BLACK DISRESPECT…

There’s no doubt whose side the BBC is on in Julia Gillard’s attempts to force her country into economic suicide by taxing “carbon” output. Australia is a “worst polluter”, so of course such measures are right. A picture of horrendous, belching CO2 (actually, most likely steam, but never mind – the message has to be rammed home by the BBC thought police) has been carefully selected to show just how bad it is. Yes, opposition leader Tony Abbott is quoted and it is made clear that 60% of electors also oppose the measures, but the thrust of the story is that coal-guzzling Aussies must take their medicine and Miss Gillard is a saint.

Meanwhile, Richard Black continues his vicious campaigning to discredit the hated deniers. Here, in a pile of statistical gobledeygook and obfuscation, he turns his fire on that nasty rag the Daily Mail and mentions specifically a story carried last week by someone he calls Christopher Brooker which had the effrontery to challenge the idea that we would all be frying but for Chinese aerosol particles. I posted on the story last week to show how biased the BBC’s coverage was.

Actually, Mr Black, it is Christopher Booker. I’ve been reading his journalism and his books for more than 40 years, and I would venture to suggest that he knows more about his craft in his little finger than you do at all. Here, in case you missed it, is his latest piece on the zealotry that you espouse; I would also recommend you read this – his sharp, knowledgeable book on the massive scam that your are perpetrating with such venom. Next time, though, if you want to attack such targets, at least use your spellcheck. And show some respect.

The BBC’s Censoring of News on the Gulf Oil Spill – Part 2

Last month, I wrote a post about how the BBC censored news of the US Government editing an independent report so that it showed scientists backing the offshore drilling ban. It turned out that the President who was supposed to be superior to George Bush in that He would now put science before ideology has in fact put ideology – in this case, Watermelon-style anti-oil ideology – above science. Yet the BBC has remained silent about it.

Now that the US Government is extending the offshore drilling ban, the BBC put up a news brief about it. The ban was supposedly going to be for six months, as a response to the big oil spill in the Gulf. When the President put the ban into place, we were told that this was vital so we could learn from the disaster. We were further told that we must wait until the Government experts learned more about the dangers of offshore drilling before any more could begin. Now it seems that the ban will remain in place until 2017. Why?

When the ban was postponed, the BBC’s news brief helpfully linked directly to the US Government’s own explanation of how the “revised strategy” will still help the US meet its energy requirements while placing further regulation and restrictions on the oil industry. Naturally, the BBC tells us that the oil companies are upset, as are the President’s Republican enemies. This is dog bites man stuff, unremarkable and unenlightening. All we get from this is the White House talking point that offshore drilling is still being considered by the Government, but nothing is going to happen without further restrictions put into place for everyone’s safety, and for the safety of the environment.

On top of this, BBC man in Washington, Paul Adams, has done a “From Our Own Correspondent” piece about how the oil spill disaster may have permanently damaged the oyster beds of Louisiana, destroying the livelihoods of poor fishermen still reeling from the devastation of Katrina. It’s all very depressing, with no hope in sight. Adams does mention that the damage seems to have been done when the coastal area was flooded with fresh water as a bulwark against the incoming oil. There is no blame placed on the strategy, only on BP for causing the spill. Whether or not the fresh water strategy was necessary, or if it was done wrong or at the wrong time is left unexamined. Oddly, the BBC has missed a chance to blame Republican Governor Bobby Jindal for it, as the New York Times did back in July.

I suppose some may think I’d be glad that the BBC chose to censor news which makes an opponent of the President look bad, as this provides a small step towards balancing out the fact that they censored all news of the President’s mishandling of the cleanup effort and collusion with BP to block media access to key areas.

But I’m not glad, because I don’t like it when the BBC censors things which get in the way of the story they’re trying to tell.

The reason why who is responsible for the fresh water damage gets in the way here is that it would distract from focusing on the hardship suffered by fishermen due to the oil spill. If we got bogged down in placing blame on someone other than nasty old Big Oil, we’d lose the Narrative. Not only that, but the Narrative would be further damaged by leaving the door open to wondering if the oysters would have been better off if Jindal hadn’t ordered the flooding, maybe the disaster wasn’t as bad as we were made to believe and maybe the ban on offshore drilling is unnecessary. We can’t have that, so Adams carefully makes sure our focus remains where it belongs.

But if the first setback was an act of God, the second was an act of industry – an industry that is much bigger and more commercially important to Louisiana than Nick’s delicious oysters, an industry that sits off this fragile, mysterious landscape of channels and marshes, and produces the stuff that Americans really cannot get enough off.

I like the Freudian typo there: “the stuff that Americans cannot get enough off”. Agenda slipping into view momentarily.

So we’ve established that the ban is necessary, look at the all the damage it does, we need to regroup and rethink and re-regulate if we’re going to allow any new developments. Thank Gaia for The Obamessiah, He’s going to do it properly and carefully, and only nasty Big Oil and Republicans object.

Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to know about the ban:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is well known for his anti-Big Oil leanings. It’s becoming increasingly clear that he and the President never meant to lift the ban at all, and were merely maneuvering into position for a more permanent ban. He promised that offshore drilling would end and that more would start up now that risks have been “significantly reduced”, but now – what a shock! – the ban will continue for seven years. All thanks to the President putting ideology before science. Wasn’t that supposed to be a big problem of George Bush? The masses don’t need to know about it. It’s no surprise that Salazar was favored by anti-oil activists even back in 2009.

But it’s worse than that. While Paul Adams is wringing his hands over a few oystermen in Louisiana, the BBC is censoring news that the drilling ban itself is actually beginning to cause economic damage.

