Feeding Lies To Children




The BBC has been caught feeding lies and misinformation to children….

First glance and this is just a story about a mistake, an over eager attempt to improve the image of an historical figure ‘forgotten’ by history but it is far more than that.  It is a perfect example fo the BBC’s world view and how they attempt to manipulate the audience, and quite sinisterly, especially young impressionable children who don’t have the ability to question what is put in front of them.  It is a huge political project of the Left that aims to change history, change how a nation sees itself and ultimately to make people feel less inclined to value that identity…all the more easier then to sell them the idea of handing over their ‘nation’ to the faceless rulers in Brussels.

A conspiracy…but so very real.  And the ‘British’ Broadcasting Corporation is playing a big role in that project.


CBBC sketch ‘inaccurately’ painted Florence Nightingale as racist, BBC Trust finds

The BBC has been accused of “insulting” the achievements of Florence Nightingale, after inaccurately showing her racially discriminate against fellow nurse Mary Seacole in a Horrible Histories children’s programme.

The show, a comedy aimed at primary school children, showed Nightingale rejecting four applications from Jamaican-born Seacole to join her nursing corps, saying it was only “for British girls”.

Viewers complained the show was “insulting to Nightingale”, debasing the memory of her achievements in order to bolster the reputation of Seacole.

The BBC Trust, which examined the complaint, has now partially upheld the accusations, confirming Horrible Histories portrayed Nightingale’s actions inaccurately.

In fact, it said, there was no sound evidence to suggest she had rejected Seacole’s application, nor that she had acted in a “racially discriminatory manner” towards nurses.



It’s a very serious finding.

Saying a charge of racism was “very serious”, it added the severity of “any imputation of racism” against Nightingale should have made it “incumbent on the programme makers to ensure that there was sound evidence”.

“In the Committee’s view, the programme makers had provided no such evidence,” it said.


The BBC’s actions are more than just a mistaken reading of history.  This was a deliberate, calculated attempt to manipulate what children think, to brainwash them, to make them look at Florence Nightingale as a racist and to downgrade her achievements and character in order to improve the image and standing of Mary Seacole.

It isn’t the first time the BBC have maligned Nightingale’s name and reputation….

BBC accused of slur on Florence Nightingale for labeling her ‘neurotic and sexually repressed’



It is all par for the course for the BBC…it has long made it its aim to undermine and debase British history in order to disparage ‘Britishness’ and thereby hopefully make the audience feel embarrassed and guilty to be British rather than proud.  The BBC, and the ‘Left’, work hard to try and erase the national identity which is grounded on that history…rewrite the history and you can destroy that national identity and feeling of belonging and unity.

The ‘Nation State’ is the enemy of the BBC.


Mary Seacole was ‘Black’…or at least that is what the BBC and her supporters want, need, you to think, and is the reason fo their ever growing desperation to strip Florence Nightingale of her reputation and replace her with Seacole…who was in fact a store keeper with a canteen providing meals…for officers….she did indeed help the wounded and sick but not in any way comparable to the professional care of Nightingale.

And Seacole wasn’t ‘Black’…..she was more Scottish than black, 3/4 white….describing herself as ‘Creole’…

Now celebrated as a “black Briton” and black heroine, Seacole never described herself as black: “I am a Creole, and have good Scotch blood coursing in my veins,” she states on page 1 of her memoir, further describing her father’s status as being “of an old Scotch family,” Her mother was Creole, or of mixed heritage (WA 1), but she was swift to explain that her “energy and activity” came from her “Scotch blood,” characteristics “not always found in the Creole race” (WA 1). The “lazy Creole” description “applied to my country people,” while she did not know what it was to be “indolent” (WA 2). Roughly one quarter African in heritage, Seacole described herself as being “only a little brown–a few shades duskier than the brunettes whom you all admire so much” (WA 4).

Seacole frequently referred to “blacks” in her memoir, always for other people, often her own servants–her maid, her cooks (WA 12, 21, 36, 37, 39, 45, 58, 113, 138, 180). There are references also to “good-for-nothing black cooks” (WA 141), a “grinning black” (WA 38) and “excited nigger cooks” (WA 20). When she described, the roasted monkey which was “natives’ fare” in Central America, Seacole found its “grilled head bore a strong resemblance to a negro baby’s,” while in “a stew made of monkey meat” was a piece that “closely resembled a brown baby’s limb” (WA 69).


