The truth of a secret meeting that decided BBC policy on climate change has come out online
Unfolding in the shadow of the greatest crisis in the BBC’s 90-year history has been another scandal, rather less publicised, which again reveals how profoundly the BBC has gone off the rails, morally and professionally. Last week, I reported how the BBC had spent large sums of our money fielding an array of lawyers against a pensioner from Wales to hide what I called, with considerable understatement, “a dirty little secret”. But that secret has now been disclosed to the world, confirming how seriously the BBC has been misrepresenting its policy on one of the most far-reaching issues of our time.
A year ago, I published a detailed report attempting to unravel what has long been a serious puzzle. How was it that, over the past six years, the BBC has been so ready to betray its statutory duty to impartiality by such relentlessly one-sided promotion of the scare over global warming and all it entails, such as the Government’s policy on wind farms? No organisation has done more to obscure the truth about an issue whose political and financial implications for us all are incalculable.
The BBC’s decision to defy its charter obligation to report on this subject impartially followed from a secret day-long seminar held at Television Centre on January 26, 2006. It was attended by all the BBC’s top brass, including George Entwistle, the short-lived director-general, then head of TV current affairs, and several executives who have had to “step aside” because of the Savile affair, such as Helen Boaden, then director of news, and Steve Mitchell, then head of radio news.
Alan Jones is Australia's most popular talk back presenter. Alan Jones is a phenomenon. He is described by many as Australia's greatest orator and motivational speaker. Alan has the mind and capacity to make complex issues understandable to the largest Breakfast audience in Australia.
A costly hoax
Alan Jones speaks with British columnist Christopher Booker about global warming.
Click source for MUST LISTEN Interview
Also see below for link - The folly of wind power (Alan Jones speaks with MP Craig Kelly about wind power and why it's no real solution.)
As April deluges soak Britain a top long-range weather forecaster denounces error-prone Environment Agency and mainstream media spin.
Londoner Piers Corbyn, the maverick long-range forecaster of WeatherAction.com has poured more cold water over Britain’s discredited Environment Agency and gullible eco-crazed national newspapers. Corbyn reveals how self-serving pro-green zealots obstruct his efforts to help give Britons a chance of a more effective national long-range weather prediction service.
Mainstream media organ, The Guardian typifies the lunatic element. The paper’s Environment pages (April 16, 2012) have been gushing constant drought gloom and doom to a dwindling flock of readers.
Updated below with MUST READ comments from Piers Corbyn
It should be welcomed that the Met Office is engaging with critics of climate science.
We hear a lot these days about the need for scientists – particularly climate scientists – to engage more with the public and better communicate their findings. Without such dialogue, their work can be misunderstood or, worse, misrepresented. Just saying, "I let my science do the talking", no longer cuts it in the rough'n'tumble world in which we now live of cherry-picked soundbites, online echo chambers, and bruising culture wars. Scientists need to not only explain their work, but defend it, too.
I think we should applaud the fact, then, that there now appears to be more of what I call "Rapunzel" scientists; those that choose to (metaphorically, at least) let down their long hair and allow us to climb up into their ivory tower to converse with them and to see how they operate. Many scientists now publish their own blogs and an increasing number are taking to Twitter.
A good example is Professor Richard Betts, a climate scientist who is head of the climate impacts research team at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter and a lead author on both the 4th and 5th Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in Working Groups 1 and 2. By being positioned at the heart of both the Met Office and the IPCC, he is a scientist placed very much under the scrutiny of climate sceptics.
But rather than defensively pull up the drawbridge, he routinely posts explanatory comments on blogs that are hostile to climate science and engages in debates on Twitter with sceptics.
The significance of yesterday’s shock announce-ment by our Energy Minister John Hayes that the Government plans to put a firm limit on the building of any more onshore windfarms is hard to exaggerate.
On the face of it, this promises to be the beginning of an end to one of the greatest and most dangerous political delusions of our time.
For years now, the plan to cover hundreds of square miles of the British countryside with ever more wind turbines has been the centrepiece of Britain’s energy policy — and one supported by all three major political parties.
Back in 2008, when Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced his wish to see the country spend £100 billion on windfarms, the only response from the Tory leader David Cameron was to say that he should have done it sooner.
It was the only way, they all agreed, Britain could meet our commitment to the EU that, by 2020, we must produce nearly a third of our electricity from ‘renewables’ — with the largest part provided by tens of thousands more wind turbines.
Yet now, out of the blue, has come this announcement by the Coalition Energy Minister that from now on there is to be a moratorium on building onshore turbines other than those for which consent has already been given.
On two of the most important issues of our time, a stifling consensus is beginning to break up
"Enough is enough”: blazoned over the front pages of two national newspapers, that was the verdict on wind farms from energy minister John Hayes last week. But it could just have well been spoken about Britain and the EU, by any of those 53 Tory MPs who inflicted a humiliation on David Cameron over his wish to accept a limited increase in the Brussels budget.
