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?


There appears to be two sides to the environmentalist agenda, the green and and the really green. The BBC likes to give us both. Hence this report which discusses the EU’s desire to cut C02 emissions by 30% by 2020. Europe’s environment chief Stavros Dimas claims that ” big polluters” like Porsche or Rolls-Royce would have to radically change the way they make their cars or have them banned from sale. But by way of balance, the BBC reports that Green groups gave “a shudder” last week when they heard Europe’s big players – especially Germany – were looking for a climate deal that would protect some of the most polluting industries and allow the continued manufacture of gas-guzzling luxury cars.

What about those of us who give “a shudder” when we read this planned onslaught on our industries and manufacturers by third rate Euroweenie politicians who are exploiting genuine concerns on the environment for the things they like to do best – tax and ban? Shouldn’t the BBC understand that there are many who do NOT buy into this environmental fetish and start to seek OUR opinions in order to balance the debate rather than start and finish with the eco-wackos?