The pro-Seacole campaign is self-evidently highly political and intended to provide an inspirational role model for the Black community as well as to alter White people’s perceptions of history trying to downgrade ‘British’ achievements while attempting to give the credit to a ‘minority’ figure.

It is racial propaganda that the Nazis would have been proud of….the ‘rubbishing’ of White history in order to create a myth of racial superiority of Black people in Britain.


The Nightingale Society has long had to deal with these attempts to defame her name and reputation.


And it isn’t only on CBBC that the misinformation is peddled...however…but if you don’t complain within 30 days the BBC refuses to alter the material even if proven misleading…just too much effort apparently:

Re: BBC School Radio. History–The Victorians. 9. The Life of Mary Seacole. BBC 2010. Still available.

‘Clause 2.3 of the BBC’s complaints framework clearly states that complaints about content currently published on a BBC website should be made within 30 working days of the date when it first appeared online.

The notes and activity you refer to have been online continuously since 2010. Therefore we do not feel that it is practicable and cost-effective to investigate this part of your complaint.’

That’s Okay then…4 years of misleading information and ithe BBC will keep pumping it out.

The BBC also dismisses complaints about the veracity of dialogue…it may be fictional but as there was a Crimean war at the time and Seacole was there we can pretty well guess what Seacole might have said if we put ourselves in her boots…..we don’t want to be ‘shackled by the lack of documentary evidence’ do we?….

‘The dialogue and the specifics of events are of course fictional but that is in keeping with the nature of the content which is, as I’ve stated above, clearly presented as a dramatised account of history.’


Of course we have heard all this before:

The BBC’s Lisa Jardine gives us her point of view…..

A point of view: When historical fiction is more truthful than historical fact

Fiction has the power to fill in the imaginative gaps left by history, writes Lisa Jardine.

In my search for understanding the motivation of those who joined the race to produce the bomb whose use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki appalled the world, I eventually decided to turn from fact to fiction. If historians could not fill the gaps in the record that made the knowledge I was after so elusive, perhaps storytellers less shackled by documented evidence might do so.





Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Devil’s Greatest trick


The BBC is having a crisis.  It hasn’t been able to settle on a position yet on how to report the case for military action against ISIS.

Its natural stance would be to oppose any military action as it did with Afghanistan and Iraq but with ISIS displaying unhelpful signs of being out and out evil and a vast majority of MPs voting in favour the BBC has had to hold its tongue.

That of course will only last until the first civilians get killed by allied bombs or ‘boots’ appear on the ground and ‘mission creep’ sets in.

For now the BBC settles for making sure there is no definitive answer as to whether military action is the correct course to take by continually raising ‘for and against’ questions. keeping the waters muddy.  Good job the same bunch of BBC people weren’t around in WWII…Hitler would have his own show to justify his actions.


However the BBC does still like to keep up its own mantras that it nurtures and propagates, mentioning them as often as possible…..

  • The Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain and France ‘carved up the Middle East’ and caused all the problems we see now.
  • Islam is the religion of peace.
  • Iraq 2003 gave birth to ISIS.
  • And you can’t fight an ideology.


All of those claims by the BBC, stated frequently by its journalists, can be disproved with very little effort.  Which might go to show that the BBC’s position is more political than journalism based on integrity.

John Humphrys many years ago scoffed at the idea that we could have a ‘war on terror’ claiming…‘The ‘War on Terror’ is a misnomer isn’t it?  How can you have a war on an idea?’

This was a frequently repeated bit of semantics trotted out by opponents of that ‘War on Terror’.

On Saturday he repeated that claim that you can’t fight an idea with a bullet….and it was the first question on  ‘Any Questions’…..‘Can you bomb away an ideology?’.

The trouble is of course you can…..if you don’t fight the ideology it will only become more established and will grow ever stronger.

And the Jihadists don’t have a problem propagating that ideology with a bullet…after all they are only doing what Bin Laden said they should do….

‘The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates…Platonic ideals…nor Aristotelian diplomacy.  But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun.
…Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils.’


We spent 40 years fighting Communism with hundreds of thousands of troops based in Europe facing off the Soviets.  Diplomacy and fine sentiments didn’t keep the Russian hordes at bay….tanks, guns and nuclear weapons did.

An ideology is only an idea when it is in someone’s brain…put a bullet in that brain and that kind of puts a stop to things….at least to the people with intentions to impose that ideology using violence.

So you can fight an ideology. It’s really very simple in concept unless you’re a smart arse journalist with an axe to grind because you’ve been caught lying about what Blair said.