Less than a year ago, struggling states and coastal towns saw crude exploration off the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboard as economic salvation.

Yet the backlash from the BP oil spill — most recently the Obama administration’s decision this week not to open up some of that area to new drilling — has residents wondering if the industry will ever thrive again in U.S. waters.

Some fear an exodus of oil rigs in search of friendlier waters overseas. And with each passing day, folks that rely on deepwater drilling say the damage is multiplying, creating a ripple affect from blue-collar Main Street to beachside drives. They warn it will only get worse.

“Deepwater was the future,” said Lori Davis, owner of Rig-Chem, a Houma, La., business that sells chemicals to oil companies. If there’s less new exploratory drilling, everyone from industry suppliers to doctor’s offices who treat oil field workers will have less business.

Davis has already cut a consultant, reduced a profit-sharing plan for workers and left a recent job vacancy unfilled. “Today, we have to rethink that because we have an administration that’s clueless, with no interest in supporting oil and gas,” she said.

Sure, the Government previously stated that predicted job losses during the initial six month ban weren’t so bad (well, they would do), but that was when everyone thought it was only temporary. What about now that it’s more or less permanent? Well, oil prices are already up because of it, hitting a two-year high. That doesn’t help those struggling businessmen at all, nor does it help anyone else except nasty old Big Oil.

Unfortunately, the BBC doesn’t feel like examining any of this. All they care about is supporting the President’s ideology-based ban, and ignoring details which interfere with the Narrative.

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.

The nonsense that passes for news

One can’t push back against it all, but Dizzy has a great go at a story which the Independent-echoing BBC report about food waste. It’s probably supposed to make the supposed food crisis more, you know, “interactive”. An absurdly long BBC report misses most of the points which Dizzy raises. The money quote as far as I am concerned occurs almost at the bottom: “WRAP receives government funding from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” (WRAP is the niftily named organisation which carried out the food waste study. Nb- interesting how Gvt funding is pointedly devolved). Good of them to tell those readers who actually consider the matter newsworthy enough to read to the bottom.

Picture the little group hug that all this involves: the Labour Gvt, WRAP, the Indy, and the BBC. On second thoughts don’t- wouldn’t want you to waste your dinner.

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?

GREENER THAN GREEN.

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?

SAVE A PRAYER

Whenever the Church of England gets a favourable headline on the BBC, you can be sure that it will relate to it embracing leftist causes. Global warming hysteria is one of the Left’s favourite causes – in fact I would suggest it has taken on quasi-religious importance to those who worship at the church of the Rev Al Gore. So maybe it’s no big surprise to see the prominence the BBC gives to the story that two senior bishops are urging people to cut back on carbon for Lent instead of the conventional chocolate or alcohol.

The Bishops of London and Liverpool, Dr Richard Chartres and James Jones, are launching the Carbon Fast at Trafalgar Square with aid agency Tearfund. They hope to encourage people to reduce their carbon footprint for 40 days. Bishop Jones, who is vice president of Tearfund, said: “It is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change. To carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.” One Tearfund employee will camp outside the charity’s offices in Teddington for a week in an attempt to reduce his emissions to that of an average Malawian farmer. God preserve us from liberal angst. Dr Chartres called for “individual and collective action”.

OK, so these two Bishops buy into the global warming alarmism so assiduously cultivated by the BBC. But why is that EVERY person who the BBC allows to comment on this story all share the one viewpoint? Whatever happened to plurality of opinion? Is there no-one that the BBC can find to oppose the AGW hysteria? There are MANY in the scientific community who do not buy into the carbon emission obsession, there are many within the religious community who also do not see it the same way as these two Bishops do. But time after time, when it comes to this topic, the BBC ONLY allows one view. That is neither fair nor balanced and it’s high time that the high priests of global warming hysteria in the BBC were held to account. We need less hot air from them.

Changing minds at the BBC, a few words at a time…

A vvvery humble Devil has done some fact-checking on the BBC’s reporting of the venerable Al Gore, and guess what?

They’ve overstated his credentials as a climate change “expert”. Well, go and read all about it, but what is noticeable for me is the tone of forced gratitude on the part of the BBC journalist, Roger Harrabin, and the inadequate way a partial correction is made.

The question is whether Gore ever studied climate science at university at all, as the BBC continue to state.

From the comments David Preiser writes:


“I couldn’t help noticing the ridiculous BBC online coverage of the idiotic global warming protest camp at Heathrow over the weekend. The BBC’s coverage sure seemed to me like a veritable propaganda newsletter, complete with maps.”

Ah, but he was not the only one.

Donal Blaney writes on his blog:

“With fawning excitement, the BBC has paid excessive attention to the sordid collection of hippies, pot smokers and anarchists who are protesting at Heathrow Airport against freedom of movement of our citizenry.”

Meanwhile the excellent Weasel writes (with highlighted quotes) about one of the early articles during the protest:

“This is such propagandist, sandal wearing tosh, it is hard to know how to begin, but it is yet another clear demonstration that the BBC has lost all pretense of being neutral about certain issues, the environment being one of their little pets”

But David, in his comment, alludes to a darker side to the protests, and sure enough he is right to- Green Activists Attack Jewish Warehouse- Hoist Palestinian Flag!.

I don’t know what pro-Palestinian gestures and anti-Israeli violence have to do with green issues, but there seems to be something in the mind of protesters that there is such a connection.

It seems to me there is something though which might explain both the BBC’s reticence concerning reporting negative news concerning them, and their positiveness concerning the protests generally.

There is a strong sense in the BBC that such protests are righteous, falling into a long and in their eyes noble tradition of “progressive” protest, and the Beeb throws its moral weight behind them.