguable cash-cow for a few years now. All comment is intended to scare but they are losing the argument.

    The sums of money thrown at this problem are astronomical. Energy policies tailored to meet the non-existent global warming threat are hugely expensive and ineffective.

    Many countries are back-pedalling on their carbon reduction targets in the face of reality. Unfortunately our own polititians seem, with a few exceptions, to be intent on continuing with unnecessary measures the cost of which will be born by us all especially, to quote a favourite BBC phrase ‘the most vulnerable in society’.

    The BBC have a lot to answer for.


    • Old Goat says:

      The perennial problem being, the BBC are never directed to answer for anything.


    • pah says:

      Just like the BSE/NvCJD bull.

      By now we are supposed to have seen 20 million deaths in the UK. There have been less than 100 deaths per year in the last 20 years – about the same level as necrotising fasciitis and about one third the number of deaths by cDiff.

      So why were all those cattle slaughtered?


      • london calling says:

        “Just to be on the safe side”?
        The precautionary principle is comforting but false reasoning. Would you jump off a cliff “just to be on the safe side”? Because thats the logic MPs use to defend killing the British Economy with Miliband’s 2030 de-carbonisation target. No one will own up its a crock of sh*te.
        Where is Bryony Worthington, Friends of the Earth Climate campaigner and DEFRA employee who drafted the Climate Change Bill, who went on to becoming head of government relations for an energy company?
        Like all Labour toadies, rewarded for stabbing Britain in the back with a seat on the Labour benches of the House of Lords, now Baroness Worthington. House of Traitors more like.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      I think the BBC had already made the decision to be the British Warmist Corporation, and ginned up that 28-Gate conclave as a phony cover under which to make it stick. The whole thing was a sham from start to finish, and they’ll get away with it unless someone is taken to court.

      It’s especially galling because it’s also proof that, despite the constant denials, the BBC absolutely does give editorial directives from on high about specific issues, and they definitely try to infuse an ideological agenda into all areas of their broadcasting when it comes to certain topics.


  7. Its wonderful as your other articles : D, thanks for posting . “Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.” by Franklin P. Jones.