Of course you have to remember that the BBC once claimed Al Qaeda didn’t exist, it was a ‘nightmare’ dreamt up by the American government, and therefore it was only an ‘idea’, a figment of the imagination…the ‘war on terror’ was therefore based on a lie fighting an imaginery foe.

The BBC might like to revisit that claim and whilst there they might like to think again about declaring ISIS ‘unIslamic’… even Muslims realise this isn’t true:

The current US strategy negates the cultural and social underlying causes for the rise of terrorism in the Middle East. The US decision-makers should realise that IS, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front and similar groups are not just a terrorist group but also an ideology coming from the heart of the Wahhabi-Salafi-Hanbali doctrine.

This school of thought enjoys a deal of support amongst Sunni-Arab countries. From their perspective, the US is practically re-launching the post-9/11 “war against Islam”. The fact is that the US cannot fight an ideology through air strikes.


So the religious ideology of Al Qaeda et al is one happily embraced by many Middle Eastern countries….what a surprise.

Shame the BBC doesn’t read its own material.


Speaking of which today we had this from the BBC:

Karen Armstrong on War and Religion

Karen Armstrong argues against the notion that religion is the major cause of war.


Listening to this programme you hear many facts that you  can agree with but then there comes the interpretation, an interpretation which is often distinctly at odds with the facts the same person has just laid out before us….the problem, as with the BBC, is that they allow their own prejudices and views to colour that intepretation.

Armstrong seems to have a particular dislike of Israel…she claimed the Jews for a thousand years had a taboo against going to the Holyland and setting up a state [Clearly a claim intended to undermine the existence of an Israeli state]…..and that peace for Israel means others being subjugated with merciless violence.

She also blamed the West for all the ills in the Middle East…the humiliation of Muslims subjugated by the colonialists practically overnight leading to their desire to fight the world.

She of course doesn’t even consider that Islam conquered, colonised and subjugated the populations of the Middle East and that that colonisation has been the ultimate cause of all this upheaval….as well as the medieval backwardness of those countries.

We also heard that Iraq 2003 is the cause of the Shia/Sunni rift…according to Armstrong a modern phenomenon….never mind 1400 years of conflict…or indeed the Iran/Iraq war.

Also that Iran is the key to defeating ISIS….so we must join forces with them.

Oh, and suicide attacks were invented and exported by the West.

Only 25% of Muslims really understand the Koran Armstrong suggests…curiously Armstrong tells us that it is only when Muslims go to prison that they have the time to get to know the religion in depth…and whent hey do they realise God is good and wants you to be good…hmmm…does she mean as with fundamentalists Qutb and Maududi, and oh yes , Hitler who wrote ‘Mein Kampf’ in prison…. “the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message.”?

So that kind of nullifies her point that Jihadis don’t know their scriptures…. so many having come out of prison radicalised even more so.

The programme was in many respects quite surprising in its admissions about religion and violence…..however, as said, they seemed to rush back into the safety of the ‘narrative’ that the BBC also likes….Islam the religion of peace, The West the cause of all the evil in the ME, and  Muslims as the victims of Western oppression, their violence merely a reaction against that oppression and humiliation.


Another surprise might be this clip on 5Live Drive [whole report from 2 hr 22 mins] the BBC played of George Bush in 2007 predicting the rise of terrorism if there is a failure to completely deal with the Jihadists in Iraq…as when Obama chose to withdraw the troops……but listen to Anna Foster trying to blame both Bush and Obama for the rise of ISIS whilst the ‘expert’ clearly blamed Obama….Bush pumped in 30,000 troops in a surge that successfully cleared out Al Qaeda….the troop withdrawal by Obama gave the Jihadists room to come back….along with Assad helping them.

Here is the Telegraph’s take on Obama:

Obama is rewriting history on Isil. It won’t wash

Given how completely Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been upended by the rise of Isil in Syria, it is not surprising that the president should try and gloss over the scale of his own miscalculation when it came to the threat posed by the jihadists – but that doesn’t mean he should be allowed to get away with it.

This weekend Mr Obama had the cheek to blame his intelligence agencies for the fact that the White House was “caught by surprise” by the sudden rise of Isil.

Some spooks are already challenging the basic truth of this, but intelligence aside, what Mr Obama conveniently glosses over is that it was his decision to let Syria burn that created the chaos – and that a good many people, from his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton downwards, warned him loud and clear of the risk he was taking by doing that.



