Ignorant US People Astonish Katty Kay

Check out Katty Kay – taking over for Matt Frei as alpha Beeboid at BBC World News America since he left for Channel 4 – telling Mayor Bloomberg of New York that she is “astonished” to learn that more and more people in the US are turning away from Warmism.

“What is it with the American public opinion that seems to fly in the face of all the scientific evidence?”

Calm down, dear. Substitute any other political issue and the Beeboids are usually equally astonished by American public opinion. But never mind.

First of all, it’s not that the people don’t believe the climate changes. That’s BS Number One from the Warmists. Of course the climate changes; we all know that and it’s not in dispute. The question is whether or not it’s caused mostly by human activity. The science on that is being debated all the time, yet the BBC acts as if it’s not, and only whackos don’t get it.

The reason I call this BS #1 is that the very euphemism the Warmists have forced into the discussion – “Climate Change” – is disingenuous. What they all really mean is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The “science” of AGW, invented by people whose careers and fortune depend on it becoming fact, is what Katty is talking about, and not about whether or not the earth’s climate changes or was in a warming trend for a while. But because the Warmists have already won the argument – if you’re using their terminology, they’ve already won the argument, even if you’re still talking – Katty and the BBC can get away with saying that people like me don’t believe in “Global Warming” when in fact it’s that we don’t believe that building one more clean coal plant will sink the Maldives. The recent record cold temperatures around the US probably don’t help. But that’s only weather, yeah.

The reason they switched terms is because “Global Warming” can mean all things to all people. There is no cause or effect implied. Yet we know the BBC and all Warmists believe the cause is human activity, as the topic of this discussion between Kay and Bloomberg proves. As the term itself is dishonest, this BBC segment is dishonest and Katty and Mayor Mikey are dishonest for using the term.

Mayor Bloomberg, of course, is a committed Warmist and an ├╝ber-Nanny Statist. Don’t even get me started on the behavior he’s banned against the wishes of New Yorkers. Hell, even the fact that he’s mayor right now is undemocratic, because he went against the voters – and his own promise – and twisted enough arms to change the term limit rules so he could buy a third election run for mayor a third time (and I speak as someone who happily voted for him the first time, knowing full well that he was a RINO Nanny). So this guy is the perfect example of an elite ruling class forcing his own personal wishes on a helpless public. No wonder the BBC wanted to talk to him. As soon as Bloomberg says “reduce consumption”, you know where he and the BBC stand. All your personal freedoms are belong to us.

I’m not going to bother getting into more details of Katty’s interview with the mayor, because it’s beyond the point. The BBC – as admitted by Jeremy Paxman in the sidebar – long ago took sides in the debate, and actively works to pursue a specific political agenda. Carbon emission regulations, coal plant permits, government subsidy/investment in various technologies, and the regulations for the entire automotive industry are all political issues. Even if we’re talking about seat belts in cars or helmets for motorcycles, creating a law about any of it is a political issue. No matter which side one is on, it’s done in the legislature by – in theory – democratically elected representatives, and these laws can be changed or repealed entirely by the next batch of democratically elected representatives if that’s what the voters want.

It doesn’t matter which side of the Warmism debate one is on. Legislation is political, full stop. The BBC always takes sides in this specific political issue, and deliberately chooses disingenuous language to support it. And as seen here, they do political advocacy posing as news and information.


I have read very carefully Richard Black’s defence of the BBC’s reporting of the so-called problem of “climate change” (mentioned by David Vance in a previous post). It’s an important statement that shockingly reveals the depth of the malais and dishonesty in BBC journalism. He’s in that strange cloud cuckoo land that BBC reporters inhabit, and he’s deployed all the standard BBC responses to claims of bias, especially the one that if both sides of a particular argument complain about a BBC feature, the corporation must be in the middle somewhere and therefore right.

What he doesn’t take into account, of course, is the fanatacism of the warmists who yell “rape” loudly the minute anyone questions their cherished religious beliefs; and what he studiously avoids (the elephant in the room) is the fact that in the years I have been following the BBC’s “climate change” coverage, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of stories where the views of warmists – no matter how ridiculous or untrue (as in Gordon Brown’s maniacal codswallop this morning) – are reported unchallenged, while those containing the views of so-called “sceptics” can be counted on a few hands.

What he also doesn’t say is that the BBC Director general recently told a meeting of the Parliamentary media group that in his view, there is a “consensus” of scientific opinion that supports global warming, and therefore the BBC’s responsibility in reporting such “science” is to give prominence and precedence to the warmists. Thus there is deliberate, systematic under-reporting of “scepticism” sanctioned at the highest level of the corporation.

A test of Richard Black’s assertion that the BBC is getting it right could not be simpler. Take for example, the stunt a couple of days ago when the (Muslim, western-hating) cabinet of the Maldives met underwater to protest about “climate change”. Their views were given wall-to-wall Beeb coverage, not only on the website, but in BBC1 bulletins. What was conspicuously absent from the BBC’s reports were the views of the many scientists who have surveyed the Maldives and found that sea levels there are actually falling. The Watts Up With That website has shown persuasively that the government of the Maldives not only know that this is the case, but that also, they have actively censored the evidence.

When Richard Black and the rest of his BBC chums start publishing such information, I will be open to the idea that they might be changing. Until then, they remain climate change fanatics, bent on spreading scientific hocus-pocus of a type not seen this seen of the Enlightenment.