Both episodes caused a furore, but what was significant was that each marked the cracking apart of a suffocating all-party consensus which has imprisoned our politics for far too long. Even a year ago, it would have been unthinkable that so many Tory rebels would be willing to defeat the Government over the EU – or that a minister would question the plans to cover our countryside with wind farms. For years our politics has been frozen in a claustrophobic unanimity, whereby all parties agreed that we must not question our loyalty to the EU – or the need to “fight climate change” by suicidally distorting our energy policy in favour of those absurd windmills. But on each issue, those who spoke out last week were aware that their actions were viewed with sympathy even in the highest reaches of government.
Mr Cameron may secretly be pleased that this rebellion will help him strike a Thatcher-like pose, “defending Britain’s interests” against demands for a further huge increase in the spending of the Brussels Monster – as his EU colleagues head for a new treaty which will more than ever marginalise the British as second-class “European citizens”.
Chris Patten hasn't shown much commitment to BBC standards of 'balance'
As the BBC was last week engulfed in what its chairman, Lord Patten, called “a tsunami of filth”, some observers widened out our attention to the peculiar role played at the head of the BBC’s affairs by Lord Patten himself.
Under the headline “Patten personifies everything that’s wrong with the BBC elite”, the Telegraph’s Peter Oborne trenchantly observed how “the BBC in recent years has been colonised and captured by a narrow, greedy, self-interested and self-perpetuating liberal elite, contemptuous of ordinary people and of ordinary morality”. In other words, the unspeakable Savile affair is a symptom of a deeper corruption that has pervaded the BBC for years.
Apart from a desire to award each other grotesquely inflated salaries, one of this elite’s most alarming traits has been the contempt they show for the BBC’s legal duty, under its Charter, to report on the world with “due accuracy and impartiality”. There is an ever-longer list of issues on which the BBC has a clear “party line”, which it pushes with shameless disregard for balance.
I don’t know which was worse to wake up to on Friday morning: news of those grotesquely inflated pay-offs being given to former BBC apparatchiks or the demonstration that followed of how lamentably we are served in return for all that wasted money. On the one hand, it was George Entwistle being handed half a million pounds, or £10,000 a day for his brief, inglorious 54 days as director-general. On the other, it was a succession of items on the Today programme previewing next week’s publication of the Government’s dog’s breakfast of an Energy Bill.
This began, appropriately, with an item by Roger Harrabin, the organiser of that notorious secret seminar in 2006 which led the BBC to decide that it was quite all right to abandon any pretence at balance in its coverage of climate change and energy issues. It concluded by giving the programme’s peak slot to a propagandist from Greenpeace and a patsy interview with Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary. He was allowed to get away with a load of waffle to the effect that his plans for “energy savings”, and for us all to pay an extra £7.6 billion a year for “green electricity”, will not push our energy bills even higher than they are already (as everyone else predicts), but instead will somehow reduce them.
The problem with BBC coverage of these issues is that its reporters and presenters don’t even begin to do the homework needed to give them a grasp of the basics of the subject. Their brains addled by talking to their friends in Greenpeace, they unwittingly mislead their audience with almost every sentence they utter. I shall return to this next week when we have seen what Mr Davey’s dog’s breakfast actually contains.
Click source for more from Christopher Booker [The only way we can 'renegotiate' is by asking to leave the EU]
One global warming mini-scare has barely faded away – with the realisation that polar ice is not vanishing, the extent of Antarctic sea-ice having just broken all records – when the next arrives.
A paper from the US National Academy of Sciences claims that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has lost half its coral in 27 years and could soon be all but gone. Nearly half this loss, apparently, is due to damage from the more frequent cyclones brought by man-made global warming. Much of the rest is caused by coral-eating crown-of-thorns starfish, fostered by warming seas.
One puzzle is that no one has noticed such a scary loss of coral before. (Even the researchers admit that undamaged coral is still growing at nearly 3 per cent a year.) Another is that the evidence indicates cyclones being more frequent in the past than recently. Similarly, rises and falls in that starfish population are a natural phenomenon, nothing new.
The above YouTube and comments posted in February this year displays some images from the UK hot summer of 1976 showing people collecting water in buckets and signs placed from water companies to save water.
So far the historic data and reasoning is that 2012 will again be another very dry year for the South of England and we will again see similar images and warnings, but with one big difference, if I am not mistaken, and that is a full assault on the "Climate Realists" who have stood up to the "man made" climate change industry.
The message against us will be something like...."man made" co2 is responsible for the UK drought and water shortage and if we don't do something now we will expect more of the same.....it will also be put forward as further proof that the world is heating up, and they told us so.... etc.