It was Obama’s decision to let Syria burn.…and Ed Miliband’s…who influenced Obama.


It is curious how Miliband rarely seems to get a mention in all of this.  Just how much blame can be attached to him for the rise of ISIS?

The BBC doesn’t ask.

Others do…..

French President Blames Ed Miliband For ISIS






Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Fancy That!


The BBC’s Lisa Jardine gives us her point of view…..

A point of view: When historical fiction is more truthful than historical fact

Fiction has the power to fill in the imaginative gaps left by history, writes Lisa Jardine.

In my search for understanding the motivation of those who joined the race to produce the bomb whose use at Hiroshima and Nagasaki appalled the world, I eventually decided to turn from fact to fiction. If historians could not fill the gaps in the record that made the knowledge I was after so elusive, perhaps storytellers less shackled by documented evidence might do so.



Yes, less shackled by documentary evidence…that is a bit of pain isn’t it having to have evidence for your journalism.

On that basis I imagine the BBC prefers this method of interpreting the Koran....

‘This reading of the spirit of Islam, its true core meaning, transcending any scriptural formalities.’


Documentary evidence and actual scriptual formalities such as what the Koran actually says are such a nuisance and an unnecessary curb on our particular understanding of any subject.  So much better to make it up to fit in with your own world view…just say ‘Islam is the religion of peace’…..and all the pain goes away.



Always interesting who the BBC plucks from off the street to present its programmes…Giles Fraser, Stacey Dooley, Michael Portillo and Lisa Jardine who writes such delightful tomes such as  What’s Left?: Women in Culture and the Labour Movement  and Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland’s Glory.

No surprise perhaps that in this article Jardine manages to have a go at Mrs Thatcher…managing to quote this:

“Dorothy did not have a very high opinion of Thatcher,” she went on. “As a chemist she thought her average; as a politician she deeply disapproved of her.”





Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Double Trouble

double dip


One of the most popular reports on the BBC website is that the UK economy is in a double dip recession…a story from 2012.

Even then it wasn’t a true story:

There was no UK double dip recession, ONS data suggests

Britain’s double-dip recession may be erased from the history books after the Office for National Statistics said the construction industry grew more strongly than thought at the start of last year.


Even the BBC admitted as much:

UK double-dip recession revised away


Could it be union activists trying to distort the news?  Or perhaps it could be all those lefty Daily Mirror reporters doing their research trying to cook up an anti-Tory story such as they did with this: (From the Telegraph)

Brooks Newmark sex scandal: How a tabloid newspaper tried to snare Tory MPs

The Telegraph’s report delves into the Mirror’s entrapment of the Tory MP and its attempts to snare others and looks at the rules in regard to ‘Public interest’ journalism.


The BBC isn’t very interested, limiting its exploration of the issues on the Labour supporting Mirror’s actions to this:

Asked whether he thought Mr Newmark had been entrapped, Mr Fallon said he was unable to comment as he “hadn’t seen the details”.


Looks like a very dirty election….and think about it…this is a Labour paper setting out to trick a Tory MP into doing something for which he is then forced to resign his position.

If that had been a Murdoch paper the BBC would have been all over this questioning the malign influence of the right wing Press on UK politics.







Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Crying All The Way To The Second Home


Evan Davis was so upset about the homeless migrants in Calais living hand to mouth in makeshift shelters that he cried all the way to his second home in France.

He could of course give some of them a room in one of his homes if he cares so much about them.

Next time anyone reading this is passing through Calais I recommend you hand out Evan Davis’ email address, along with his fellow pro-immigration advocate’s and tell the migrants to give them a call.

Don’t suppose Davis and Co would be all that keen on immigrants then…. the ones that take your job, your home, your kids place at the school, your place in the queue for medical treatment, the ones that rob and rape and kill you…they don’t mind so much about.

BBC employees like Davis are well insulated from the downsides of immigration with the money to keep the unpleasantry at a distance…though of course they do their bit for the immigrants by employing them…cheaply…at the expense of the local workers.

And no surprise the BBC often uses Davis to front its programmes and interviews on immigration.




Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


I see the BBC are bigging up this welcome news.

Hundreds of people have taken part in a protest led by France’s leading Muslim cleric against the beheading of a French hostage by jihadists in Algeria. Dalil Boubakeur, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, told the crowd outside the main Paris mosque that the killers had no claim to Islam. He said French Muslims were united against “barbarism”.

However, the BBC seems unaware of this…

Up to 15 percent of French people said they have a positive attitude toward the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The share of ISIS supporters is largest among France’s younger generation,

So, maybe not ALL Muslims? I wish they would give us balance, but they won’t.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone


Well, it must have been such a tough one for the Comrades. I am referring to Red Ed’s absolutely woeful keynote speech at #lab14 and that unfortunate business of “forgetting” to discuss the Deficit and Immigration! How to spin THAT one, then? As we get closer to next May, the BBC are going to have their work cut out portraying Miliband as the next Prime Minister. It’s a bit like Michael Foot all over again.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Oh Brothers Where Art Thou?



The BBC’s Dominic Laurie laments the British union’s lack of commitment and fervour when compared to the Frenchies:(50 mins)

What we know is that workers for French companies are willing to go all out in industrial action and to prolong it and do it for a long time…Air France will have to back down if the pilots are this adamant.

As we know in the history of France when you strike for a long time you tend to win…it works!’

Peter Allen interjects….‘It used to in this country…we should remember that’.

Presumably Allen was looking back nostalgically to the era before Thatcher and the days when there was no legislation to control the wildcat strikes that destroyed British industry….good old unions in the 70’s…the interests of the workers at heart not their paymaster’s in the Kremlin….LOL.


It did seem that Laurie had just a little bit too much admiration for the French strikers and was more than a little bit rueful that such belligerent attitudes didn’t manifest themselves more here in the UK.

Good for the BBC…standing up for the oppressed and downtrodden worker!




Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

Here’s What We Think…..

Oh…Just seen it…beats dancing outside Buck House I guess.


The BBC has been making up the news and doing it in a way that paints David Cameron in a bad light….

From the Telegraph:

BBC criticised over coverage of David Cameron’s Queen gaffe

BBC accused of ‘speculation’ after claiming David Cameron said that the Queen cried when told about Scottish Independence

The BBC is facing criticism after suggesting that David Cameron said it was great to hear the Queen ‘tear up’ after he told her Scotland had voted against independence.

Peter Hunt, the BBC’s Royal Correspondent, said on Twitter that the BBC’s “finest ears” believed he had said: “I’ve never heard someone tear up like that. It was great”.

Channel 4 News subsequently claimed the words were “cheer up”, significantly changing the meaning of his comments.


The BBC’s interpretation seems more wishful thinking than reality…I doubt the Queen would ‘tear up’, she has after all been around the block a few times, can’t see her blubbering down the phone, and Cameron’s comment after, ‘It was great’, doesn’t really fit the BBC’s interpretation…why would Cameron think it ‘great’ to hear the Queen ‘tear up’?  Great to hear her ‘cheer up’?  I’d have thought so.

Pure speculation from the BBC…..and why don’t they make so much of Salmond’s reaction…when he wishes more stomach ulcers upon David Cameron…..just after having called Cameron ‘pathetic’ for talking about his royal conversation….the BBC cuts short his comments with this ‘final’ one…“That’s absolutely pathetic and he should hang his head in shame.” No embarrasing comment about wanting Cameron to suffer medically then.


By coincidence this morning I was thinking the BBC was indulging us with their speculative thoughts a bit too much as I listened to the BBC’s James Shaw (38 mins) reveal his impressions of the probable next, and female, leader of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon.

First of all we heard the no vote dismissed as merely the women of Scotland being irrational and scatty beings influenced by shallow, inconsequential, trivial things such as Alex Salmond’s Shrek-like appearance and abrasive personality.

Somewhat patronising on the good women of Scotland who voted no.  Perhaps they had rational, well reasoned and sound grounds for voting the way they did and it wasn’t just a case of PMT, girlish immaturity or whatever nonsense the BBC has gallantly decided put the skids under Salmond’s crusade….though of course the BBC’s lack of rigorous challenge and questioning of Salmond and Co might well mean that a lack of genuinely informed debate meant having to make decisions based upon less objective measures.

Pure speculation from the BBC….and are they building a case for the SNP to have  another, ‘real’, ‘representative’, referendum?…the last one obviously being not legitimate due to those irrational women….and the BBC does like to emphasise that 45% voted ‘Yes’…and are telling us that…‘Two Scotlands have emerged’…  and you know what?….. 45% voted “Yes”. I think the three main parties at Westminster should be worried about that.’

It ain’t over and the BBC are happy to keep stirring things up.  So much for maintaining civic society and social cohesion.



Then we were told the beauteous and charming Sturgeon will have the men of Westminster eating out of her hand in the negotiations for new Scottish powers…Cameron and Osborne will be putty in her hands, purring with delight perhaps,  practically surrendering the keys to the kingdom, and will in fact move themselves and their families, lock, stock and barrel, up to Scotland to live under the enlightened and fair rule of that Nicola Sturgeon lassy.

Once again pure speculation from the BBC.

Still, it fills the schedule up with something I suppose.





Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

The Stern Gang


Lord Stern is an ardent climate change proponent, never happier than when painting the doomiest, blackest, most alarming scenarios when predicting the future due to climate change…all so that we are ‘encouraged’ to jump aboard his band wagon and back the rush to renewables and the end of fossil fuels.

Stern is paid for his troubles by hedge funder Jeremy Grantham, who set up the Grantham Institute and is intent on combating all that sceptical climate misinformation defeating their efforts to save the world……though ironically he tells us that nothing is more important than the oil that funds his climate institute….

Our first responsibility is to make money for our clients….and nothing is more important than oil.

Stern is in a double act with the Institute’s media ‘communicator’ Bob Ward, who isn’t a scientist, and yet gets lots of time on the BBC…and was responsible for the attacks against Lord Lawson after his appearance on the Today programme.

So by no stretch of the imagination could Stern be called a climate sceptic.

Which was why I was somewhat surprised to hear Evan Davis describe him as ‘remaining pessimistic about the science of climate change’ when introducing him this morning on the Today show. (08:51)


Several issues with that….there is no way anyone at the BBC could come to that opinion that Stern was a climate sceptic, certainly not one of the BBC’s ‘top’ current affairs journalists on the BBC’s ‘prestige’ news programme.  You might conclude that the labelling of Stern in such a way might be deliberate in order to make the audience think..‘Well if such an eminent man is sceptical about the science and yet he thinks we should deal with it anyway…perhaps I should too.’

Call me cynical.

Another issue is that Stern is not a scientist, he deals with the economics just as Lord Lawson does…which is why Lawson’s think tank is called ‘The Global warming Policy Foundation’.  Therefore why is Lawson persona non grata whilst Stern gets a privileged place at the microphone?

Then there is the issue of Stern’s association with Jeremy Grantham and his institute which went unmentioned by Davis.  Grantham isn’t just supportive of the idea of climate change,  he is yet another fanatic and one who puts his money, millions of it, where his mouth is…funding attacks on climate change sceptics, such as Lawson, with the intent to shut them up…which, courtesy of the BBC, is what has happened and Lawson is in effect banned from the BBC’s airwaves.

And curiously that turns out to have been a probable motivation behind getting Stern onto the programme, his job to counter comments by Bjørn Lomberg, once a green guru but now more sceptical….an ‘old foe’ of Stern’s as described by Davis…whom, he ‘suspects’, Stern doesn’t much respect,  a curiously second hand insult there from Davis.


Lomberg said countries with high GDP growth have high emissions of CO2…cutting that CO2 will cut GDP and stop the lifting of millions out of poverty….China’s growth is based on coal.

Davis interprets…‘He’s saying the richer countries pollute more and produce more CO2…’

No, he didn’t say that.  He said those countries with high GDP growth…meaning those countries with developing  economies with high GDP growth, because they are growing…that is not the same as talking about established economies like those in the ‘West’ or Japan, Korea etc….China high GDP but per capita it is very poor….the government is rich, the people still poor.

Stern tells us that, well, Lomberg is not an economist (A good thing I’d suggest), and anyway he’s wrong about China.

Except he’s not.  China’s growth was based on enormous expansion of its coal fired power generation.  It’s famous for that, you don’t need to be an economist to know that….as the BBC told us in 2007…and China isn’t described as ‘rich’ then but growing…..

China is now building about two power stations every week…. Rich nations had to set an example of low-carbon development for China to follow


It’s not just semantics…the developing nations charge for growth is more polluting than established economies trundling along at a steady pace..having already polluted to get there…but the way Davis phrases things it seems the ‘guilt’ is being firmly placed on those established economies…the ‘rich’ ones….China is of course still ‘developing’ but already the world’s biggest polluter…and now quite rich as a nation but, as said, per capita very poor….and so under Davis’ interpretation it is not rich and therefore not a ‘polluter’.  If you call CO2 pollution that is.

Some double standards from the BBC when it comes to who it lets onto its programmes to discuss climate change and an Orwellian approach to interpretation of many aspects from Davis.
















Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone